Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
You're not doing your argument any favors.

When Dems try to bring this stuff up, it doesn't seem to get much traction. Republicans are better at it. That's all I'm saying. The fact the Republicans can make character an issue in this election (and perhaps win on it) is incredible. Look, like or hate Kerry, he's a poster boy for public service. He hasn't killed anyone. No DUIs. No coke accusations. No questions about whether or not he inhaled. No sleeping with interns. No Rhodes scholarship instead of Vietnam.

He served in Vietnam, he came home and spoke his conscience*, he ran for office, he's done his job.**

And yet still, character is an issue you might win on.

NotMe's comment would have made sense when discussing Clinton vs. Tsongas, but not Kerry vs. Gephardt. If Gephardt had won in the primaries, the GOP would be in an uproar over how he's a puppet of the unions, and his eyebrows are bushy.





* The idea that Kerry's Vietnam service and subsequent anti-war activities were motivated by nothing more than raw political ambition is absurd. Why? Because anyone with a serious hunger for power and no real ideology would have gone the exact opposite direction after coming back.
**I'm not particularly interested in reigniting the debate about missing votes. Let's just acknowledge that a campaigning non-incumbent is in a special circumstance, as it has been in every election in the modern era.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by soup sandwich

Am I the only one who realizes that:

1) . . .

2) . . .

3) . . .

4) . . .

5) . . .

6) . . . .

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(A) . . .

(B) . . .

(C) . . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
* The idea that Kerry's Vietnam service and subsequent anti-war activities were motivated by nothing more than raw political ambition is absurd. Why? Because anyone with a serious hunger for power and no real ideology would have gone the exact opposite direction after coming back.

Strongly disagree. Many young activists cut their teeth, and made their reps, on this exact same philosophy back then. The antiwar crowd was huge, and it ultimately won, and those pols who represented it are today's leaders on one side. I think he truly was anti-war, so I won't say he deliberately made this political calculation in order to become attractive, but everyone knew it wasn't a bad place to be. And, back then, what he was mainly known for was self-aggrandizement. Even Trudeau made his shameless self-promotion the subject of a week's worth of comics at that time.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
NotMe's comment would have made sense when discussing Clinton vs. Tsongas, but not Kerry vs. Gephardt. If Gephardt had won in the primaries, the GOP would be in an uproar over how he's a puppet of the unions, and his eyebrows are bushy.

Having bushy eyebrows is not a character issue. Niether is being a puppet of the unions. That is just a political alliance.

Originally posted by baltassoc
* The idea that Kerry's Vietnam service and subsequent anti-war activities were motivated by nothing more than raw political ambition is absurd. Why? Because anyone with a serious hunger for power and no real ideology would have gone the exact opposite direction after coming back.

Clearly you are too young to remember the 60's and early 70's.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Strongly disagree. Many young activists cut their teeth, and made their reps, on this exact same philosophy back then. The antiwar crowd was huge, and it ultimately won, and those pols who represented it are today's leaders on one side. I think he truly was anti-war, so I won't say he deliberately made this political calculation in order to become attractive, but everyone knew it wasn't a bad place to be. And, back then, what he was mainly known for was self-aggrandizement. Even Trudeau made his shameless self-promotion the subject of a week's worth of comics at that time.

Are you me? Or do you just pipe these thoughts into my head via some sort of telepathy?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
FYI - whitewater was a real scandal.

You do not recall the Office of the Special Prosecutor announcing that after 6 years and over $50 million, there was insufficient evidence to charge either of them with anything at all? I cannot think of anyone short of the tinfoil-hat-and-crystal crowd who had more incentive and resources to find it, and who could speak with more authority that there's no "there" there.

If you're still hanging on to this, do me a favor and let me know from your next meeting what the current price is for the di-lithium crystals, OK? They work pretty well at levelling out my coffee table.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by baltassoc
While I understand your point, I really disagree with this assertion. I don't think politicians really flip-flop all that often. I think politicians (on both sides) have nuanced views and have different answers to different questions. Do you support higher pay for soldiers? Yes. Did you support higher pay for soldiers [by voting for a bill that not only would have raised pay for soldiers but also would have required all teenagers to have mandatory abortions]?* No.

The tendency of both parties to misconstrue quotes and votes in the manner, especially in the context of contending that someone flip flops, is very distressing.



* Obviously, I'm making this example up.

While I mostly agree with what you're saying, my previous point was that politicans, like all humans, change their minds. They flip and flop back and forth. Most of the time their flip-flops are secret. But just because these flip-flops are not a matter of record does not mean they aren't occurring.

But ocassionally these flip-flops are a matter of record:
high steel tariffs are bad/high steel tariffs are good;
it is seared, SEARED into my memory/it was ten years ago, who could possibly remember the details;
let the states decide re gay marriage/we need to amend the Constitution.

Both candidates in the current election do it, but for what ever reason Kerry is getting the worse of it. Personally, I think it's easier to come up with examples of Bush doing it than Kerry.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Strongly disagree. Many young activists cut their teeth, and made their reps, on this exact same philosophy back then. The antiwar crowd was huge, and it ultimately won, and those pols who represented it are today's leaders on one side. I think he truly was anti-war, so I won't say he deliberately made this political calculation in order to become attractive, but everyone knew it wasn't a bad place to be. And, back then, what he was mainly known for was self-aggrandizement. Even Trudeau made his shameless self-promotion the subject of a week's worth of comics at that time.

Thomas Oliphant, writing in a piece that I linked to here not too long ago, recalls talking about this very issue with Kerry back in the day, and both of them thinking that Kerry was hurting his chances for future political office. Of course, you can just say that Kerry calculated that he would be attacked for opportunism, and so he was lying to Oliphant at the time so that he'd have a defender.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can this be the topic for Kerry slamming next week? Please?

Have at it. The real reason that Kerry won't stop talking about Vietnam is because he can't stand on his Senate record.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
While I mostly agree with what you're saying, my previous point was that politicans, like all humans, change their minds. They flip and flop back and forth.

. . .

Both candidates in the current election do it, but for what ever reason Kerry is getting the worse of it. Personally, I think it's easier to come up with examples of Bush doing it than Kerry.

Do you not see a difference between changing your position because you feel your previous position was a bad idea on the merits and changing your position because the polls indicate it would be better for you to get elected?

Kerry switched on the war to beat Dean and to gain the support of the anti-war contingent in the Dem party. That is a far cry from switching positions on the merits of the issue.

Great, vote to send troops but then vote against sending them supplies.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Having bushy eyebrows is not a character issue. Niether is being a puppet of the unions. That is just a political alliance.

This mix of naivete and lack of imagination is almost touching.

Good thing you're not a political consultant. Turn this crowd loose on Gephardt, and in two weeks we'd be watching Chris Matthews interviewing the mysteriously-funded author of "Des Moines No More: The Secret History of Gephardt, Hoffa, and Their Love of Beastiality."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap*
You do not recall the Office of the Special Prosecutor announcing that after 6 years and over $50 million, there was insufficient evidence to charge either of them with anything at all?

That only means she was great at covering up.

There isn't much evidence that Scott Peterson killed Laci. Do you think that is because he didn't do it or because he was good at covering up that he did it?

*Does your moniker have some meaning, for instance, that you buy all of your clothes at the Gap?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Clearly you are too young to remember the 60's and early 70's.

You claim to be a woman in her late 20s with big fake hooters. What do you know from the 60's or early 70's?

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
There isn't much evidence that Scott Peterson killed Laci. Do you think that is because he didn't do it or because he was good at covering up that he did it?

And yet, he's been indicted and even tried. Weird, dat.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
Having bushy eyebrows is not a character issue. Niether is being a puppet of the unions. That is just a political alliance.

That's easy for you to say now that Gephardt's out of the way.

You miss the forest for the trees. No doubt Gephardt has "flip flopped" on issues and has deep dark secrets like once ordering a Big Mac at a Burger King (What arrogance! How can a person be so disconnected from the people!).

Clearly you are too young to remember the 60's and early 70's.

Clearly you are too senile to remember the '80s and '90s. If Kerry had been from any other state, there is no way he would have been elected Senator. Look, agree with his stance on Vietnam or not, the only reason that stance is about "character" is because GOPundants say it is.