| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Pitiful mewling from TIME's J Klein on sKerry's ouchie |
| 2004-09-04 |
| OMG! This is soooooo deserving of a complete fisking. Klein has fully entered the barking phase of moonbatdom. READ THE LAST TWO SENTENCES. All I can say is, I hope sKerry goes for it. He will go down in flames. It should be noted that, after a long, lifeless recitation of an illusory domestic policy, George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention came alive when the President gleefully skewered John Kerry's foolish claim to be the candidate of "conservative values." It was the pivotal moment of the speech. From there, Bush went on to his favorite topic—his decisiveness in the war against terrorism, the need to stand firm, the need to be plainspoken. For those who hadn't fallen asleep during the domestic policy trudge, this was a very effective speech—and it followed a very effective, if sometimes sleazy convention. The message of the week was: You know where Bush stands. You can't be sure about Kerry. But that headline also came with a misleading subhead: Bush is fighting the war against terrorism, and Kerry wouldn't. It was a theme that was pounded from the very start of the convention, and it depended on a sly conflation— the notion that the war in Iraq and the war against the 9/11 terrorists were one and the same. We heard far more about Bush in the World Trade Center rubble than we did about the U.S. in the Iraqi quagmire. And when Iraq was raised, it was done in a deceptive and simpleminded way. Even John McCain, who gave the most serious foreign policy speech of the week, presented a false choice: "Our choice [in Iraq] wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat." Actually, there were at least three choices: doing nothing about Saddam, going to war as Bush did or doubling down on the war against al-Qaeda, as Senator Bob Graham and others suggested at the time. Unfortunately, a serious discussion of the best way to fight Islamist radicalism isn't in the cards this election year. In any case, campaign politics isn't about details. It is about impressions: Bush conveys an impression of strength—and the Republicans tried very hard last week to convey the impression that Kerry is Fifi the French poodle. (Fifi debated Barney, the Bush family dog, in an allegedly comic film shown at the convention.) |
| Posted by:Brett_the_Quarkian |
| #8 :-) *ahem* is Natasha as hot as she looks? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-05 8:12:27 AM |
| #7 I've watched this Burns character for years, I think he may be a sissy. BTW Badanov is that your real name? Sounds vaguely commie. I'm writting it down in my notebook, in semi-visible, purple ink. |
| Posted by: Col Flagg 2004-09-05 7:39:13 AM |
| #6 The only way for Kerry to save his candidacy now would be for him to 1) sister souljah Mikey and Howie about the war and 2) change the subject, as follows: "I support the president completely on the war. Now let's talk about health care and the economy...." |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-05 12:06:58 AM |
| #5 Ya'll remember M*A*S*H? the smarmy leftwing pseudo-comedy, which relied in a fevered leftwing visage of a conservative Christian ( Frank Burns )as a characature of everything anti-war people are against, which was the main theme of the show. Well, guess what? Payback's a bitch, and she's in heat. We have the left's Frank Burns in the person of John Kerry, a man, to paraphrase Hawkeye, whose character we can all vouch for except he doesn't have any. The left in its infinite reliance of the idea that the wish is father to the thought, nominated a man who: 1) retains strong leftwing views 2) who could lie glibly about those views and 3) who could run through the primary process with zero vetting by either the press or democrats; If all those condition could be fulfilled, then Kerry could sail through to November. The only problem is that Kerry lacks two things the lack of which gets him reelected in Massachusett's but wouldn'teven get him to mayor of any 'flyover' city and that is character and honor. Character and honor, two things that must be earned in every area of life, not just in politics or in the military, both ideals absolutely necessary to having and maintaining trust, neither of which can be provided through a sympathetic press. The democrat party really screwed up this time, believeing that with a sympathetic press, they could blow this leftist by the electorate. But payday is les than 60 days away and all those who believe that honor and character are real ideals to have in a leader; all ya gotta do is show up to the polls. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-04 11:43:39 PM |
| #4 ....after the G.O.P. assault, Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity. Kerry has made a career out of exaggeration without any provocation from anyone. That's his problem and it's finally catching up to him. The partisan press is full steam ahead at providing cover for THEIR hero. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-09-04 10:13:56 PM |
| #3 I suggest that all articles on this subject be moved to Page 2. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-04 10:06:46 PM |
| #2 So much for any pretensions that Time might have had about being a news magazine. If this bozo could write more succinctly, he might have a future on the Democrat Underground. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-09-04 9:44:45 PM |
| #1 **cough**cough** Loser **cough** Loser... I cannot believe the drivel that this guy is spewing..."For those who hadn’t fallen asleep during the domestic policy trudge"...The President had more to say than Kerry did and was quite intresting to me. Some good ideas are to be found in that speech. |
| Posted by: SCpatriot 2004-09-04 9:36:45 PM |