I wasn't gonna say anythign about Jon Carry and his Irak comment but couldn't help it after seeing this picture (on Drudge - not sure where he got it from, or if it's "real")

Jordan .

*Gold*

:-)

The liberal L A Times believes Carry has put the final nail in his 2008 bid for President. His rebukes from many Dems are a harbinger of any future attempt by the Senator. Good bye Lurch.

It was telling to view and listen to how Carry says the joke smoothly, not stumbling; he does indeed have a smirk as he says it; and the audience laughs. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate it was a "botched " joke.

yep - goodbye Carry. His 08 chances are gone. This is like watching the Howard Dean episode all over again....

....oh and just a reminder: Carry is a VietNam vet....just wanted to remind you since Carry didn't mention it in his botched joke....we might forget since we haven't been reminded in awhile....

I still can't understand how a war vet could even come close to saying what he said (even a botched joke).

But then again, look at this story about Carry in 1972:

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown. We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.' Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

WOW!!!! Interesting this quote didn't come up during the election.....may have made Carry look worse, and well, we couldn't have that could we? Wonder when journalists will start doing their jobs again?

Jordan .

I have to say, I'm actually pleased that he made this comment. Because it means he won't be representing the dems in '08.

Good god, what an ignorant sum'bitch. I feel sorry for everyone who wasted a vote on him in '04.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Gee, I'd hate to pile on cuz it's mean and stuff, but there are indisputable facts about Kerry that date back to his Yale and his Vietnam days. I read his letters home from Tour of Duty (Douglas Brinkley) published back in 2003. Atlantic Monthly published a loooong excerpt from that book. If anyone is curious enough to want to check it out, here's a link .

At that time, I didn't think much about Kerry. I didn't seriously think the Dems would pick him in the primaries, even though the calculation of having a war hero as a candidate made sense to some. But what is clear from those letters to Mom and Dad and to his girlfriend (and later, first wife), is that he was against the Vietnam War while there. He was traumatized when he heard about the death of a friend. He came across as fundamentally anti-war in those letters and in his flowerly and stilted style, the young Kerry tried to convey what he would later enlarge upon with his anti-war associates back home.

More significantly, the letters read with an unnaturally formal quality of one who expected them to be saved for posterity and for his future in politics. Cynical of me? I think not. Kerry yearned to be the next JFK. He worked on Teddy's first campaign. He dated a relative of Jackie Kennedy's. He met JFK. At Yale, Kerry wore his JFK cufflinks and fashioned his hair style as close to a Kennedy coif as he could manage.. Fellow classmates have described his presidential ambitions. it's my belief that enlisting in the Navy was also part of his resume building strategy.

But fine. That's all fine. But I'm just saying that there is -- as Kerry himself noted by saying "I've always told the truth" -- at least a CONSISTENCY over the years. He was an anti-war warrior. And he is fundamentally a diplomat (as was his father); not a military commander type. And that's fine too. If you're a diplomat. Or a senator from Massachusetts.

So then it becomes a matter of whether you gravitate to the reluctant warrior who did his tour of duty and came out more aware of the carnage caused by war than his civilian counterparts. Or do you have the view that in the midst of Iraq and Afghanistan wars do you shift the country's leadership to one so fundamentally oppositional warfare? Part of me believed, if Kerry had won, he would have had to deal with the reality of the war; that he would not have simply put the skids to its escalation in January 2005 but another part of me thought his true colors would be dominant and I was against taking that risk.  Quien sabe? 

One thing seems clear.  His hopes for higher political office have been pretty well squelched even before this hiccup.  Traditionally no one likes a loser.  Sure, you can bring up Nixon and his return to the presidential campaign after losing.  The exception to the rule.  Plus, look how that turned out.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Beauty is momentary in the mind -
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.
The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
So evenings die, in their green going,
A wave, interminably flowing.
So gardens die, their meek breath scenting
the cowl of winter, done repenting.
So maidens die, to the auroral
Celebration of a maiden's choral.
Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping.
Now in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrement of praise.

('Peter Quince at the Clavier' by Wallace Stevens)

"Its unfair to use letters home from a young man at war. The fact that he was there speaks for itself."

Why is that unfair? The fact that he was there DOES NOT solely speak for itself. What also speaks for itself is how he treated his own fellow soldiers after the war (and flat-out lied as has been shown and proven) and how he continues to treat them (with "botched jokes" like this). Esp from a guy who didn't do too well in college either (talk about grades). Carry and Bush did roughly the same in college.

And who cares where Bush was or wasn't during Vietnam -- that's a secondary issue regarding Jon Carry's comments about the military then and now. That's just a smokescreen trying to deflect criticism of Carry. As we know Democrats don't really care about what you did in Vietnam - otherwise, they never would've supported Clinton so it's a moot issue with Bush (and terribly hypocritical). (And for the record, Bush was in the military at the time and could've been called to VietNam if his group had been called which it never was -- unlike what Dan Rather would like for you to believe.)

Jordan .

"All I know is Kerry went and Bush dodged it. Don't really care more than that."

A whole bunch of other politicians dodged Vietnam on the left and right -- again Democrats made it a moot point with Clinton.

Jordan .

" Yeah but they weren't aspiring to lead the American people for 4 years, presiding over a vietnam-type war."

Uhm....where were you in the 90s? Clinton got involved in a lot of "peace-keeping missions" (just a nice name for using military force in a violent manner rather than calling it what it really is for PR purposes). And Clinton presided over hte US for 8 years, got us into a number of military transactions during those years -- anyone remember Somalia? Bosnia?

Again, it's all moot because the leader of the free world in the 90s not only dodged the military draft during Vietnam but said he "loathed" the military, and the Democrats AND THE LEFT, all went along their happy lives. The LEFT and Democrats cannot now turn around and accuse Bush of "dodging" the military and suggesting that he shouldn't be president and to preside over a "vietnam-type war" beacuse it's totally hypocritical when you add Clinton into the equation.

LR - the fact that you are not American nor care about the partisan bickering is fine. And you may very well look down upon Bush and feel good about Carry, and that's fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you aren't an American leftie who ignored Clinton's military loathing and then turn around and accuse Bush of dodging the draft. But all that is secondary to the fact that Carry made a horribly ridiculous comment about the military in a "botched joke". When you throw in what Carry said about his fellow soldiers in Vietnam it adds up to an interesting tidbit of information.

Jordan .

James, I linked the article with the letters home. Did you read it? That book was a virtual hagiography of John Kerry! The letters were written by a Yale graduate in his mid-twenties, not some teenager. The reason it is worthwhile, and not "unfair" is they shed light on the glimmers of the man he will become from the personal thoughts of a young man. Someone else might read what he wrote and come away with something else.  They might simply be very moved by the letters, even though the stilted novelistic flourishes are inescapable. Like I said, that's fine. I've got letters from friends who were in Vietnam. None of them read like Kerry's. But none of them went on to run for the presidency either.

My own interpretation differs because I now know the 63-year-old man. Looking back, along with everything I know about John Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 70s, through his anti-Nicaragua Contra funding and up to the present, is what brings about my final analysis = anti-war warrior or reluctant warrior. I suspect Kerry wouldn't disagree with that characterization too much either, though he might go on to make a joke that would later be misinterpreted.

James, the argument that I was making has little to do with the "stuck in Iraq" comment. It also has nothing to do with "Did Kerry go to Vietnam or not, huh?" and if we all agree that he did, then that is the End of the Story. We spent a lot of time going over that "first I went to Vietnam/then I decided I was against it" stage of Kerry's career during the 2004 campaign. I'd return to it if anyone still thinks of Kerry's presidential goals as viable, but frankly I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

I also don't think you NECESSARILY get great honor and respect just because you entered the military. Pretty sure Danwhy would agree with that statement. The Vietnam War in America's history is multi-faceted. For instance, I'm sure none of us would honor the type of soldier that Kerry described as having Genghis Khan-ed a civilian village while attaching genitals to phone lines and cutting off ears. Who knows? Maybe George W Bush's Air National Guard service would hold up as somewhat more honorable than such a soldier even though the former actually went to Southeast Asia.

My opinion on this recent American cross-party political bickering is the same as yours, James. I think it's boring. It's opportunistic on the part of the Republicans. A Republican friend of mine put it this way and I agree completely.

My faux-outrage alarm goes off when I see conservatives seizing on this as Kerry's defining moment. Kerry insists he was making a joke about President Bush, not a joke about students who aren't smart enough to do better than the military. While there's virtually nothing in the text or video of his remarks to lend support for this, save a wan smile he offered to the mute audience, it's possible that was his intent. After all, Kerry is an awful politician, a human toothache with the charisma of a 190th century Oxford Latin tutor. One can't rule out the possibility that he simply botched a joke.

I can't wait until the post-election Gloat is finally here!  Or the Post-Election Cries of Fraud. In any case, I'm ready for the end of this blather until the 2008 presidential campaigning digs in its collective heels come around January 2007 or so!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"So you can see the problem bush faces here can't you?  Its too late for people to change their mind on him. I watched an interview last night with a republican strategistic (can't remember his name), who with remarkable candour, admitted Bush's unpopularity, (I beleive he hovers between 37% - 43% in most opinion polls) was causing him huge problems in trying to prevent the possiblity of Mr Bush becoming a 'lame duck president' after these upcoming elections. He pointed to he fact that it was a bad sign for republicans when Bush travels to Montana to drum up support..."

Of course I know what Bush faces. It's been too late for a LONG time to change people's mind about Bush (shoot - most minds were made up in December 2000 during the "Constitautional crisis"). And Bush is very much a liability in some areas with this current election (most US Presdients are a liability in their 6th year of their administration). Many of the most popular presidents ended up losing either both or one Congressional House to their opposing parties, including Roosevelt, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Clinton. Which helps to account for why the second term of sitting presidents are usually the worst. Bush was a lame duck president last year when he failed to get any of his legislation passed -- his lame duck status is only going to get worse whether Dems take congress or not. And this is mostly because of Iraq, but it's also because the Republican base (like myself) have been unhappy with the GOP leadership the past few years.  About 50% of Americans think that Bush is doing a poor job in Iraq. About 40% of Americans think Bush is in general doing a good job - even though our economy is good and overall things are moving along nicely. It comes back to Iraq in the end, and the way the GOP has ignored their conservatie base.

Susan, myself and others have stated years ago that Bush risked his entire presidency on Iraq. His legacy is going to be a mixed bag involving 9/11 and Iraq (unless Iraq improves dramatically in the next five years). In the end, this current election is about two things: 1) Iraq, and 2) GOP voters upset with the GOP leadership. If Iraq was better, Bush would be looking at poll numbers at at least 60%, and the GOP would be increasing their lead in Congress.

With regards to your Montana example - even though Montana has almost always voted Republican when it comes to the Presidency, their Senators and Congressmen have often been Democrats - the GOP strategist must not realize that. Furthermore, the Democrat that is running in Montana for Senator is a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. In the state we have a CONSERVATIVE Republican (who has almost lost an election or two a few years back) versus a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. I think many of us on the right have absolutely no problems with a Conservative Democrat in power - most of us will take a Conservative Donkey over a Liberal Elephant any day (like Lieberman).  

the current Democratic Party is putting themselves between a rock and a hard place. They are beginning to "allow" Conservative Democrats into the fold who oppose many of their upheld beliefs like abortion on demand, welfare programs, generally anti-religion, gay rights, etc. They know that in some states they can only win if they run a Conservative. These new Conservative Democrats agree with the GOP in almost all cases EXCEPT for the war. Webb is one of those, as is the guy up in Montana. Even Harold Ford calls himself a cosnervative Democrat (I ahve my personal doubts but I'll go with him on that one). So the Democrats are now pushing Conservative Democrats into elections in an effort to win back the Congress. The problem they are going to have is when these Conservative Dems are then "whipped" into voting against their values in order to toe the line with the Democartic Party. True Conservatives have a hard time voting against their values in an effort to toe the line (that's why Conservatives are conservatives). Thje Democratic Party is about to tick off a growing number of far left individuals within the Party (the likes of Kos and others who pushed for Lamont in CT).

so here's my prediction, if Democrats take both Senate and the House, expect them within 1 year to literally implode, much like the Republicans have done in the past year. Both parties have traded in their "values" to get and keep the power of Congress.

Jordan .

That wouldn't surprise me given the candidates they have produced since Clint-on (great simpsons episode). My antique coffee table would beat them chumps in a charisma contest.

At least Bush has character I suppose, even if its the hapless cowboy type. For somebody born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he seems at least able to speak to ordinary Americans.

Come on USA, there must be a happy medium somewhere?   Your country needs you bad!

I've been urging Jordan to become a political Happy Medium for years now. Unfortunately, he keeps ignoring the calling, preferring to make the big (evil) Republican bucks in the private sector. Now that he's about to become a daddy, maybe his civic duty hormone will kick in and within a few years we'll find him on the ballot for mayor of Kansas City. From there to President and First Lady Chambers! 

Susan

PS  Remind me to trash all his old private messages about prostitutes, massages and methamphetamines!

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin