ELF snip
But none of that matters. If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.
Have I got that right?
Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit. And once John Kerry holds that summit all our troubles are over. Summit time and the livin' is easy, fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin' ... No, hang on, your wife is rich and your manicure's good-lookin' ... 'kinda get the feeling Mark isn't voting for Kerry..
Posted by: Sherry ||
10/03/2004 12:58:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gotta enjoy that humorous assault. Steyn is our weapon of Kerry destruction
Posted by: Capt America ||
10/03/2004 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...and by the way did I tell you about my heroic deeds and service in Vietnam. I am also Arabic, Jewish, French, Christian and whatever else you got that votes.
I cannot conceive of Kerry getting elected. He will drive us all crazy trying to figure out what his positions are. There is no divining rod, score card, roadmap, etc. that will help. THERE IS NO KERRY PLAN,
Let's just not elect him. That seems simple. Look folks, there is just nothing there to like about the guy-there is no substance-no beliefs-no positions-no nothing!
The mideast situation is far to serious to wait for Kerry to figure it out and take a position. The stakes are very high.
Posted by: John ||
10/03/2004 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I really view Kerry's running as simply another one of his personal goals and hopeful accomplishments. It doesn't seem like he cares about being President, he just wants the title.
Quite a resume: Yale, Navy Officer, Vietnam Hero/Anti-Hero, Activist, Lawyer, Senator, Husband to a couple of rich women, and now possibly President. What more could he be except Commander of Star Fleet? I can just see him getting elected, and letting his minions run amok because he just doesn't care what happens after he inherits the title. That's what scares me.
Unfortunately, I can: Bush's performance in the debate seems to have freaked a lot of people out, and polls suggest Kerry could actually win. But I think in the sense you meant it, no, I can't conceive of him being president, either; the thought is too horrible.
"He will drive us all crazy trying to figure out what his positions are. There is no divining rod, score card, roadmap, etc. that will help."
I dunno about that. If you look at his post-Vietnam politicking and his 20 years in the Senate, a pretty clear picture emerges: he's an extreme liberal peacenik, molded in the anti-Vietnam War protests, the Nuclear Freeze Movement of the 80's, and the pro-Sandinista Marxist faction of the Democratic Senate of the 80's. He voted against kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. He's voted against many, perhaps most, of the weapons systems that are vital to the success of our military and the survivability of our troops. He's a blame-America-firster: the reason France and Germany wouldn't ally with us against Saddam isn't that their leaders are cynical and corrupt, he says, it's that we were arrogant towards them and weren't nice enough. We don't play well with others, and he'll fix that by building REAL coalitions. Right.
What would Kerry do as President? It's clear enough to me: he would be true to form, and faithful to all the instincts he has displayed over the years. And that means he would be another Jimmy Carter, but even more spineless-- yes, such an abomination is actually possible.
Foreign leaders are watching this election as closely as they've watched any U.S. election in the last half-century. No doubt they, too have been formulating their own predictions of what a Kerry presidency would be like, and those predictions are probably very much along the lines of what I wrote above.
And they will act on those predictions. Count on it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/03/2004 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dave D. -- Exactly.
"President" Kerry to the rest of the world, "Now that I'm President, what would you like me to do to make your lives easier? I'll do anything you say so we can all get along, because America's been so bad and mean."
#6
Bush's performance in the debate seems to have freaked a lot of people out, and polls suggest Kerry could actually win
Yes, that's how I pick my presidents in these dangerous times. I pick them based on their performance in one debate. Bush was hunched over and bit his lip several times. Most freaky of all was that, several times, he paused too long before answering. I mean OMG!! What does that say!!!
It's been difficult for me this year, though. With the polls changing so often, I've had to keep changing my mind. Since Kerry is up now...I wonder...is there something wrong with me that I too don't support Kerry? I must wait to see what the future polls say before I decide what I think.
Kerry to Hu Flung Dung (or whoever the hell's in charge of Red China these days): go ahead and attack Taiwan, we're too timid to stop you.
Kerry to Kim Jong Il and his NorK Orcs: go ahead and nuke Seoul (and Tokyo, too, if you have the urge): we're too timid to stop you.
Kerry to Musharraff: your hand are too dirty, and our hands are too dainty, for you to be our allies anymore. We don't want your help.
Kerry to Israel: stop mistreating those Palestinians! They only do the suicide boomer thingie because you're so MEAN to them, so Mr. Sharon, tear down that wall!
Kerry to the Mad Mullahs: we're sorry that terrible man called you part of the Axis of Evil; here, will you forgive us if we give you some enriched uranium?
And finally (and I think this one scares me more than any of the others), Kerry to U.S. Troops: F*ck you, you baby-killers.
If Kerry wins, we're going to be confronted by a world which is suddenly a **LOT** more dangerous than it is now.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/03/2004 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If the MSM would only do 1/2 of what we expect it to do, report the truth - rather than shill for Kerry - this election would have been over a long time ago.
But expect them to get more shrill and dish out more outrageous lies to fool the masses in the coming 30 days.
#9
Much as I hate to break up this commiseration-fest, alls ya'll gotta do is show up at the polls Nov. 2nd.
Bush didn't have to do all that well in this first debate, and so he didn't, but his poll numbers on national security are still strong. Kerry may have scored some points with this 'punditi' who wank off in front of clips of J. Fn. Kerry speaking, but that doesn't make him a viable candidate. Our media people won't make note of this because they, like Kerry, would sell their very souls to the devil for another leftist presidency.
Ultimately Kerry came off as a petty, sniping, waffling, leftist internationalist, who would have NO PROBLEM in selling our security down the river for a second term, if he gets in; a patrician's patrician. Paraphrasing Dean Wormer: French and haughty is no way to go through life, son." Ultimately Kerry cannot run away from this performance in this first debate. And I am certain Messrs Gillespie and Rove will remind voter of Kerry's personal vacuousness
To me, Kerry is like a clown at a kid's party. Funny and cute, ya gotta love the guy and his antics; the kids are laughing, and its a great time. Then one by one parents and adults begin to notice not only is this clown performing without any pants on, he also has a huge boner. Too polite to throw this clown out parents begin to notice that other parents have noticed this without saying a single word; it is clear if this f*cker doesn't put on his pants and leave the parents as a collective mass will sent him packing.
#10
Sometimes I think we are all preaching to the choir on Rantburg. I wonder how wide Rantburg's audience is?
I don't think the MSM is about to change. I think they will continue to shill for left wing elitest Democrats. First Amendment guarantees the right to be a shill.
I do have great concern over a President Kerry. I agree with the above remarks that the world will become a more dangerous place under Kerry. I do agree with #4 about the consistency of Kerry's record that is truly scary.
The polls are about even if you can believe them. Unfortunately, the polls have become very biased I believe. Polls are used to try to get a "bandwagon effect" going for a candidate. One has to look at who is conducting the poll just as who is writing the news piece. The only real poll that matters is the one on November 2 and what the outcome is on November 3.
Posted by: John ||
10/03/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"Then one by one parents and adults begin to notice not only is this clown performing without any pants on, he also has a huge boner."
Oh, no, not ANOTHER Bill Clinton!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/03/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The clown analogy is maybe more accurate if one thinks about the clown John Wayne Gacy played at parties in Chicago area...as the body count went up. I have trouble accepting the funny and cute part of the image.
#9 seems to me to be on target--maybe except for the clown imagery. Hey, THROW THE CLOWN WITH THE BONER OUT!!!
Posted by: John ||
10/03/2004 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The clown analogy was to illustrate that above the din and spin of the left ( the clown ), voters (parents ) know a bad choice when they see it and will act accordingly.
Voters may well keep undergoing this bandwagon effect, but ultimately, they will vote for the sane candidate.
#14
I saw the recent polls but I can't find anyone who changed their vote due to the debate last week. Yes JFK looked pretty up on stage but he said nothing of substance. After the debate noone in the Kerry camp could still pinpoint his position and his 'plan' for the future. Still Bush's race to loose and I think he will due a lot better at the town hall and watch the evasiveness of JFK.
#15
Kerry won a skirmish but opened up a huge window of vulnerability in the process.
Unbelievably, the man advocated unilateral disarmament and other foolish positions that show he hasn't learned a thing since his peacenik/nuclear freeze days.
The man passionately believes we should give up our bunker-busters and at the same give nuclear fuel to Iran. Suicidal incoherence. Eighties-era leftist idiocy.
Rove, Bush and Cheney need to be all over this, and fast. Kerry is far more dangerous to this country's security than anyone imagined.
#16
Did Kerry support Clinton's DefSec, Wm Perry, in 1996 when he and his subordinate Harold Smith threatened Qaddafi with use of the B61-11 bunker-buster and thereby forced Q-man to halt his underground nuke program?
Rove needs to get all over this one. Electing Kerry in the face of a soon-to-be nuclear Iran would be like electing freezenik Jonathan Schell during Andropov's day.
#17
Bush during the debate said Kerry has a pre 911 mentality. He should also have said he has a very very left appeasement mentality. He is dangerous to this country because of this goofiness. View the image on the net of Kerry playing the guitar (and imagine him singing Kumbayah). Kerry is stuck in the 60s--lost in the fog, incapable of defending this country.
Posted by: John ||
10/03/2004 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
Those of us who've been sweet on George W Bush for a long time have got used to these moments. In Thursday night's televised debate with John Kerry, he wasn't wrong on the substance, he just didn't have enough of it.
He was in the same state he was in in early 2003, just before launching the Iraq war, when he was tired and punchy and stumbling round the country not making a case against Saddam but just droning the same phrases over and over: "He's a dictator." Smirk. "He gassed his own people." Smirk.
On Thursday, his own people seemed to have gassed him. Bush droned, repeatedly, that Kerry was sending "mixed messages", but his own message could have done with being a little less robotically unmixed. He said: "It's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard - and it's hard work. It is hard work," again and again, round in circles.
And it is, no doubt. It's tough and it's hard work and it's incredibly hard doing the title number of Singin' in the Rain, but Gene Kelly made it seem blithe and effortless and graceful.
And the President of the United States owes his people a performance - in wartime especially. Churchill didn't just communicate the weight of the burden that he carried but also that he had the strength to bear it.
But who needs Churchill? It's not just that Tony Blair or John Howard of Australia could have done the job much more convincingly. Almost any of us armchair warriors could have put down John Kerry's feeble generalisations better than Bush did.
And yes, it's true, if you hadn't been following the election campaign closely till Thursday night, Senator Kerry wasn't as pompous or as boring or even as orange as some of us had led you to believe (his sudden tan had been much remarked on in the days beforehand) - though his lipstick was a slightly distracting shade and he would have been better advised to ease up on what was either his simultaneous signing for the deaf or an amusing impression of the stewardess pointing out the track lighting to the emergency doors. Perhaps the hand movements were just to show off the manicure he'd had during the day, while Bush was out putting his arms round Florida's hurricane victims.
But none of that matters. If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorise Bush to go to the UN but Bush failed to pass "the global test" so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.
Have I got that right?
Oh, and he'll call a summit. "I have a plan to have a summit. I'm going to hold that summit. We can be successful in Iraq with a summit. The kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together." Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU Deputy Defence Ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit. And once John Kerry holds that summit all our troubles are over.
Having met him, I'm sceptical of Kerry's extraordinarily high valuation of his personal charm. But the notion that he'll be able to bring the French on board would seem to be at odds with Jean-Pierre Rafarin, the French prime minister's aside to a representative of Le Figaro the other day that "the Iraqi insurgents are our best allies". In a summit showdown between Chirac and Rafarin on the one hand and Kerry on the other, I bet on the Gallic weasels.
In his pre-baked soundbite of the night, Kerry said: "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the President made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"
Interesting question. The play-by-play pundits thought it brilliant, but I beg to differ. It would have been a better line if he'd said: "But the President's made a mistake in how he's fighting this war. Which is worse?" There may be a majority that thinks post-Saddam Iraq has been screwed up; there's not a clear, exploitable majority that thinks toppling Saddam was a disaster, and Kerry can't build one in the next month.
But it would still have been a lousy line for this reason: "Talking about" stuff is all Kerry's got. He has no executive experience, he has never run a state, never founded a company, built a business, made payroll. Post-Vietnam, all he's done is talk and vote. For 20 years in the US Senate: talk, vote, talk, vote. So, if his talking and voting are wrong, what else is there?
Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly.
He communicates the reality of the September 12th world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest. Mr Kerry thinks he can rebuild the polite fictions of September 10.
A majority of the American people - albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be - gets this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate. He got a technical win on points from the pundits, but this election won't be won on points. It's primal. The pundits keep missing this.
They thought Kerry was good in the debate, just as he was good in his convention speech, because on both occasions he was tactically artful. But that's not going to cut it. We're post-Clinton: you can't triangulate your way to victory.
#1
Steyn's brilliant as always but the Bush team needs to start viewing themselves as the underdog in this race, rip Kerry to shreds on Iran, and show the non-Rantburg-reading common folk some laser-focused leadership and a strategy for victory in Iraq.
This kind of answer, in front of 62 million TV viewers, won't cut it:
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work. You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loves ones who lost a son or a daughter or husband and wife."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
