Someone forgot to send John Derbyshire the memo: "John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here."
K-Lo denies that the Corner's all-misrepresenting-Kerry-all-the-time strategy is "part of any kind of coordinated response." That's just silly. In the new information age, pretty much all responses are coordinated responses. Statements and press releases get emailed around lightning quick, and it's perfectly clear on any given day what it is the Powers That Be would like me to be writing about. That doesn't mean anyone needs to take the bait -- I haven't, for example, been plugging the Allen Assault Gambit story -- but people know what's on-message and what isn't. The fact that Kerry's "insult" to the troops is not only a trivial matter, but wasn't actually an insult is immaterial; this is the distraction the GOP wants today, and it's a distraction conservative pundits are happy to provide.
« The PowerPoint of Doom | Main | About Those Taxes »
Uh Oh...
01 Nov 2006 10:16 am
Comments (36)
The reporter in question was Tucker Carlson, not Cooper, but yes that's spot on.
Can anyone provide a link to a longer video clip of Kerry's offending remarks in their full context? The quote I've been reading (about academic washouts getting "stuck in Iraq") kinda does lend itself to the misconstrual with which GOP pundits are making so much hay (or is it straw?) at the moment. I just wonder whether Kerry's surrounding verbiage makes his anti-Bush intent clearer.
K-Lo's menstrual cycle is co-ordinated to GOP strategy. She takes pee breaks when Tony Snow gives her a hall pass.
Can anyone provide a link to a longer video clip of Kerry's offending remarks in their full context?
Curiously, only shown once, so hard to YouTube. Stephanie Miller's producer spent all evening looking for a longer clip -- even one that included the laughter afterwards. Dean Scream, anyone? But it was preceded by two other Bush jokes.
Could it be that the blame for all this lies with whoever edited the clip and left its context on the cutting room floor?
Maybe I'm dumb, but I still don't get why Kerry doesn't just take it on face value that an ordinary, non-partisan person could reasonably conclude from that clip that Kerry thinks the military is full of failed students -- and then apologize for having created that impression.
He seems to think that by doing this, he would be giving ground to Bush. But he wouldn't be. He would be simply, respectfully, clearing up a misunderstanding and taking responsibility for the gaffe.
What you're seeing here is why Kerry lost. His vision is always clouded by ego. When the Swift Boat attacks began, Kerry assumed that everyone in America knew Kerry was a great man, so he didn't even need to dignify the Swift-boaters with a response. Now Kerry hears the calls for apology for his dumb comment as a demand that he back down on his criticism of Bush, which, manly man that he is, by golly he'll never do.
But he's missing the point. Bush might have been the INTENDED target, but Kerry missed that target and hit another target accidentally, and that's to whom he owes an apology.
To put it in terms that the left blogosphere can understand: This is like Cheney refusing to apologize to the guy he shot in the face because it should be perfectly clear to anyone that he was shooting at a pheasant.
John S: What you're seeing here is why Kerry lost. His vision is always clouded by ego.
I don't know if that's why Kerry lost, but I agree with the observation about Kerry's ego. I noticed that when I was watching some Senate committee meeting about Iraq, and Condi Rice was testifying. Kerry asked her, basically, "was it a mistake to disband the entire Iraqi army?". Rice dodged the question by pointing out that the Iraqi resistance was made up of many factions, not just former Iraqi soldiers. Instead of following up to try to get an answer to his question, Kerry's response was "Of course I know that [the diverse makeup of the Iraqi resistance]!", then he moved on to something else. In other words, Kerry was more interested in defending his expertise than in getting a straight answer out of Condi.
For what it's worth, I agree with John S. How easy it would have been for Kerry to apologize right at the start. He probably didn't because he learned the wrong lessons from the Swift Boat stuff. It's trivial, but it hurts the Dems.
Kerry absolutely should not apologize. That would appear to vindicate the right-wing attacks on him, and would show weakness.
His response was about right, substance-wise. What bothers me about this incident and his response to it, however, is that he just seems to be not clever enough verbally to be a presidential contender in '08.
The Republicans are a bunch of tools, as usual.
That said, I'm really hating Kerry right about now. What a nitwit. This is Cheney's lesbian daughter and the global test all over again.
The guy is just a terrible messenger. He messes this stuff up all the time. And I think it's really going to hurt us.
JP, I agree that Kerry has a tendency to mangle things to our detriment, but I can't blame him in this instance. It's just pure unadulterated BS from the Republicans. So was the Mary Cheney thing, IMO--there are some instances where the press and the public are just foolish about something for no good reason, and that was one of them. OTOH, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" thing was clearly his own fault.
I think the appropriate lesson to draw from this whole incident is that Kerry is a doofus, and doofuses do not generally win Presidential elections. Unless you have two doofuses running against each other, in which case the lesser doofus usually wins.
I agree that it's 99% bullshit, but Kerry sucks for constantly making things easy for them. Can you believe this is still the lead story on CNN.com? Right now, right when all the momentum was going our way.
Obviously, Kerry wasn't really insulting the troops, and in any event he isn't running for anything this year anyway. But half the voters in this country don't pay attention to details like that. They just vote on the basis of vague impressions. Kerry's comment sucks not because the content of it was so bad but because it reminds everyone of John Kerry's existence right before an election where everyone had been focusing on all the great, fresh new candidates we're running this year. And people just don't like John Kerry. He's awkward and unpersonable and he doesn't have any feel for people, and right or wrong, people have contempt for guys like that and find them to be grating. More importantly, he's yesterday's news, and this is an election where we want to get a lot of people to approach their entire outlook on politics through a new lens.
I'm of the opinion that the Mary Cheney comment cost us the election two years ago. I know that's probably a minority opinion. Just like in this case, the worst thing about that comment was its timing. Bush had just made a critical error in the same debate, saying he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden. That fit perfectly into a line of attack that the Dems had been trying for months to formulate. We could have hammered it home for the next two weeks. Then Kerry made his completely unnecessary ham-fisted remark, and then the media forgot all about Osama and grabbed the sexy lesbian storyline instead. SNL had an entire sketch devoted to it. It totally messed everything up.
Part of a good politician's skill set is avoiding giving ammunition to enemies. That things will be taken out of context and given simple-minded interpretations is a given. In a cosmic sense it's not 'fair', but mundanely it's part of the rules that every politician has to learn. If voters are sometimes 'foolish', that's tough. Getting their votes is the game.
That Kerry didn't know 'lesbian' is still a 'bad word' to much of his audience reinforced his elitist image even for those who weren't themselves offended. I'm not sure if it was a good idea for Kerry to bring up Cheney's daughter and her sexual orientation at all, but certainly there were better ways to do it.
I don't agree that the Mary Cheney thing turned the election in '04. The way it played out wasn't good for us, obviously, but I think the realization that we had skipped over bin Laden to invade Iraq for no good reason was already very much in the conventional wisdom at the time. Bush's first "I'm not concerned" comment about bin Laden happened in early 2002, for crying out loud!
In general, I agree that Kerry's already had his chance, and that he's yesterday's news. But I don't think this is going to be a big deal AT ALL with regards to this election--who cares what he has to say anymore? And there are some things where I'm just not going to let the bullshit slide in favor of blaming the candidate. The fact that mentioning someone else's openly gay daughter in a public debate is considered by most of the country to be scandalous (as opposed to mentioning one's own gay daughter in public) is a testament to how COMPLETELY FUCKING CHILDISH this country can still be on matter of sexuality. I'm not going to blame Kerry for that.
I'm not sure if it was a good idea for Kerry to bring up Cheney's daughter and her sexual orientation at all, but certainly there were better ways to do it.
I can agree with that--I'm not trying to say that it was a great idea for him to bring it up the way he did. I just think that particular instance says a lot more about the country than it says about him.
I hope you're right. It's in my DNA to preemptively despair about impending disaster. A lifetime of rooting for bad sports teams and the Democratic Party tends to do that to you.
Think about it this way--even if you think that Bush (and the Republicans, who are all piling on in exactly the same way) and Kerry look equally stupid here, then how does it affect the election? Who's more relevant to the votes that people are going to cast next week? Bush or Kerry?
the good news..in week it will be forgotten.
the better news...kerry won't run in 08
It's obviously stupid to think Kerry is more relevant. But a lot of people just don't pay attention to politics and they do stupid stuff as a result. If some non-negligible group gets the impression that Kerry is the national leader of the Democratic Party (which might seem very plausible for a person who hasn't thought about politics since November 2004) and Kerry is the last person they think of before getting into the voting booth, then the answer for them could very well be Kerry.
judson, I hope you mean six days!
I'm not very good at predicting how people who don't pay attention to politics will react to something, but the entire political landscape this fall has pretty clearly been defined by a (hopefully) critical mass of people becoming sick of GOP spin and bullshit in the wake of Iraq, Katrina, etc. Even if more of them will now go into the voting booth thinking "that Kerry is pretty lame," it won't change the fact that these voters already think that Bush and the Republicans are fucking everything up.
Also, I saw a comment on some other site where Charlie Cook had said that this Kerry business won't affect the election at all. Not that I automatically take his word as gospel about everything, but he's pretty good at recognizing the effects (or lack thereof) of these kinds of things.
Well, I hope so. I doubt that a very large percentage of voters will be affected by this. The problem is that even before this story came up, winning back the Congress was touch-and-go, lots of close races. It doesn't take a lot of voters to swing an already-close election.
I should note that now that the damage has been done, I don't think Kerry should be apologetic. He needed to explain what he meant of course, but he's absolutely right to go right back on offense.
Don't cane me for being too optimistic, but I actually don't think winning back the House is touch-and-go (the Senate still is, but the fact that they're even close there is indicative of how bad things are for the GOP). Yes, the polling says that there are a lot of close races, but that's always how it is. Even a blowout election usually depends on one side winning most of the close races--it did in '94--but as that election demonstrates, it can be deceptive to say "look at all these close races that it all depends on." True, a lot of the races are (and will be) close, and a lot depends on GOTV, etc., but the fact that Dems are up by double digits in pretty much every single generic ballot is a good indicator of how those close races will break. Put another way, it is statistically possible to have a major edge in the polling (as the Dems do) while still losing out overall because of losing a lot of close races, but...it's really, really unlikely. One can go back and look at the '94 results and say "wow, if only the Dems had won a few more votes here and a few more votes there, it would have been different." Yes, but by far the most important reason they lost a whole bunch of close races was because the national landscape was so favorable to the Republicans.
Shorter me: yes, it doesn't take a lot of voters to swing an already close election, but this election (in the House) isn't close. Just because there are a lot of close races doesn't necessarily mean that the election itself is close.
OK, well I'm feeling a little better about it now (even though it's still the lead story on CNN.com, dammit! I mean seriously, WTF is wrong with the media).
Anyway, if the Dems still pick up 30 in the House, I'll owe you a drink and be happy about it (although in the back of my mind I'll still probably think it would have been 40 if not for Kerry)
Actually, something nobody seems to have commented on is the fact that all the Republicans have been specifically demanding that Kerry apologize is NOT par for the course for them. A common refrain on liberal blogs in '04 was that Kerry, Edwards, etc. needed to stop saying that "the president should apologize" for this, that, or whatever when attacking him. Just slam him and leave it at that. But now that Kerry HAS apologized in writing, as per CNN's all-Kerry-all-the-time coverage, where's the story? Bush and company didn't come out swinging about how ALL Democrats hate the troops, ALL Dems think troops are stupid, etc. They just slammed Kerry and demanded an apology, and...now they've gotten it. I won't put anything past CNN at this point, but seriously, where do they go with this from now?
the better news...kerry won't run in 08
Dan Drezner links to a Guardian post about this very topic:
"Yesterday was, in fact, a tremendous day for the Democratic Party. John Forbes Kerry, uniquely among his fellow Americans, genuinely appeared to believe that the next President of the United States could be John Forbes Kerry. Much in the same way as Nixon ran against Kennedy, was defeated, and came back, Kerry thought his phoenix could rise again. That is now not going to happen. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. John Kerry 2008. RIP...."
That seems to me to be exactly right.
That seems to me to be exactly right.
I've just placed a bet on Kerry to win in 2008. Al. You're always a reliable beacon.
Ugh. Now I'm depressed again. The local news radio station on my way home was wall-to-wall Kerry coverage, and it was all bad. They did report that Kerry had denied that he was insulting the troops. But they said he did it in a "carefully worded prepared statement" and that he "called" it a botched joke. And they didn't give any of the evidence in support of Kerry's claim. They just made it look like another dishonest celebrity, caught redhanded and giving a non-apology apology.
I wonder if this coverage is characteristic. I'm not as concerned about the cable news stations. But most people get their news from local news radio while they're trying to hear the traffic and weather. This has the potential to do real damage.
My theory is that typically, uninformed voters are motivated mainly by spite. They don't rationally weigh out the policy positions of the various candidates. Rather, they think of those politicians who annoy them most (whether they're on their ballots or not) and then they fantasize to themselves "boy I wish I could see the look on his face when I vote against the people he wishes I'd vote for." There are a substantial number of people like this, and they could really be ripe for the picking with a story like this if they believe the GOP spin.
I really think that Kerry might have pulled a Buckner on us, right when a huge victory was at hand. I'm having difficulty not hating him right now. Yes it's obvious that he wasn't really insulting the troops and that the Republicans are all lying about him. But screwups are not acceptable either. After the '86 Series, the Boston fans booed Buckner out of town until the team had to release him. If this mistake ends up costing us, that should be the exact reaction that we give to Kerry.
"If you don't study hard you get a tard for a president and a boneheaded policy that you get to go fight for. We had fears that this country's education system was in decline, but all of the idiots that continue to support and enable the current clown show in charge provide proof that we are not only enmired in Iraq, but enmired in idiocy at home. So wake the f**k up, and if you don't like it, f**k off."
I still think you're being a wuss, JP. I don't doubt your report about the terrible coverage. But your arguments are based on the assumption that all these people are just looking for a reason to vote against the Democrats in this election. Yet absolutely EVERYTHING we've seen in ALL the polling data from across the country suggests that this is not even remotely close to the truth.
Also, JP, remember that Buckner's error only came AFTER the Red Sox had ALREADY blown a 2-run lead in the bottom of the 10th with 2 outs and no runners on. They had already choked the lead away before Buckner's error sealed their loss in that game. But the Dems' position in the House is more like being up by 6 runs with 2 outs and no runners on.
I've just placed a bet on Kerry to win in 2008. Al. You're always a reliable beacon.
Too bad you're pseudonymous and I'm anonymous. Because I'd be willing to put a few Cs on that.
OK, latest update from CNN, which STILL HAS THIS BULLSHIT AS ITS TOP STORY:
The White House quickly issued a response [to Kerry's apology], saying, "Sen. Kerry's apology to the troops for his insulting comments came late, but it was the right thing to do."
That's officially it. Story over.
On the Adam Corolla Show this morning, Adam said he didn't have any problem with Kerry insulting the military. However, he did demand that Kerry apologize for botching the joke.
Also, JP, remember that Buckner's error only came AFTER the Red Sox had ALREADY blown a 2-run lead in the bottom of the 10th with 2 outs and no runners on.
Yes, I was hoping no one would point that out. I thought about using Bartman or Leon Durham instead, but Buckner seemed to carry more rhetorical flair.
Anyway - again, hopefully you're right. Regardless, though, can we still kick Kerry out of the party? The guy just plain sucks at his job. It's astonishing that we can even be having this discussion about whether or not he ruined the election in a year when he isn't even running for anything. It reminds me of nothing so much as that episode from The Simpsons where the nuclear inspectors come to the power plant and make Homer run a simulation of how he would handle a crisis with the reactor. "I still don't know how he caused the meltdown! There wasn't any nuclear material inside the truck!"
On the balance of things, Kerry does more good than bad for the party, like in terms of fundraising this year. This instance is just a bizarre confluence of Teh Stupid from a lot of external sources that somehow came into alignment. It was a fairly understandable gaffe, actually--looking at the context, I'm sure he thought that "you get stuck in Iraq" was no less clearly referring to Bush than the actual text that was prepared. And, really, it wasn't. It's not his fault that a lot of people are content with pretending to be morons.
Nonetheless, it is another example of his tendency to mangle things a bit, which inevitably leads to some occasions where it comes back to bite him. All the "at least this eliminates him from 2008" commentary is also pretty silly. He wasn't going to get nominated again even before this.
Comments closed November 15, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The internet made pols of us all. The famous story about Karen Hughes lying to the reporter's face (Anderson Cooper?) when both sides knew she was lying and both sides knew the other knew etc?That kind of behavior isn't reserved for pols anymore. (Cue Tony "Yellow" Snow)
It seems a badge of honor that if the pols themselves are lying that no blogger worth his (bile) salt demurs. They pitch in and lie, too. This probably isn't a purely Republican problem, but like the current ratio of negative campaign ads, it is definitely an overwhelmingly Republican problem.
It is, to put it mildly, a despairing gesture. I remember when I first noticed it (I'm fairly stupid and inattentive): the forced cackles of denial surrounding the Arkansas Project. It was obvious that Republican right wingers were engaging in a conspiracy and yet, on cue, here were the distinctly sulfurous cackles of denial about a right wing conspiracy. It's as if they regretted not being a hands on contributor to our demise as a functioning democracy. Those *cackles* were their little bit to help.
Despair.
So, high dudgeon lies about Kerry? The least they could do. High dudgeon lies about Webb's salaciousness. No problem. And on and on and on. It reminds me of the soul sick miasma that the Soviet Union produced. A culture of lying for the cause. It's the least they can do.
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 1, 2006 10:42 AM