Kerry cracks me up...

[ThomasPaine]

yeah, the country appears to be so much better off under George. Over 2,000 americans killed. This war cannot be won. You cannot defeat and idealogy. Eventually when we leave, everything we built will just be torn down again by the terrorist/insurgents. There are more of them than we have in our military, we are completely outnumbered.

I pity your misguided life and hopeless soul.

 

[dilloduck]

I heard the quote too but you should provide a link so others can see what your talking about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

end of page 3 and start of page 4

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I heard the quote too but you should provide a link so others can see what your talking about.

I heard it played on the radio

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Now this is funny. Most people, especially bush supporters will defend Georgie tooth and nail when he says something stupid to the media, which is quite often. You could populate a book the size of the bible with all the stupid things he says. Yet bush supporters defend everything he says, by saying, oh he isnt comfortable in front of the media, or , see if you could do better.

Now Kerry says something stupid, and granted it is stupid, yet someone posts what a moron he is. But I bet this person will never criticize Bush for all the dumb moronic stupid ass things he said. Need I go find some quotes that are equally as stupid to support this statement of mine ?

baloney. Kerry got a free pass from the MSM on this one. If Bush or Cheney had said it, or some other repub. the leftists would be screaming for impeachment.

 

[Yurt]

YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

:halo:

 

[Mariner]

Kerry is hopeless, Dean more so, Pelosi completely out to lunch... and I'm a Democrat.

The only Democrat I currently see adequately addressing the fact that we're in Iraq, no matter what one thinks of how we got there, is Hilary Clinton.

BUT, making fun of one simple slip of the tongue by Kerry is ridiculous, when Bush commits equally outrageous slips almost every time he opens his mouth. Haven't you people seen the entire books that compile his delightfully idiotic use of the English language? Are you setting higher linguistic standards for Kerry than Bush? If you want to have any integrity, you'd better start posting every new Bushism here and poking fun at it.

It's perfectly obvious what Kerry meant--that Iraqis should be managing their own security as soon as possible. And he's right.

Mariner.

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" —George W. Bush

 

[Gem]

Mariner,

The fact that you have completely missed the point of this is proof positive that the mainstream media has given Kerry and other Democrats a MAJOR pass when it comes to their gaffes while reveling in every single one of Bush's flubs without an ounce of the mercy that they have heaped upon the Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, Durbin, Jackson, Sharpton, and on and on and on.

Everyone knows that Bush is a terrible public speaker, often making mistakes that are absolutely hysterical. Not a soul here has denied that.

We know this not only from watching his speeches...but, if we happen to miss one the mainstream media has been all too willing to replay it again and again. As you mentioned, publishing houses publish books of his gaffes, calanders have been made...bumper stickers have been sold...and I personally...love saying the words, "Strategery," and "Dignitude," thanks to Saturday Night Live.

What people ARE commenting on is the fact that the Democrats at large get a HUGE pass by the mainstream media...very rarely being subject to the huge amount of mocking and ribbing Bush goes through when he makes a mistake. Kerry has said some outrageous things...some very funny, others just shocking...yet no one has come up with a gaffe-a-day calander for him. Hillary Clinton once told an audience that Ghandi was that little man working down in the 7-11....yet the media willingly shoved that little oops under the rug for her.

Bush does not speak well in public...this isn't news, we all know this. What people here are addressing...and what you seem to be having trouble understanding...is that Democrats are being helped by the media by having their stupid comments ignored (hence so many people never hearing Kerry's latest remark regarding the US troops in Iraq)...while the media is insistent on making prime time news out of all of Bush's dumb statements.

You state "It's perfectly obvious what Kerry meant." Well, its perfectly obvious what Bush means too, Mariner...but the media doesn't let him off the hook...why should it let Kerry or Clinton or Pelosi or Dean or any of the other Democrats who are thoroughly enjoying how the MSM looks out for them off the hook?

 

[KarlMarx]

Kerry is hopeless, Dean more so, Pelosi completely out to lunch... and I'm a Democrat.

The only Democrat I currently see adequately addressing the fact that we're in Iraq, no matter what one thinks of how we got there, is Hilary Clinton.

BUT, making fun of one simple slip of the tongue by Kerry is ridiculous, when Bush commits equally outrageous slips almost every time he opens his mouth. Haven't you people seen the entire books that compile his delightfully idiotic use of the English language? Are you setting higher linguistic standards for Kerry than Bush? If you want to have any integrity, you'd better start posting every new Bushism here and poking fun at it.

It's perfectly obvious what Kerry meant--that Iraqis should be managing their own security as soon as possible. And he's right.

Mariner.

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" —George W. Bush

Once is a slip of the tongue, granted.... but then there was that other slip of the tongue back in 1971.... when Kerry testified before Congress and accused our soldiers of committing war crimes....

that kind of rhetoric seems habitual with the Senator

No.... I don't think that he should be given the benefit of the doubt.... Kerry probably meant every word he said and is backpeddling now only because of public reaction.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Mariner,

The fact that you have completely missed the point of this is proof positive that the mainstream media has given Kerry and other Democrats a MAJOR pass when it comes to their gaffes while reveling in every single one of Bush's flubs without an ounce of the mercy that they have heaped upon the Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, Durbin, Jackson, Sharpton, and on and on and on.

Everyone knows that Bush is a terrible public speaker, often making mistakes that are absolutely hysterical. Not a soul here has denied that.

We know this not only from watching his speeches...but, if we happen to miss one the mainstream media has been all too willing to replay it again and again. As you mentioned, publishing houses publish books of his gaffes, calanders have been made...bumper stickers have been sold...and I personally...love saying the words, "Strategery," and "Dignitude," thanks to Saturday Night Live.

What people ARE commenting on is the fact that the Democrats at large get a HUGE pass by the mainstream media...very rarely being subject to the huge amount of mocking and ribbing Bush goes through when he makes a mistake. Kerry has said some outrageous things...some very funny, others just shocking...yet no one has come up with a gaffe-a-day calander for him. Hillary Clinton once told an audience that Ghandi was that little man working down in the 7-11....yet the media willingly shoved that little oops under the rug for her.

Bush does not speak well in public...this isn't news, we all know this. What people here are addressing...and what you seem to be having trouble understanding...is that Democrats are being helped by the media by having their stupid comments ignored (hence so many people never hearing Kerry's latest remark regarding the US troops in Iraq)...while the media is insistent on making prime time news out of all of Bush's dumb statements.

You state "It's perfectly obvious what Kerry meant." Well, its perfectly obvious what Bush means too, Mariner...but the media doesn't let him off the hook...why should it let Kerry or Clinton or Pelosi or Dean or any of the other Democrats who are thoroughly enjoying how the MSM looks out for them off the hook?

Kerry is a very polished speaker. I have to size up peoples character when I first meet them very often because of my employment. If I wasnt good at it, I wouldnt be worth anything financially today.

I always got the sense, even if you dont listen to the actual content of his words, that Kerry was simply grandstanding and more concerned about method of delivery rather than content of speech.

He is a professional at speaking to a group to sway their opinion, and to say whatever he needs to , to do it. And to mold the evidence and facts into whatever shape he can to convince the group that he is tellng the truth, even when he isnt.

 

[Mariner]

I'm not totally convinced by the "mainstream media" argument, though. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Fox News, etc. reliably present a conservative view of the news. "The Week" carefully presents every side of an argument that it can find, from any media source.

Besides, it seems odd when the party that owns the presidency and Congress takes a victim stance.

Personally, I wish that all journalists attempted to hold themselves to a more neutral ideal. It bothers me that when there's good news for Bush it shows up on page 17 of the New York Times and page 1 of the Wall Street Journal, and vice versa. I realize there's no really attainable ideal neutrality, but they could certainly try harder.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm not totally convinced by the "mainstream media" argument, though. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Fox News, etc. reliably present a conservative view of the news. "The Week" carefully presents every side of an argument that it can find, from any media source.

Besides, it seems odd when the party that owns the presidency and Congress takes a victim stance.

Personally, I wish that all journalists attempted to hold themselves to a more neutral ideal. It bothers me that when there's good news for Bush it shows up on page 17 of the New York Times and page 1 of the Wall Street Journal, and vice versa. I realize there's no really attainable ideal neutrality, but they could certainly try harder.

Mariner.

Conservatives have the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and talk radio for nationwide coverage, along with a few second rated city papers. The liberals, however, have:

The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, PBS, and several other primary city and state newspapers I can't remember. Saying that this is balanced is like MSNBC saying their panel is balanced because they have a token conservative on the panel with 7 card-carrying, Bush-bashing, YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHing Democrats.

 

[Gem]

Mariner Wrote:

Besides, it seems odd when the party that owns the presidency and Congress takes a victim stance.

I understnad why you might feel this way. It does seem like this party, which controls the Executive and Legislative branches of government...shouldn't have to worry about getting fair shakes from the press.

Unfortunately...what should be and what is happening are two entirely different things in this instance.

The provable fact is that The Bush White House has been attacked far more frequently and far more viciously than the previous administration and was attacked far more viciously and negatively than its competition during the 2004 Presidential Elections. A quick search will reveal time and time again that the Bush Administration has been the subject of far more negative stories than Kerry during the election and FAR more negative stories (especially about subjects on which the Bush Administration is actually strong, i.e. the economy, jobs) than the Clinton administration.

We can talk about whether Bush is a good president or a bad president in other threads...but for the topic of the media and how it has reported the actions of this presidency it is undeniable when you look at the numbers that the press machine at large does NOT like George W. Bush...and wants to do just about anything it can to marginalize his Presidency.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mariner. I wish that journalists would hold themselves to a neutral standard. Right now, very seem to be capable of that...

 

[Mariner]

much of the MSM have been kicking themselves for inadequately investigating the bases for Bush's assertions about Iraq's WMD's. In retrospect we now know that his "secret evidence" was aluminum tube, uranium, and other info that was known to be false, some of it as much as four years beforehand. The MSM swallowed the administration's statements hook, line, and sinker. The New York Times, in particular, practically issued a public apology for being too easy on the President in the run-up to the war and for letting Judith Cooper get carried away with fake stories from Iraqi expatriates.

And if you read the Times in the Clinton days, you'll see that Howell Raines, the editor then, was viciously anti-Clinton, and the editorial page never let up on him for a second.

Besides, even the Wall Street Journal has abandoned Bush now, so maybe it's all a bit more complicated than a simple right/left distinction. The Journal can't stand his economic policies, and have recently included op-ed pieces critical of his leadership in the war.

Mariner.

 

[Gem]

Mariner Wrote:

On the other hand, Gem,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

much of the MSM have been kicking themselves for inadequately investigating the bases for Bush's assertions about Iraq's WMD's. In retrospect we now know that his "secret evidence" was aluminum tube, uranium, and other info that was known to be false, some of it as much as four years beforehand. The MSM swallowed the administration's statements hook, line, and sinker. The New York Times, in particular, practically issued a public apology for being too easy on the President in the run-up to the war and for letting Judith Cooper get carried away with fake stories from Iraqi expatriates.

And if you read the Times in the Clinton days, you'll see that Howell Raines, the editor then, was viciously anti-Clinton, and the editorial page never let up on him for a second.

Besides, even the Wall Street Journal has abandoned Bush now, so maybe it's all a bit more complicated than a simple right/left distinction. The Journal can't stand his economic policies, and have recently included op-ed pieces critical of his leadership in the war.

Mariner.

So basically you are saying that because the MSM is now coming out even more ardently anti-Bush than they were before...even though the British never backed away from their intelligence that Saddam had contacted Niger about yellow-cake, even though we were warned by the leaders of several middle-eastern nations that Saddam had WMD and would use them against us...even though Dueffler in his report where he said that we haven't found WMD (that part was covered by the MSM) ALSO said that it was more obvious and clear now than it was BEFORE we went to war that we HAD to get Saddam out of power and that he was an incredible threat.....even though the fact that we needed to remove Saddam from power has never been disputed by the people who investigated the WMD....

The MSM is somehow NOT being more harsh to Bush than it is to Democrats who saw the same info, voted for the war...and are now backpedling because its politically adventageous to do so?

I'm sorry. I think that you have lost your mind. The MSM was harsh and skeptical to Bush leading up to the war...now that WMD have not been found they have ignored the mountains of evidence that proves we were absolutely right to remove Saddam when we did and that we should have done it sooner...and are attacking it because we followed evidence that the rest of the world believed as well. And somehow this demonstrates balance to you?

And please don't even TRY to discuss how the media was harsh to Clinton during his numerous scandals. The MSM invented a new polling system for the infamous president...polling people on how they felt about him personally first...then saying..."Oh, but how do you rate him on how he is as President." No other President before or after was so protected by the MSM...and it continues to this day...as they ignore the actions of his administration and excuse the criminal procedings they engage in.

Sorry, Mariner...the MSM hates Bush...and is out to do whatever they can to make his last 4 years a failure...in doing so...they are continuing their tradition (since at least the Clinton years) of giving those people who share their opinions (the latest information I read put the number of journalists who identify themselves as liberal at 80% or so) a pass...while deliberately setting out to attack anyone who feels differently.

 

[Mariner]

most journalists are liberals. Perhaps actually going out in the world, e.g. meeting poor people rather than hanging out at the country club, or meeting people with different religions rather than just hanging out at one's church, tends to make people liberal (after all, there aren't many conservative social workers). Or maybe liberals are more interested in getting out there and finding out what's going on. Last I checked, there's nothing on the journalism school entrance exam that prevents conservatives from becoming reporters.

To me, the most striking red/blue divide was not by states--it was the map that compared who people voted for as correlated with how much they travelled, published in The Atlantic after the election in 2004. The correlation was perfect--areas where people travel a lot to foreign countries, and therefore presumably have a more cosmopolitan sense of life, voted for Kerry, while the stay-at-homes voted for Bush.

All that speculation aside, I agree with you that I would much prefer a more neutral media. Even reporters who feel one bias or another personally, should endeavor to keep it out of their reporting.

As for Bush--he's made so many mistakes at this point that his own party is abandoning him. Forget the MSM, he has deeper problems than that. You can't blame MSM for Bush's ridiculous handling of Hurricane Katrina, for his appointing incompetent buddies to gov't posts that require real expertise, for his bizarre budget policies, for his complete unwillingness to seek allies in the rest of the world, for blowing the post 9/11 friendliness that we had from the rest of the world, for ignoring the reality of global warming, etc. etc. He's dug his own hole in many ways.

Personally, I'm now beginning to admire him a little, as he begins actually to tell the truth about a few things, e.g. that "much of" the pre-war intelligence "was wrong," that leaving Iraq early would risk "turning it into" a base for Al Qaeda (i.e. that it wasn't previously), and that he invaded Iraq out of a heightened sense of fear after 9/11, not because he had actual known links to 9/11. These three crucial points are all admissions of previous lying or misdirection. I can forgive a truth-teller, and like him a lot better in the past 3 weeks than I ever did before.

Mariner

Mariner.

 

[archangel]

most journalists are liberals. Perhaps actually going out in the world, e.g. meeting poor people rather than hanging out at the country club, or meeting people with different religions rather than just hanging out at one's church, tends to make people liberal (after all, there aren't many conservative social workers). Or maybe liberals are more interested in getting out there and finding out what's going on. Last I checked, there's nothing on the journalism school entrance exam that prevents conservatives from becoming reporters.

To me, the most striking red/blue divide was not by states--it was the map that compared who people voted for as correlated with how much they travelled, published in The Atlantic after the election in 2004. The correlation was perfect--areas where people travel a lot to foreign countries, and therefore presumably have a more cosmopolitan sense of life, voted for Kerry, while the stay-at-homes voted for Bush.

After all most 'Cop's' are conservatives and I consider them to be 'social workers'! :scratch:

 

[Mariner]

"speculation," Archangel, and was being a little tongue-in-cheek.

In '04 many state and local police organizations endorsed Kerry. I'm not sure how they voted overall, nationally.

I agree, cops are very much like social workers, especially the good ones.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

most journalists are liberals. Perhaps actually going out in the world, e.g. meeting poor people rather than hanging out at the country club, or meeting people with different religions rather than just hanging out at one's church, tends to make people liberal (after all, there aren't many conservative social workers). Or maybe liberals are more interested in getting out there and finding out what's going on. Last I checked, there's nothing on the journalism school entrance exam that prevents conservatives from becoming reporters.
.

No. The reason is because ever since watergate, the creation of the modern "journalist as anti-republican crusader" myth, reporters have big big lefty pinkos with an anti-american, anti-military, anti white, anti christian mission.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

for his complete unwillingness to seek allies in the rest of the world,

He's willing to seek allies and it's not one-sided either. Sometimes they are hostile to the US no matter what.

for blowing the post 9/11 friendliness that we had from the rest of the world,

That's pure revisionism. Many said we had it coming.

for ignoring the reality of global warming

What do you want him to do? Crap like Kyoto would destroy the economy and it may not even help (not to mention how polluters like China and India are exempt and many EU nations aren't living up to it).

 

[Mariner]

I agree that Kyoto was a lousy plan--but it was better than nothing. And giving the rest of the world the finger on this issue is no way to win allies.

The Wall Street Journal reported on its front page today that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions went up by 2% this year over last year. They need to fall, not rise. New evidence shows that the current level of CO2 is higher than at any point in the past 650,000 years, at a minimum, about 30% higher. We're running a global environmental experiment, and we're the guinea pigs.

What would I have Bush do about global warming? Where to start? He's done absolutely everything wrong:

1. I'd forget the hydrogen red herring. Where is clean hydrogen going to come from? In general, it is expected to come from burning regular old fossil fuels.

2. Around 1999, there was an excellent study published in the New York Times showing that for an government investment of only $5 billion per year over the next 50 years, we could dramatically ramp up private investment in green technologies, become the global leader in this field, set an example for the rest of the world as it gradually copies our gas-guzzling habits (China--27 million cars now, and rising exponentially. The environment was much better off when they rode bicycles.), and limit global warming to less than 2-3 degrees centigrade (which would likely preserve the Arctic ice caps, the Greenland glaciers, and may low-lying islands which will otherwise be swamped. This total investment would be equal to that of the invasion of Iraq, and it might have been a far smarter thing to do with the money.

3. Tax gasoline. The moment you tax it so it costs over $3 a gallon, alternative fuel sources become viable and interesting, and their development would take off dramatically. Trains become more efficient than trucks, so the railroads stop dying. People start to buy more efficient cars, and the suburbs become less attractive. Food imported from across the country becomes more expensive than food bought from the local farm. Economists from both parties have been begging for increased gas taxes for decades. Bush, as a Republican and oil man, had the opportunity to act on it, but wouldn't even consider it.

4. Encourage conservation. If everyone just fiilled their tires right, it would save more oil than the whole Arctic National Wildlife Refuge can supply. If new houses were built to higher insulatino standards and car makers were held to more efficent fuel consumption standards, we could reduce our oil use dramatically, without lowering our standard of living.

I could write on this subject for an hour. At least Bush has finally stopped calling global warming bad science (though many US Message Board members don't seem to have caught up with him), and stopped modifying reports from science advisers to fudge the issue. That's one tiny step in the right direction. But if we're at an environmental tipping point now, it might be too late.

Mariner.