Tuesday, October 31, 2006
|
|
The Front Page at CNN (Kerry Continued)
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
2:17 PM
|
|
Right now, there is no mention of Kerry, despite his comments being the political story of the day.
There is, however, a hard-hitting piece on the President entitled, "Bush out of his skirt, but into cheerleading."
Are they serious?
Weird, huh? Well, maybe not that weird.
Kerry press conference in a moment. This oughtta be Nutroots gold!
Update: Kerry says he "makes no apology," and comes out swinging. Wow. He calls it a criticism of Bush, not the troops and says we're distorting his words. Let's go to the tape, shall we?
If I'm hearing this correctly, he's saying McCain, in asking for an apology, is lying about what Kerry said. But he's not. If he wants to make the case that he mispoke, fine. Make it. Don't call the rest of us liars for hearing exactly what you said. He's fighting the stupid fight the Nutroots wanted him to fight two years ago. It was counterproductive then and it still is.
"John McCain oughtta ask for an apology from Dick Cheney...he oughtta ask for an apology from Donald Rumsfeld."
"May the American people take that shame with them to the polls on Tuesday." Huh?
I think Allah will have video.
Update: Here's the video, and it's rich.
|
|
CNN is probably writing a really really big expose on the whole thing, and they want to take their time to get it right.
What's with all this "I want the news and I want it now!" mentality? |
|
|
|
This could be a disaster for the GOP. They should not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I'm a conservative GOP voter, and even I can see what Kerry actually meant to say. And while the intended comment was snarky and nasty, it does not warrant this kind of attention. It's typical Kerry.
The GOP does not have the MSM on its side. It never has. This story WILL be spun in the favor of Kerry and the Dems. They need to accept his explanation and move on. It's the right thing to do and they're not going to attract any votes by hammering him on it.
My prediction is that if they push this, it will hurt them come election day, just as George Allen's "revelation" of the contents of Jim Webb's ancient novels appears to be hurting the GOP in VA.
Remember that President Bush has been known to mangle a phrase here and there. What do we ask when that happens? Don't take him literally and/or give him the benefit of the doubt. The same applies here. Do not sink to their level. Please. |
|
|
Here's the thing. He's not making the case that he mispoke. He should apologize and explain that he mispoke, if that's what he did, but he didn't do that. Instead, he refuses to apologize and accuses others of distorting him when we're just running the YouTube of what he said. We have it ON TAPE. These are the words he said. He should own up to them instead of calling McCain and the rest of us liars because HE mispoke. It heaps on the rudeness instead of fixing it. But I take your point about the media. I think you may be right about that. |
|
|
Really conservatives don't care how CNN spins anything. News it's not on that liberal blab channel. |
|
|
I thought maybe Kerry misspoke too until I saw that first non-apology he issued. |
|
It doesn't appear to have hit Drudge as of yet, but I believe he has tried to correct the record. I heard Spencer Hughes air about 60 seconds of a press conference today. It wasn't much, of course, but Kerry clearly stated that it was intended as a jab at the president alone.
Honestly, if the GOP/GOP commentators understood his intent, they deserve Kerry's scorn, although he's surely trying to ham (forgive me) it up for political gain. But so are they.
They should lay off. It's the safe play so close to the election. I don't like Kerry. Not one little bit. But I know conservatives consider themselves fair, rational people. Rushing to hang Kerry with his words will not come off as either fair or rational when we all now (or soon will) understand exactly what he intended to say. |
|
|
I can't believe Kerry is selling this as a joke against Bush and some in the media are buying it. Today's hissyfit of a presser he had no trouble saying "President Bush", in 2004 no problems attacking Bush and using the words "President Bush", yet during this 'joke' he doesn't use the words "President Bush". Also look at the clip he isn't smiling or laughing or anything that shows it to be a joke. And, honestly whats the joke study hard and do well in school or you might become President of the United States? |
|
One question on this line:
"Don't call the rest of us liars for hearing exactly what you said."
Yeah you "heard" what he said, but the bigger point is how you "translate" what he said. Obviously those who dislike Kerry WANT him to have said something as outrageous as "the troops are uneducated", but how can you honestly believe that's what John Kerry really meant?
Do you think John Kerry really meant to say our troops are uneducated? If so why do you think Kerry would consider this a good idea? More importantly, why do you think someone who did serve in the miltary and see combat would drop a line like this?
If you don't think Kerry really meant the troops, and did just butcher some lame joke about Bush, then how irresponsible is it to claim he did?
|
|
ON my final line, instead of saying:
"If you don't think Kerry really meant the troops, and did just butcher some lame joke about Bush, then how irresponsible is it to claim he did?"
That shouls read: "....then how irresponsible is it to claim that he really meant to insult every single member of our armed services?" |
|
|
I always attempt to immediately correct it. When I don't make an error with the joke, I don't. I think it works that way with most people. |
|
PLEASE READ
something about the "kerry was obviously referring to bush" spin which needs to be slapped down hard is the "obviously" part.
progressives have been doing battle with the institution of an all-volunteer military since mid 2003, branding it early on as a "poverty draft".
the battle became formalized and physical with the so-called "counter-recruiting" movement and tactics developed by the afsc. this gave members of the media and pundits a means to newsify their agenda against our armed forces. when counter-recruiters were active, any seasonal dip in recruiting numbers were eagerly promoted through alarmist news items.
but two years of examination disproved the assertion that counter-recruiters presented any real effect on recruiting numbers. the media elites' explaination for this phenomenon has been to reaffirrm their base conciet that the only type of person capable of military duty is stupid by issuing news items asserting that the military has lowered its recruiting standards.
a google search of "lowered" "recruiting" "standards" results in thousands of hits from both the mainstream and leftwing activist media:
http://www.slate.com/id/2127487/ (uses the term "dumbing down" to describe new recruits)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197832/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1004-01.htm
etc.
other terms may be as effective. the point is that the leftwing conciet that military servicemembers are charictarized by intellectual inferiority, and that it is the noble concern of decent people that the military is the leading predator of our nation's stupid, is one which is profligate and comfortably shared amongst the left.
in stark contradiction of the notion that kerry "obviously" could not have meant the troops, it is in fact unlikely that he intended to convey otherwise. his message was not meant to his thinking with wanton malice. rather his intention was to spur his audience to moral action - to strengthen education as an alternative to the predatory appeals of military service.
of course, a shorter route to disproving kerry's spin is to try to parse bush into kerry's statement:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you [may become a president who get's our country] stuck in Iraq."
i mean, honestly.
|
|
|
|