Monday, November 21, 2005

Senator Kerry

Sorry the picture wasn't steadyI saw Senator Kerry today...his office is within walking distance of my station...I walked there with my gear...and he had some things to say about the Vice President as well as the war in Iraq...He was referring to something Cheney had spoken about earlier today...Cheney mentioned that some congressmen are trying to lead the American people to believe that the American soldiers were led to war by a "deliberate falsehood"Kerry says that the White House (Bush and Cheney) has been misleading the American people...and that the congress was not given all the information before they voted in favor of going into Iraq...when asked if he thought Bush lied...he would not bring himself to say yes...instead saying "Never used that word...don't like the word..." and when a reporter asked what the difference was "It's a question of intent...They've misled America and they're still misleading Americans... (slight pause) You can fight about the words." I told Hooter about that statement and he said that is a pure example of why Kerry "didn't win the election...You have to be willing to hang yourself sometimes..." (by which I learned in our further conversation meant he has to stand for something and make decisions)

3 comments: said...

Just say "lied" and be a man.

Did you know that Kerry got a 1 pt lower GPA than Bush (the dumbass) during his years at the same college? What the F? That's a sin that he didn't mention it- and what's worse is that Howard Dean wasn't held high by the looser dems.

But more importantly, let's get to the "hell yes" video by Beck. Seriously. That's the greatest video of all time. ROBOTS ROBOTS ROBOTS!

HOOTEE said...

to clarify your post...being willing to hang yourself means you have to have the balls to step and say shit that could get you attacked by your opponent...and not water it down.

if Kerry would have run on the platform that "the Bush administration is a bunch of greedy souless fucksticks who don't care if you live or die", he would have done a whole lot better.

instead he chose to take the "high road" and use his poor man's George Plimpton routine. blooded retorts are going to win you alot of votes.

people need to scream a little bit louder if they want to be heard. and then when Fox News roles in and tries to bury them, they need to be ready to fight back and nail the sons of bitches!

i really want to make a movie one day that millions of people go to see. but at the same time, i want to work on a campaign for a presidential candidate and be able to stick it to the fucking retards that sit up on high and consider themselves journalists. it makes me fucking sick to be in the same occupational category as them. If I ever meet Sean Hannity, I may need to be restrained!

Just so you trigger happy conservatives don't get all pissy...I fucking hate democrats too! While the republicans are a bunch of greedy souless assholes, the democrats are the idiots who stand day after day at the playground and let the bully beat the piss out of them.

I don't know which side is more pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, let me preface this by saying. . . . .

I'm right.

Secondly let me say . . .it's unlikely I'm going to comment on a blog about Harry Potter and house cats. . . just not gonna happen.

Thirdly, let me offer my take on the ineptitute of modern political communication (on both the left and right -- Kerry AND Bush). The Democrats have found themselves in a pickle because . . .simply put . . .they are the party of REACTIONARY rhetoric. Rather than try to be "opinion leaders," stating their arguments clearly and forcefully they only challenge the arguments of the Republicans. Hence John Kerry's quandry. If he admits Bush lied . . . he must neccessarily admit he believed such a lie, which makes him look foolish at best (or lazy at worst, because if you're a high ranking Senator you should have done your homework on the sources of our national security intel).

As for the elephants. . .here's the problem with their rhetoric: They prefer fear to logic. If Cheney and Rumsfeld's ultimate goal was to invade Iraq . . .they might have made a well reasoned argument not relying on the "wmd" scare tactic. It might have looked something like this:

1. The only way to stop the insidious spread of fundamentalist terrorism is to plant the seeds of democracy in the middle east.

2. The tragedy of 9-11 requires us to abandon our half-hearted policy of pursuing democracy DIPLOMATICALLY . . . in favor of a more aggressive policy which MAY include the use of force.

3. Our new policy will be guided by a ZERO-TOLERANCE approach to rouge regimes (i.e. regimes that defy UN sanctions). We can liken it to Giuliani's approach to crime in NYC. State sponsored small infractions (like firing rockets at planes patroling no-fly zones) can now be viewed as cause for invasion and "regime change." If you think about it, it was this "means justifies the ends" method that allowed NYC to clean up its streets. Loitering may not be a serious offence, but by dealing with it harshly you rid the streets of the people who are more likely to commit more serious crimes. In the same way. . .. denying weapons inspectors may seem insignificant, but by dealing with it harshly. . you demonstrate you will find ANY AND EVERY excuse to attack fascism in favor of liberty.

This, is an argument that employs logic over fear . . .. and make no mistake, in the days and months after September 11th, the people of this country would have been receptive to it. Instead the party in power decided it was easier to convince John Kerry and the donkeys that Saddam had a big pile of nuclear weapons burried in the Iraqi desert. Call me crazy, but from day one. . . I never bought it.