Democrats Call for Kerry Apology

I love it. ....but it was a botched joke! Anyone could see that!

That is the most retarded rebuttal ever. How anyone can write that and then read it and approve it as acceptable is retarded.

He can't say what he has said in the past about the Military and expect everyone to give in to his jedi mind tricks..well.. except liberals.

I wrote my Army Major brother in Afghanistan an email this morning and gave him a list of all his personal info.. like his name and birthdate, then suggested he get a tracking chip implanted under his skin in case he gets lost running after something shiny.

Im waiting on his reply, if he can remember how to use the computer!

It doesn't matter what Kerry says, he won't please anybody.

It's a sad day when our government acts like a bunch of schoolyard kids.:baby:

He should apologize, not because he really should, but because he has to
remember who we deal with in this country, and how dense they are.

Wait, didn't Bob Dole say something offensive about somebody once?

Who are dense? Please explain that. How can you approve of what he said?

He was trying to make a joke about Bush, and he messed it up. He seems
to think he has a better funnyman personality than he does.

So, now you're going to argue that he meant to insult the military after all.

Which is why he should just apologize and finish it.

Gee, I hope it doesn't hurt him this election... Oh, wait HE'S NOT IN THE RACE!!!

No, but it will hurt him in future elections.. thats good enough for me.

I'm sorry but if you can't read that line of a speech and realize "Hey, that might be a dumb thing to say and people are going to take it like I am insulting the entire military" then you have no right being in Congress. It was a ignorant thing to say and he should apologize for his stupidity in thinking it would be "funny".

With some, but for the reasons I stated in the other thread, where you said
he should start the "coward party," he might gain ground with others.

The majority of Americans aren't in favor of the War In Iraq, and the
majority of Americans aren't outraged by botched speeches. He'll win
re-election, and could probably win a presidential bid if he went for the
left instead of the middle.

It was written as "If you don't, you might get us stuck in Iraq, like Bush."

He screwed it up.

Lord knows W is the king of reading speeches. He looks like
he's constipated trying to make it through one.

Oleo , Kerry, like other liberals would have to pretend to be in the middle in order to win an election .

I know Bush isn't the King of speech. However, in the many many blotched lines Bush has uttered not one of them came close to insulting our troops.

I agree as well which is why in 2004 he was trying to be in the center. He knew the left approach wouldn't get him into the White House.

However it was obvious to voters what his real beliefs were and they could see him go back and forth on issues to attempt to please everyone.

Oh.. he just apologized.

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.


That kinda sounds like an abusive husband..

"Honey, I'm sure sorry I beat the hell out of you, but you and I both know it wouldn't have happened if you woulda had dinner on time"

What a moron..lol

Aww he couldn't just apologize without taking aim at his opponents.

What a sorry bastard.

He was against an apology before he was for it........

Brent and Curmudgeon,

it depends on the election and the issues.

You have to forget "politics" and instead look at the science of "political
theory."

the 2004 election:

hardcore democrats | hardcore republicans
even numbers

gay marriage
people in favor (Kerry) | people against (Bush)
even in numbers

stem cell research
people in favor (Kerry) | people against (Bush)
even in numbers

abortion
pro-choice (Kerry) | pro-life (Bush)
even in numbers

economy
trickle-up (Kerry) | trickle-down (Bush)
even in numbers

war in Iraq
people in favor (Bush) | people opposed (no one)

in that election people who listed that issue as the main reason they
would vote didn't have a candidate, since Kerry's position on the war was "I'll
figure out a way to do it better." Essentially, pro-war in Iraq.

Do you see how there wasn't an opposition (far left) for that issue?
This may have been the one election where a far left position caused
a victory.

Also, polls at the time showed the majority of Americans were against
the war then.

Look, Kerry isn't my favorite person. He seems to want to be president
too much to take the hard stances, far left or otherwise. I just think the
other side (W) is much. much, much worse.

Clinton ran in the middle on one issue that was very important at the time:
the economy. The absolute irony is that his views on the economy were
pretty much what H.W. Bush had proposed in the '80 election, a moderate
view, but he got dogged down with Reagan's "voodoo economics" (H.W.
Bush's own derogatory nickname for them during the primaries), left over
from a time when the Cold War was the most important issue.

So, no, liberals don't always have to run to the center. It all depends. As it should.

Howard Dean was against the war from the start and ran on a platform against it. He didn't receive the nomination from the Democratic party.

Instead John Kerry won it. Someone who voted for the war in Iraq and had no real plan for its future.