Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senator's Comments Draw Fire

John Kerry Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#41 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:30 AM

The two don't have a thing to do with eachother.

Clinton got QUITE run over the coals if I recall and last time I looked, he was a democrat.  

Why do you think there is a double standard happening here?

It's called loyal opposition and it's been going on for quite some time.

In short (and with all respect to kimmer), I agree one hundred percent with Banapis.  The suggestion that some kind of special circumstance warrants the squashing of free speech is one that disturbs me and that is precisely what I took away from the Speaker's response to Kerry.
Posted Image

#42 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:39 AM

I would not hold it against him, just for saying it. I would hold it against him for being stupid enough to say it during a war. Kerry just killed any chance he had of winning, if he ever had a chance. That's the whole problem with the democrats. They don't seem to know how to campaign anymore. Clinton was na exception. He didn't make Foolish comments like that while he was running for ofice.

Contrary to what most conservetives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservetives for President, but the Democrats don't have a really intelligent candidate. Guys look good at first, then they go and do something really stupid like this. Not that Kerry had a chance.

Untill they get some new blood in the House and Senate, I don't see the democrats winning. Not the next election.











:o  < "He said WHAT????

Edited by Kosh, 05 April 2003 - 06:19 AM.

Can't Touch This!!

#43 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:44 AM

G1223, on Apr 4 2003, 03:10 PM, said:

Banapis interesting position. Then Trent Lott should not have been run over the coals  for is statement about Strum Thurman at the party.  But for some reason (Maybe becasue Lott was a Republican) it did happen so what's sause for the goose is not sause for the gander? Or becasue it's a Democrat we need new special rules for them?
Becasue that is how it sounds from here.
Trent Lott suggested that if Strom Thurmond had won his segregationist campaign for President that we'd all be better off today.

John Kerry said he feels American needs "regime" change because he doesn't agree with the President's approach to foreign policy.

The two are in NO WAY equivalent. It has nothing to do with political parties.

Ro

#44 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:47 AM

G1223, on Apr 4 2003, 09:10 PM, said:

But for some reason (Maybe becasue Lott was a Republican) it did happen so what's sause for the goose is not sause for the gander?
G, your comparison escapes me.  I don't see how Lott's racist remarks can be equated to a presidential candidate saying his administration would work to rebuild international relations that the current president has damaged.

The only similarity betwen the Lott remarks and the Kerry joke is that they were made to a presumabaly receptive audience.  In that sense, the context is similar.  However, it's the content of their remarks that differs dramatically.  Kerry's remarks simply involved those fundamental political disagreements which constitute the very lifeblood of our democracy.  Kerry doesn't support Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict diplomatically.  Never has, never will.  Lott's comments, OTOH, were racist and shocked the collective conscious of the country.  I mean really, support for segregation?  What could he have been thinking?

Also, Lott wasn't run out of his Senate position because he was a Republican.  His own party voted him out and put Frist in charge because his comments were so outrageous to the country as a whole and not simply offensive democrats. (Not to mention the fact the White House had always preferred Frist over Lott).

Banapis

#45 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:50 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 4 2003, 05:13 PM, said:

So Kerry could have worded it a bit different.  Big deal.  He is entitled to OPPOSE what Bush is doing.  If that right is suddenly in question then maybe his use of the word "regime" was not so out of left field after all was it.
He has all the right he wants to do it.  That said voters since he is campaigning have every right to vote against him if they find his comments are ill advised.  In addition his opponents have every right to use it against him.  So let him say whatever he wants; better that he provide the rope to hang him.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#46 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:51 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 4 2003, 09:19 PM, said:

In short (and with all respect to kimmer), I agree one hundred percent with Banapis. 
Thanks, Lil, but I'm curious about your parenthetical disclaimer.  Do you think I sounded too harsh?  I hope that's not the case, because I certainly have nothing but respect for kimmer and certainly I had no intent of offending her.  

I sincerely apologize if I did.

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 05 April 2003 - 12:54 AM.


#47 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:55 AM

Ro-Astarte, on Apr 4 2003, 04:33 PM, said:

G1223, on Apr 4 2003, 03:10 PM, said:


Banapis interesting position. Then Trent Lott should not have been run over the coals  for is statement about Strum Thurman at the party.  But for some reason (Maybe becasue Lott was a Republican) it did happen so what's sause for the goose is not sause for the gander? Or becasue it's a Democrat we need new special rules for them?
Becasue that is how it sounds from here.
Trent Lott suggested that if Strom Thurmond had won his segregationist campaign for President that we'd all be better off today.

John Kerry said he feels American needs "regime" change because he doesn't agree with the President's approach to foreign policy.

The two are in NO WAY equivalent. It has nothing to do with political parties.

Ro
They are equivalent in tyhat they were the wrong thing to say in front of other people. Reporters love this kind of stuff, and they will beat him into the ground with it, even if it isn't as bad as Lotts gaffe.

Bush does scare me. The whole Homeland Security issue is something that I'm going to get deep into as time permits. I have a copy.










:devil:  < I want to be electedddddddd!!!
Can't Touch This!!

#48 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 12:59 AM

I don't agree necessarily that Kerry's  statement was ill advised. I'm not terribly comfortable with an Imperial Presidency at any rate.  And to criticize the current office holder when you're preparing to run is necessary if difficult in some cases.

I'm hard pressed to find any possible defense for Lott's statement in ANY venue, public or private.  If you got one, I'd love to hear it.

Ro

#49 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 01:07 AM

And, guess what?  Kerry is not backing off from his comments. He points out that the same people blasting him have cut funding for veterans programs and  he refuses to "have his patriotism questioned by the likes of Tom DeLay".

I'm liking this guy. He may be doing himself more good than harm here.

Ro

#50 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 01:16 AM

Quote

AnneZo: It's hard to remember the huge budget surplus that Bush inherited when he got into office; he's turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit so quickly.

A budget surplus that was only possible because of how the Reagan years pulled the economy out of the toilet.  It was through Reaganomics that our economy was as strong as it was during the 1990s.  All Clinton managed to do is ride out the last of that economic surge and then it collapsed.  He managed to hold together the economy long enough to get his butt out of office before it went totally to pieces.        

The credit for the economic prosperity of the 90s if it can be attributed to anyone it should go to Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.  Of course look at the bashing Reagan took for his economic plans and then how hard liberals have tried to steal the credit for his work.  Go figure…

Re: Fox News:

I agree with Rov; I hardly see that Fox News is worse than MSNBC or CNN.  If anything I have to give them a nod for the fact that they aren’t afraid to show their political leanings.  Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC try to act like unbiased sources of news while coming off as left rather than anywhere near the center.  

As for quality information they all suck. :p


Quote

Hawk:  'cause Bush scares me, too. For four reasons: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

You forgot the Coast Guard. :p  And he still hasn’t listened to my plan to invade Canada so…. :D   Personally Bush is not my favorite politician but there are many many more I can say who are worse.  What I really like though is his team in general except for Ashcroft and his management style.  I’m more than willing to see 8 years of Bush to get a Powell White House or further down the road a Rice Administration.    

Quote

Cardie: They may not be a regime, but they are one scary dynasty, imo.

Go for the Kennedy family if you want a dynasty. ;)  

Quote

Kosh: Contrary to what Drew, G1223 and the rest of the conservitives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservitives for President, but the Democrats don't have a really intelligent candidate.

Neither do they want dyed in wool liberals.  Most people are really in favor of centrists in my opinion.  Hence my long opinion that if Colin Powell ever runs for office he will stomp whoever runs against him in the primaries and whoever the democrats can send against him.  Personally I figure if he runs and then you have a strong potential for Rice down the road; the democrats are screwed for sometime.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#51 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 01:17 AM

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 03:28 PM, said:

Contrary to what Drew, G1223 and the rest of the conservitives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservitives for President . . .
Um, . . . if you're going to tell people what I think, can you back it up with some quotes? Otherwise, please don't pigeonhole me. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#52 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 01:22 AM

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 03:28 PM, said:

Clinton was an exception. He didn't make Foolish comments like that while he was running for ofice.
Er, have you ever seen "The War Room"? It should have been called "The Damage-Control Room."

("The War Room" is interesting in that you get the sense that Carville and Stephanopolous were the real winners of the 1992 election. Clinton was just "the candidate." And having had a small peek into the world of big elections, I think I can safely say that that's exactly how most campaign staffers feel. They are the ones playing the game; "the candidate" is just the chess piece they move about the playing field.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#53 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 01:32 AM

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

Contrary to what Drew, G1223 and the rest of the conservitives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservitives for President, but the Democrats don't have a really intelligent candidate.









:o  < "He said WHAT????
When did I say I wanted a hard core conservative for president? President Bush is NOT one and I like him. We also don't want a hard core Liberal either. I do't know any Conservatives that want a hard core in office. Maybe I don't know the conservatives you do, Kosh. I do resent your comment though, I don't pidgeonhole liberals and I'll ask you to not pidgeonhole my fellow conservatives or me. Thank you. :)

#54 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 02:07 AM

Banapis, on Apr 4 2003, 09:40 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 4 2003, 09:19 PM, said:

In short (and with all respect to kimmer), I agree one hundred percent with Banapis. 
Thanks, Lil, but I'm curious about your parenthetical disclaimer.  Do you think I sounded too harsh?  I hope that's not the case, because I certainly have nothing but respect for kimmer and certainly I had no intent of offending her.  

I sincerely apologize if I did.

Banapis
Well since you asked *g*

yes I think that your response to kimmer could be construed as you thinking that she has fascist ideas and I know that not to be the case.  I disagree with her about politics (in fact I'd say our opinions are about as diametrically opposed as possible) but I respect and love her as a human being.  

Lil
Posted Image

#55 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 02:23 AM

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 09:44 PM, said:

They are equivalent in tyhat they were the wrong thing to say in front of other people. Reporters love this kind of stuff, and they will beat him into the ground with it, even if it isn't as bad as Lotts gaffe.

Unfortunately, that’s one of the big problems with running a campaign in the system we’ve created, and is a big part of the so-called “incumbency advantage.”

It’s also hard for people like Kerry to avoid.  Non-incumbents, before they can even run for office, first need to woo the support of their party.  Since party activists and those who vote in party primaries tend to encompass the more “hardcore” elements of the party, the person seeking nomination has to say things that while appealing to those types, are not nearly as appealing to the country as a whole.  This cycle repeats itself every campaign:  nominee one says something a little right/left of center and earns points with primary voters, nominee two needs to respond so he says something more right/left and voters gravitate to him, nominee one fires back by saying something even more right/left, and so on.  As the Fox article reports, Dean is making inroads and cutting away Kerry’s lead among primary voters. This was apparently part of Kerry’s attempt to trump Dean and win back those votes.  A sort-of damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.  Certainly, Clinton was extremely adept at deftly sidestepping his way around these kinds of things.

That’s also the reason why once the actual presidential campaign commences the two candidates immediately sound more *much*moderate since now their campaigning to a country as a whole.  In incumbent situations, like we’ll see in 2004, Bush has the nomination locked up so he won’t have to say anything extreme that might turn Americans off in order to appease hardcore republicans.  Meanwhile, the democratic challenger will have everything he said in the primary campaign used against him to make him seem radical and out of touch.

Quote

Bush does scare me. The whole Homeland Security issue is something that I'm going to get deep into as time permits. I have a copy.

What do you think of Bush’s “Total Information Awareness” project?  They’re going to amass personal info about all Americans into their “grand database,” including having computers scour the internet, and then have the machine pigeonhole all of us into some “profile” to determine if we represent a threat to homeland security???

Just look at the TiVo profiling fiasco!  Having a computer determining from the viewing preferences of perfectly heterosexual males that they fit the “gay profile” and offering them gay programming info!  Egads, now people will get erroneously labeled terrorists by some machine.

*shakes his head*

Banapis

#56 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 02:37 AM

Quote

Well since you asked *g*

yes I think that your response to kimmer could be construed as you thinking that she has fascist ideas and I know that not to be the case.  I disagree with her about politics (in fact I'd say our opinions are about as diametrically opposed as possible) but I respect and love her as a human being.

Shoot.  Ah well, live and learn.

I edited the "fascist" comment hopefully to clarify it's the behavior of the Speaker of the House and the other partisan politicians involved that I was condemning.  

Banapis

Edited by Banapis, 05 April 2003 - 02:38 AM.


#57 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 02:39 AM

I knew what ya meant.  I'm just saying how it "could" have been construed.:)
Posted Image

#58 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 04:58 AM

Lover of Purple, on Apr 4 2003, 10:21 PM, said:

Kosh, on Apr 4 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

Contrary to what Drew, G1223 and the rest of the conservitives think, most of the country doesn't want hard core conservitives for President, but the Democrats don't have a really intelligent candidate.









:o  < "He said WHAT????
When did I say I wanted a hard core conservative for president? President Bush is NOT one and I like him. We also don't want a hard core Liberal either. I do't know any Conservatives that want a hard core in office. Maybe I don't know the conservatives you do, Kosh. I do resent your comment though, I don't pidgeonhole liberals and I'll ask you to not pidgeonhole my fellow conservatives or me. Thank you. :)
Agreed LOP.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#59 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:03 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 4 2003, 05:05 PM, said:

And he still hasn’t listened to my plan to invade Canada so…. :D   Personally Bush is not my favorite politician but there are many many more I can say who are worse.  What I really like though is his team in general except for Ashcroft and his management style.  I’m more than willing to see 8 years of Bush to get a Powell White House or further down the road a Rice Administration.   
I have to agree with you 100% on that one, Aegis.

Bush may not be my favourite guy but he certainly surrounded himself with competent folks.

Condi, Colin, Rummy.... I mean, with Clinton, it was always Clinton and co., but with Bush, they stand alone and stand together just as well. (Agree on Ashcroft, too.)

I have to admit, the prospect of a Powell White House.... hey, I'd vote for him. I say that because I'm presuming that sooner or later Bush will listen to your plan, so I will get to vote! :D

Digression......

There is a political tendency in mid-term for public support to swing towards the middle, since voter issues don't really get defined until the re-election campaigns start kicking in full-swing. Then the issues are a bit more crystallized and people "move to the left" or "move to the right". While both ends of the spectrum have their redoubts, they tend to scare off the general public unless they're active on an issue. ;)

Political support on a mass stage requires an imminent issue or a crisis --manufactured or natural-- to generate the necessary interest.

But it's too easy to throw those who sit at a certain ideological position in with the 'hardcore' or the 'extreme' of their position. Just that they hold a position is not enough to justify ideological lumpings-in. And often those lumpings-in only happen as a deliberate attempt to spin debate, as a desperation tactic.

I have to agree with Ro, though-- Kerry's holding his ground on this issue, as well as bringing up the fact that veterans' benefits have been cut in order to finance this war, is probably the smartest thing he can do right now. If he backtracks, he loses face. He must press on now that he's taken a stand, prudently to be sure, else he loses all credibility before the candidacy games begin.

But I gotta agree with the others who said.... Poor New Hampshire.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#60 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 06:04 AM

Quote

The web and the BBC are much better sources of information. In general, to keep myself informed I try and gather information from all sorts of news sites from across the political spectrum and judge for myself.

I can't really argue about the BBC, but I find that while the web does present more information, it's just like the rest of what the web presents, mostly raw and without analysis or even sometimes fact checking.  Most of the information you can get fairly raw on the web we are not qualified to pass judgements on.  That's one of the bigger fallacies that democratic thinking tends to foster.  The idea is that if we somehow get "all the information" that we'll make the "right decision".  That's not true.  It's just like the people who have been saying that the military wasn't winning because the Iraqis have actually resisted.  Hell, no.  It just means that the best case secnario didn't happen.  The fact is that we're still beating the stuffing out of a numerically superior force on their home soil.  

The little bits and pieces from the front we can get minute by minute give an ugly picture of war, which *is* ugly.  Emotions cloud perceptions of people who don't have the experience to burn through their gut reactions to raw facts.  

Now, of course, its true that the news networks are mostly a joke.   I've actually turned to the Washington Post web site where they post dispatches every hour or two as they come in.  I look at the Agonist site, but since I'm up all night and he goes to bed at night (fancy that) I really don't get anything up to date from there anyway.  Nevertheless, raw data is just as useless, if not more so, than the watered down analysis that CNN feeds us and I tend to find that it puts people on a roller coaster ride that they don't need to be on if they simply waited until the next day to read the facts after they had been properly digested by the news services.  Once the numbers are confirmed and updated and the retractions and backpedaling are done, you finally arrive at the closest approximation of the truth you're going to get.  

As far as the original question goes, about Sen. Kerry, I really do have to point out that while Kerry's comment was obviously just mistimed (probably) and didn't mean to undermine the President in war time (probably), one can argue that ol' Trent Lott's comment at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond also didn't at all mean he wanted segregation back.  Anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds knows that Lott's comment was simply a recognition that Thurmond was a guy who ran for President with some conservative ideas about a lot of things other than segregation.  He just pulled a bonehead and assumed that since most people had forgiven Thrumond for his retracted segregation views, that people wouldn't immediately resurrect the spectre of the Dixiecrats' most visible campaign plank.  Yet, like in Kerry's case, people jump to the conclusion that he meant the worst possible thing, when in reality calling Lott on those comments is like saying that anyone who admires Thomas Jefferson must be racist because Jefferson was a slaveowner who didn't part with his slaves until he died.  Both Thurmond and Jefferson certainly ended up regretting their positions in their lifetimes.  

So, the Democrats had a field day with the Lott comments and now Hastert and the RNC are having a field day with the Kerry comments.  Big deal.  That's just politics and turnabout is fair play.  Getting huffy with the "Republican/FOX smear machine" is just ignoring the experienced and entrenched smear machine that operates on the other side using almost identical tactics.  Half the time, when politicians complain about media bias and smearing, they're just jealous that someone has a better spin machine than they do.  And in reality, I think the Dems by far have the better spin machine, having much more experienced and polished people revising the facts much more smoothly and through better established channels (ie. the liberal media).  Tom Brokaw vs. Bill O'Reilly.  It will be instructive to see how well Kerry makes it through this as opposed to Lott, given that Kerry's comments were just as ill-timed as the Mississippi Senator's were.  I'll bet you 50,000 quatloos that Kerry makes it out of this with barely a nick on his Presidential aspirations.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: John Kerry, Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users