« The Anti-War Kerry | Main | Oprah's Car Giveaway Not Quite "Free" »

Desperation Time

I sense a shift to wholesale desperation mode in the Democratic party.

Perhaps the best barometer of how the new attack version of candidate Kerry is coming off to average Americans is best shown by paraphrasing a question from a 4th grader calling in to the Sean Hannity show:

"Why is Senator Kerry saying all these mean things about President Bush instead of saying nice things about himself?"
Why indeed...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Desperation Time:

» Editors in Pajamas linked with Insomnia blogging

» Secure Liberty linked with Imus this morning

» Christian Grantham linked with Dan Rather vs George Bush on the facts

» :: Political Musings :: linked with Desperation

» Slant Point linked with Back Draft II: Kerry Replaces SPAM

» The American Mind linked with More Democrat Desparation

» Right Moment linked with This could be the last flip flop post

Comments (19)

btw, in his speeches when h... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

btw, in his speeches when he talks about the cost of war, he tells the people that money could be used to educate their children, that money could be used to help defray the costs for healthcare for the elderly, that money would make sure no child was left behind, et al.
~C

"Why is Senator Kerry sayin... (Below threshold)

"Why is Senator Kerry saying all these mean things about President Bush instead of saying nice things about himself?"

Could it be because the basset-faced traitor is a flacid tool?

Why? Because he's getting h... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Why? Because he's getting his talking points from Theresa. And apparently she doesn't have a nice thing to say about anyone! Not even hubby. I wonder if the Secret Service has codenamed him "Wind Chime" Afterall, he plays a different tune to every passing breeze.

One need only revisit the W... (Below threshold)

One need only revisit the Winter Soldier investigation, John Kerry / John O'Neill debate on the Dick Cavett Show -- June 30, 1971 to understand that the anti-war John Kerry who, on more than one occasion, met with Communist delagations in Paris and Hanoi, while still a US Navy officer, is still doing business the same ol' way he's always done it.

Examine the links above in Kevin's post and you just might recognize the same essential message of 35 years ago. Kerry claims superior knowledge of warfare. Kerry claims he knows better than Central Command how to deal with the terrorists in Iraq. Kerry loudly asserts the policies of the Bush Administration are the root cause of all injustice in this war and it flows downhill to all of America's fighting men and women, making them essentially (though not stated), the same as those he condemned in Vietnam. Kerry continues to say he wants our troops out just like he did in 1971. I'm surprised he hasn't gone on national TV and pressed the White House for an exact date to withdraw the troops.

I just want to re-iterate that:
"It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home, and at home John Kerry was the field general." --Robert Elder

Last night on the O'Reilly ... (Below threshold)

Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill and Ellis Henican of NY Newsday (and a Liberal) really did a job on Bush and on the war effort. The both of them sounded like Vietnam era Lefties. Tony Snow was visibly peeved with them and he said, "Neither of you have been to Iraq." I wrote to O'Reilly and I told him I hoped the commanders and troops in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't see and hear him and that punk Henican talking about Iraq. Personally, I'm going to Boycott O'Reilly. The guy's in the tank for Kerry. I believe it's because he wants Kerry to come into the No Spin Zone.

BTW, I've appeared on the O... (Below threshold)

BTW, I've appeared on the O'Reilly Factor a few times and he was decent to me. But after last night's show, I will never appear on his show again. He can find some other cop to enter his No Spin Zone. That's how angry I am at him. The guy ain't looking out for us -- he's looking out for ratings.

<a href="http://www.outletr... (Below threshold)

Dan Rather vs George Bush on the facts

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an investigation
5) number of Americans dead: 0
6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor

George W. Bush, President of the United States
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
4) when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and stonewalled an investigation
5) number of Americans dead: 1100
6) should be given four more years as President of the United States

You Liberals have got to co... (Below threshold)

You Liberals have got to come up with new talking points. Bush Lied is just not making it. I'd punch holes in your statements, but I'm just so tired of debating Kool Aid drinkers and the Moron Constituency.

Jim Kouri, I don't fault yo... (Below threshold)

Jim Kouri, I don't fault you for not reading beyond a headline, but if you can point out where I said "Bush lied," please do. Bush didn't lie. It's clear Bush was misled, just like Dan Rather. Bush's choice of how to address that is entirely his own. Let's hope he has the courage to do what Dan Rather did when presented the facts.

Why all the fuss? I thought... (Below threshold)
Jack:

Why all the fuss? I thought this was standard operating procedure for Rather and his producers. Rather said that they approached Burkett for the story so they must have known that Burkett had the memos. How did they know? Is it possible that Mary Mapes is Lucy Ramirez?

Christian,Your fourt... (Below threshold)
RC:

Christian,
Your fourth point about Rather is not accurate. When confronted with the facts, courtesy of typographic analysts and documentarians nation (and world) wide via the internet (and some mainstream) media sources and blogs, Rather went on national television to publicly deny that the facts were indeed the facts and that he could possibly be wrong on this, and THEN proceeded to write off the analysts and reporters that brought the story to light as being third-rate hacks just because their medium of dissemination was the internet (specifically blogs). Only after CBS (Rather's bosses) began to feel the backlash from the public was an apology issued (too little, too late say some) and an investigation launched (as if no one had been investigating this yet). During the interim, Rather maintained the integrity of the documents and thus continued to report untruth.

Also, your inclusion of point 5 in both lists is a bit disingenuous. Dan Rather is not the C-in-C of the American military (thank God). One of the harsh realities of the military is that when soldiers fight, soldiers die -- and it's the job of the commanders to send the soldiers to fight. Every soldier, in some degree, accepts the likelihood of violent death being his or her end when deciding to join the military.

I'm not saying you can't compare apples to oranges (which is what point #5 does), just that the comparison's not very pertinent.

Christian Grantham:1... (Below threshold)
DaveP:

Christian Grantham:
1- is ignorant of the multiple UN decrees and ultimatii demanding "full and complete cooperation" from Iraq-- which was not forthcoming.
2- is ignorant or willfully misguided about the reasons for the war in Iraq
3- is evidently quite willing to have any number of Ameriacn Naval and Air Force pilots killed trying to enforce the No-Fly Zone, but god forbid that anyone try to do something about it-- at least, any Republican who might be reelected
4- evidently has not learned to use Google or find the military intelligence news sites, as he is ignorant of the over 30 "finds" of various banned WMD items in and out of Iraq to date... including a chemical artillery shell that was used against American troops, banned strategic rocket engines, and highly radioactive scrap metal from Iraqi sites
5- is not only ignorant but seriously ethically suspect for claiming that something that was vouched for by the intelligence agencies of Russia, England, France, Germany, Israel, Egypt, AND the U.S.-- but hasn't turned up a huge mediagenic stockpile as of yet-- is in any way similar to a set of documents that was used in a political smear by a "news" outlet even after the authenticators LAUGHED at them and the family of the supposed author told reporters they couldn't possibly be real.
6-fails to recall that the "WMD angle" was never considered the sole reason for invading Iraq until certain members of a certain political party (who had previously and repeatedly, over a period of YEARS, announced their belief in that same 'mistaken' intelligence) needed an election-season soundbite.

I'm showing support for the... (Below threshold)
Edwiges:

I'm showing support for the party which has no chance at winning right now (due to many many problems with media and politics [and the (relatively small) party being littered with contradictarians and psychos]), but I still fully support my guy and say that hes the best one who can do the job.

I have never claimed a part... (Below threshold)
brian:

I have never claimed a party, but I lean left on most issues and, if forced to choose one of the two major parties, Iíd say Iím a Democrat because Iíve never voted for a Republican.

I believe that the most important issue in this election is the fight against global terrorism and its effect on our national safety. I have a feeling Iím in the majority in this thinking.

That said, there are a few things troubling me, and Iíve decided to post them around various blogs message groups hoping to promp dialog that would help clear things up for me.

First, a couple of facts:

1) Its clear that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism

2) Saddam DID have weapons of mass distruction and DID use them

These are undebatable facts. Even Michael Moore would admit as much. The debate is about how to respond to the above facts. George Bushís decision is clear. He removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. Debate this tactic all you want, but the administrationís position is clear.

What is John Kerryís position on the issue I and many, many other Americans deem most important? Look at a couple of his statements:


"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." (December 16, 2003)

"I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism" (September 20, 2004)


I prefaced my message by saying I lean to the Democrat side to keep this from looking like a Kerry-bash. I agree with their ideology and the need for change. I wanted to vote for the Democratic candidate.

But how can I, in good conscience, when Kerry has been all over the board on such a critical issue? Its clear that he will say whatever it takes to win the most votes, to the point that its become laughable. This is the best we can do? If thatís the case, the party is in a sad state. My real fear is that so many Democrats will cast their vote for Kerry as a vote AGAINST Bush, even though they know Kerry is a miserable candidate and completely incapable of effectively leading the nation in the war on terrorism.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, Iíll be encouraging my Democrat friends to vote for Nader or not at all rather than vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of office.

Brian

[email protected]

- All of the blather coming... (Below threshold)
Hunter:

- All of the blather coming out of the multitudes of talking heads infesting the airwaves at the crest of the Rathergate sunumi is irrelevant. Nor will they be successful in shifting the focus.

- In fact the harder they try the more doggedly persistant will be the chase for the facts. All of the investigations, internal or external will probably fall short of what we all suspect is lurking just below the surface. The best chance we have at ever getting at the truth is if one of the major players decides that preserving their own reputation outways covering for the team.

- One positive thing that may come out of all of this is to cause a marked pullback of adventurous partisan coverage and interference in campaigns by the liberal press. If CBS is brought to justice along with the DNC attack corp then something good will have been accomplished.

- It will also prove that what works in Spain doesn't cut it in America......

This just in......Even thou... (Below threshold)
Roger:

This just in......Even though Kerry might not be the best choice for President he will definitely do a better job than that assclown Bush. Bush has made so many mistakes during his LONG 4 year term. This country will face the toughest times it has ever seen if he is reelected.

Yeah those Democrats really... (Below threshold)

Yeah those Democrats really shouldn't bring up Iraq or the economy.

They should stick to the real issues. The gay marriage amedment and Vietnam.

I personally find it... (Below threshold)
Ian Gordon:


I personally find it interesting to note that for all the talk of absolutes that Americans proclaim to the world, whether be it freedom, democracy or human rights, that it was the US that armed and supported Saddam Hussein and helped pay for his weapons of mass destruction.

As for terrorism doubtless most Americans are not aware of the fact that a huge segments of world population see the USA as the greatest threat to world peace, much more so than say Osama bin Laden.

Personally I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but as a measure of your nation's popularity in the world it should give you pause for thought.

Ian writes:"huge s... (Below threshold)
Dan:

Ian writes:

"huge segments of world population see the USA as the greatest threat to world peace"

Yes, segments that either aren't or don't seem to mind, having their subways, airplanes, buildings and civilians targeted by terrorists. And if you want to talk huge, I got somethin' to show ya' right down here:
Country GNP Per Capita
USA $10,533 $38
Japan $4,852 $38
Germany $2,242 $27
Britain $1,544 $26
France $1,543 $26
China $1,329 $1
Italy $1,260 $22
or
Country % of Global GDP % of World Population
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 1.36%
Britain 4.6% 0.99%
France 4.2% 0.97%

We got yer huge, right here. And THE ABOVE has far more to do with what the WORLD thinks of the USA than ANY policy, practice or politician. And they ought to get over it. We have.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright ¬© 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy