John Kerry - what a dork

The duck probably belongs in Irak.

Jons guse is kooked

Kerry prolly has put paid to his own future executive aspirations, but he'll remain a major factor within the upper reaches of The Democratic Party. I figure the gasping over his current flub has just about played out now ... more a feature of the blogosphere than a factor in mainstream thinking. While he did suck the oxygen away from the Democrats for a couple days, its not at all unlikely their shortness of breath will have been just a momentary, transient inconvenience to them overall, with little real impact on the upcoming election.

I don't necessarily think he did, but what a complete botch up. When you compare the text of what his spokesperson said he was supposed to say with what he actually said, there is a HUGE difference. If not intentional, it was a certainly a Freudian slip, IMO, and certainly in line with his prior demeaning statements about the US military.

... and "the voting machines were rigged" ...

John Amato: "Aasif Mandiv joined Jon Stewart last night for a look at how Bush and his administration are better at executing jokes.

They went through a bunch of the classics, such as: "Those weapons of mass destruction got to be some where" and "You go to war with the army you got, not the army you want". Sadly they missed one of the greatest punch lines of this administration - "You're doing a heckuva job Brownie!"."



The Daily Show Looks At The Humor Of The Bush Administration

Jon Stewart: I don't understand why the outrage is so high about a joke about something that might have hurt someone's feelings whereas the people who actually do hurt the troops by not giving them what they need in the field get off scot free.

Assid Mandvi: That's show business, Jonny.

Video available at,

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Everybody is making Kerry's booper a huge mountain that wasn't even a moe hill. Who amongst us have never spoken or written a blooper?

Anybody?

People must learn to come back to reality.

Too late, the frenzy has started. You know how we can't resist a good stoning.

These are the "real" issues, not whether Kerry spoke unwittingly.

Scandals Alone Could Cost Republicans Their House Majority

By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 2, 2006; A01



Indictments, investigations and allegations of wrongdoing have helped put at least 15 Republican House seats in jeopardy, enough to swing control to the Democrats on Tuesday even before the larger issues of war, economic unease and President Bush are invoked.

With just five days left before Election Day, allegations are springing up like brushfires. Four GOP House seats have been tarred by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling scandal. Five have been adversely affected by then-Rep. Mark Foley's unseemly contacts with teenage male House pages. The remaining half a dozen or so could turn on controversies including offshore tax dodging, sexual misconduct and shady land deals.

Not since the House bank check-kiting scandal of the early 1990s have so many seats been affected by scandals, and not since the Abscam bribery cases of the 1970s have the charges been so serious. But this year's combination of breadth and severity may be unprecedented, suggested Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

For more than a year, Democrats have tried to gain political advantage from what they called "a culture of corruption" in Republican-controlled Washington. Republican campaign officials insist the theme has not caught on with the public, but even they concede that many individual races have been hit hard.

"So many different kinds of scandals going on at the same time, that's pretty unique," Zelizer said. "There were scandals throughout the '70s, multiple scandals, but the number of stories now are almost overwhelming."

At least nine GOP seats have been affected by scandals and are highly vulnerable to Democratic takeover next week. Foley's abrupt resignation has jeopardized a Florida House district that had been on no one's radar screen. Under indictment and amid a swirl of ethics investigations, former House majority leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) resigned from Congress earlier this year, forcing Republicans to mount a long-shot write-in campaign for their chosen candidate. Rep. Robert W. Ney's guilty plea last month on corruption charges still hangs over the Ohio campaign of his would-be Republican successor, Joy Padgett, especially because Ney still has not resigned from Congress.

The GOP has all but abandoned longtime Rep. Curt Weldon (Pa.), as federal investigators examine charges that he steered lobbying contracts to his daughter. Weldon went on television yesterday with an ad featuring actors pleading, "Would you give a friend the benefit of the doubt? . . . Today, Curt Weldon needs our support."

Republican campaign strategists fear they have also lost the seat of Rep. Don Sherwood (Pa.), who has been dogged by the settlement of a lawsuit filed by a mistress who charged that Sherwood had throttled her.

Congress watchers once saw the swing seat of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) as a missed opportunity for Democrats. But now, as the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix examines his role in a land deal for a business partner and political benefactor, Renzi's race with political neophyte Ellen Simon (D) has tightened.

Farther west, Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.) has had to contend with charges lodged last month by a longtime former aide, Jim Shepard, that the lawmaker made dozens of illegal fundraising calls from his congressional offices. And two reliably Republican districts in California are under assault by Democrats because Reps. Richard W. Pombo and John T. Doolittle have been linked to Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty in January to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.

Beyond those nine jeopardized GOP seats, four other Republicans have been tainted by the Foley page scandal. Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.) chose to issue a public apology after he admitted that he had known about inappropriate contact between Foley and a former page this spring. Democrats have repeatedly hit Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), the House Republican Conference chairman, for inaction on the Foley matter. And Democrats have tried to hold two former members of the Page Board, Reps. Sue W. Kelly (N.Y.) and Heather A. Wilson (N.M.), accountable for Foley's actions.

Meanwhile, new allegations continue to spring up. Vern Buchanan, a Republican running for the Florida seat vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris (R), was the target of local media reports this week detailing his use of business entities in Caribbean tax havens to reduce levies on his auto dealerships. The Albany Times Union published an article yesterday charging that the wife of Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) called police late last year to report that her husband was "knocking her around" during a late-night argument.

And Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who made his name pushing campaign finance changes and governance reforms, was confronted with media reports alleging that a 2003 trip to Qatar -- partly funded by a group loosely tied to Abramoff -- had not been properly disclosed.

"The corruption issue plays in two ways: It contributes to the sour mood of the country and to the low job approval of Congress, and it particularly plays in races directly touched by allegations of scandal," said Republican pollster Whit Ayers. "And in those races, it plays a significant role."

House Democrats have had to deal with investigations of their own, involving Reps. William J. Jefferson (La.), Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) and Jane Harman (Calif.), but none of those cases have put Democratic seats in jeopardy.

In the Senate, a federal inquiry into Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and his ties to a nonprofit community agency that paid him more than $300,000 in rent while receiving millions of dollars in federal assistance has provided his Republican challenger with a strong issue and has kept that race close. But the seat of Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) may be in even more jeopardy, primarily because of Burns's ties to Abramoff.

Recent polling suggests that the issue of corruption is beginning to stick. A CNN poll last month found that "half of all Americans believe most members of Congress are corrupt" and that "more than a third think their own representative is crooked."

And where the issue has hit directly, Democrats and their allies have been playing up charges to the hilt. Just yesterday, Christine Jennings, the Florida Democrat running for Harris's House seat, held a news conference to attack Buchanan's alleged offshore tax dodges.

Even the most peripheral contact with a scandal has not gone unnoticed. "Those that knew got to go," Albuquerque's Democratic mayor, Martin J. Chavez, thundered at a rally last month against New Mexico's Wilson, citing her role on the Page Board during Foley's misconduct. "Those that didn't know need to explain why they didn't."

So instead of making "jokes", these politicians should be addressing the issues.

THAT is why it is a big deal. When a "distinguished Senator" and former Presidential Candidate speaks to a group of young students and is making "jokes", then "slips up", we are supposed to say nothing?

woiyo, All that needs to be said about it has already been said. You ever hear of overkill? This is small potatoes compared to the "important" stuff on the American agenda. Get a life.

"small potatoes". Really. I hope some returning troops pay you a visit c.i.

I generally try to avoid pasting long essays from other sources on these threads. However, this one so accurately captures the essence of the issue that I believe it bears careful reading.

By Ed Morrow


"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

That was what Sen. John Kerry inarticulately said to a bunch of college kids, skipping classes to attend a Democrat rally at Pasadena City College in California. And then Kerry gave a small, smug smile. With American troops on the battlefield, fighting and dying, he had exhibited his superior intellect by insulting their character and intelligence. If only they had applied themselves in school, instead of lazily failing to make "an effort," they wouldn't have to dodge bullets in Baghdad. (As it happens, the men and women who serve in the American military are better educated than the general populace.)

After the explosion of criticism that followed his comments, Kerry indignantly refused to apologize and, without a trace of humor, declared the insulting remark was a "botched joke." He angrily declared, "It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have." This wildly contorted attack was dazzling in its spin and sputter. Kerry, who attained national notice as the face of an antiwar group that used stories told by fake Vietnam vets to brand real vets as war criminals, was insisting that military service made him immune from criticism from non-vets. "Despicable Republicans" and "right-wing nut jobs" were the ones at fault for his remarks being taken literally. We were supposed to know, if we have studied hard and done our homework, that he was insulting the president of the United States, stupid George W. Bush, and not America's military. That was what that little contemptuous smile had been meant to telegraph. Bush was a slacker frat-rat in school and we are now stuck in Iraq because of his bad study habits and not because we are in a war against Islamist terrorists who have killed thousands of our citizenry and want to kill as many more as they possibly can.

Throughout the 2004 presidential race, Bush's stupidity was one of the principal themes of the Kerry campaign. Bush = Stupid, while Kerry = Genius. Indeed, liberal mental superiority has been the overarching conceit of liberalism; conservatives are troglodytes, glowering out from their dark caves at a world they only dimly understand, while liberals are just one or two mental leaps short of transcending this mortal coil and ascending into one of those glittering, non-corporeal energy beings that are sometimes featured in science fiction productions heavy on pedantry and short on space babes and explosions.

James Baldwin wryly defined a liberal as "someone who thinks he knows more about your experience than you do." To that, we can add, "and who thinks, because of his superior knowledge, he should be making your decisions for you." While one might suppose this would be offensive to the ordinary herd, liberals have included a stepladder in their construct, allowing lesser folks to climb up to their level (or at least to a level just under where the decisions are made). If you agree with them, you're a smartie, too! In fact, if you base your agreement on nothing more than your feelings of superiority, you're even smarter and more superior, because you know "The Truth" without the mundane bother of having to reason it out. Democrats have been playing to this too-common weakness by promoting the charge that Bush is stupid.

How many late-night comedy routines and cartoonists have mocked Bush's intelligence? How many million words describing W's lack of wit fill the bowels of Al Gore's invention, the Internet? How often have Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Bill Clinton sought to advance their party by declaring Bush dumb? How many pundits have shortened their workday by disparaging Bush instead of examining his policies? Some conservatives have even joined in. My favorite was a TV pundit who presented an entire program on the issue "Is Bush an Idiot?" The host detailed the president's "Bushisms." These are quotations in which Bush jumbled his words or fumbled a rhetorical flourish. Some are amusing but, as a measure of intelligence, they are a poor metric. The president spends large chunks of every day talking to the public, often when he's exhausted or has no time to prepare. In the thousands and thousands of words he has uttered during his years in politics there are inevitable mistakes. These are lovingly recorded for posterity by his political enemies, who don't take similar note of the faults of their favored politicians, like Kerry. After analyzing Bush's faults, the pundit decided that Bush lacked intellectual curiosity. This judgment was undercut by the pundit's inability to recall the word "curiosity." He finally offered up "intellectual curiousness."

Now, how many times have the slurs on Bush's brain been matched with a specific argument that challenges a Bush policy? We might excuse the comics if they offered similar mockery of liberals but they seldom do that outside of the most egregious cases. The pundits and politicians don't have any excuse. They are simply resorting to denigration when they can't counter Bush's policies. Do you want to criticize Bush tax cuts? You don't have to counter the argument that the tax cuts stimulated the economy, allowing it to thrive despite 9/11, high oil prices, and the uncertainties of the Terror War?-just call Bush stupid. Do you want to criticize Bush's plan to keep Social Security solvent? You don't need to explain why Social Security shouldn't be altered or concoct an alternative plan ?- just call Bush stupid. You don't like the war in Iraq? Don't offer a better strategy or explain how losing will be a good thing for America ?- just call Bush stupid.

The invocations of stupidity are actually appeals to stupidity. Can't think for yourself? Uninformed? Do you lack facts to support your opinions? Do you think the Masons or Big Oil or the aliens who snatched Elvis are running the world? Well, don't bother to stir your brain to assemble your argument or stitch together your grand conspiracy ?- just call Bush stupid.

This brings us back to Kerry's "botched joke." If that is what it was, and not the Freudian slip political maven Dick Morris claims it was, then the joke was just another "Bush is stupid" attack with Kerry positioning himself as smarter. He sincerely believes he is the president's superior. As Newsweek reported, in the last days before his defeat in 2004, Kerry marveled to an aide, "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." Kerry's superiority was cast in doubt not only by Bush handily defeating him but, again, months later, by academic and military records. Kerry finally released some of the military records he had kept private before the election. They showed he had scored lower than Bush on military intelligence tests. Kerry and Bush had both attended Yale (Bush went on to earn an MBA at Harvard while Kerry got a law degree at Boston College) and, while Bush's grades had long been public, Kerry's now were published. Bush had gotten a cumulative grade average of 77. This solid C was widely jeered by Democrats till Kerry's grades came out. He got a 76. To put it in terms the Francophile Kerry might find familiar, his joking about Bush's poor academic performance is, at best, a case of the kettle calling the pot noir.

Kerry's self-regard seems to place him above more than just George Bush. After two days of furor over the Pasadena gaff, he finally stopped demanding that Republicans apologize for his mistake and listened to fellow Democrats desperate to pry some sort of apology out of him lest the Democrat party be associated with the words of its last presidential nominee. Kerry issued a statement that was more insulting than his original remark for being crafted with reflection. After invoking his military service, yet again, he regretted "that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply" an attack on the military. He then apologized "to any service member, family member, or American who was offended." So, if you're so stupid as to not understand he was making a joke, he's sorry. He followed with an attack upon the Republican party, "their failed security policy," and vowed "to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops." Exactly what that "change of course" is, what "real security" is, or what his "winning strategy" might involve, he didn't explain. Why should he? We're probably all too stupid to understand.

?- Edward Morrow is the author and illustrator of numerous books, including The Halloween Handbook.

cjh, That's because you fail to understand what really happened; it was a blooper that Kerry will pay for dearly in the future. Why would the troops come to see me? I've served our country in the armed forces, and speak against Bush's unjustified war in Iraq that have sacriiced our soldiers lives for a goal that's been lost with no solution in sight.

No, of course not; remark on it but there's a whole lot of truly serious stuff that you lot avoid like the plague.

Perspective man, perspective. How many people have died because of Kerry's botched joke? How many have died because of the actual subject of Kerry's botched joke?

How much money has been wasted because of Kerry's botched joke? How much for the subject of his botched joke? Well, it's now around $336 billion. Some expect,



Remember, this house of cards has been propped up with disception after lie after fabrication after falsehood. And you guys are obsessing over this?

BTW, I was never a Kerry supporter, and never voted for him. I think he's a weeny with Heinz mustard.

Why shouldn't he attack exactly what Mr Morrow himself described, the failed policies? Name something of the Republican Congress/WH that isn't a failed policy.

I couldn't possibly agree more with his last sentence. You are the folks who plunked down your money for the bush plan and never batted an eyelash. To this day, you're trying to defend the white elephant you hold, it getting more and more bloated everyday and y'all still are making these huge payments, willingly.

It's a big deal to me.

We have elected sh!theads on both side of the aisle in Congress, who refuse to address issues. Especially from Mass. and Calif.

You attitude gives these knuckleheads the incentive to go on as usual.

Maybe you should pay attention to the congress people in your State and hold them responsible for their words and actions (or inactions) and vote them out of office. We reward this behavior, at least here in Mass. by continually voting them back for additional terms.

I have a life. Maybe you need to understand what life is really about.

woiyo wrote: Maybe you should pay attention to the congress people in your State and hold them responsible for their words and actions (or inactions) and vote them out of office. We reward this behavior, at least here in Mass. by continually voting them back for additional terms.

I do pay attention to the elections in our state, and vote every time. I also keep in touch with Senator Feinstein on a regular basis. I can't effect elections outside of our district/state, so your implication is just plain ridiculous! Get a life!