 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Kerry For President--Or Senate? |
 |
|
The Boston Globe
| Quote: | Excerpt
.....That said, every front-runner draws a serious challenge from someone somewhere along in the process. The question is: Who will the alternative to Hillary be?
Should Al Gore also jump in, that question would be definitively answered. And yet, absent a Gore candidacy, Kerry would start as well-positioned as any of the other hopefuls to emerge as Clinton's primary challenger.
In a race that will see everyone able to raise serious money opt out of public financing, Kerry will probably start 2007 with a $10 million kitty, plus one of the party's best fund-raising lists.
As important for Kerry, after a 2004 campaign in which he seemed as much calculation as conviction, the senator is finally in a liberal space where he feels comfortable: Adamant in urging a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq, scathing about what he terms the lies of the Bush administration.
The first words he spoke after welcoming Democrats to the Jefferson-Jackson dinner were these: ``This war in Iraq is a disgrace." (Blogging on the Huffington Post last week, Kerry wrote of his 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, ``There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close.")
His speech brought the crowd to its feet at least a dozen times, and left the Democrats I talked to impressed.
Still, in pre-speech conversations with dinner attendees, doubts about Kerry lurked just beneath professions of respect.
Some wondered how a nominee, particularly one who had warned opponents not to question his patriotism, could have been caught so flat-footed when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked his military record. Although most said they weren't ruling Kerry out, they also stressed that 2008 is a whole new race, and said they planned on giving all the candidates a hard look before making any decisions.
Yesterday, when I asked Kerry about the concerns over his laggardly response to the Swift Boat mugging, the senator called that ``a miscalculation," but one he insisted shouldn't disqualify him from being president. He also had this challenge for his skeptics: ``Who would have come closer to beating a sitting president in time of war who had an enormous fear card to play?"
If and when he does start out on the national hunt again, Kerry will be under intense pressure to announce that he won't seek re election to the Senate seat he won in 1984.
Kerry says he has plenty of time to decide. But though it would be technically possible to switch courses and seek reelection to the Senate as late as spring 2008, close observers think he will face strong pressure from his own party to make his choice clear by fall 2007, particularly if a plausible Republican or independent candidate begins eying the Senate race.
``He is definitely going to have to choose," says one well-placed Democrat. ``At some point he is going to have look himself in the mirror and say, `Am I going to shoot craps?'
At that point, something will have to give: The Senate seat John Kerry has held for more than two decades -- or the still-distant dream he's harbored for most of his life. |
Personally, I hope Kerry WILL make a serious challenge to Shrill Hil.
It's one sure way his military records will be made public. Bill and Hil have this 'ace in the hole'.
Suddenly, mysteriously, his records will come to light.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If and when he does start out on the national hunt again... |
...and I missed this link to editorial "comments" on my initial read...they will warm your heart 
...and from David Limbaugh...
| Quote: | John Kerry's consistent inconsistencies
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
 Read Article & Comments Post Your Comments
If I hadn't observed Sen. Kerry's incoherent ramblings during the 2004 presidential campaign, I would have been shocked by his indecipherable utterances on "Fox News Sunday" regarding President Bush's foreign policy. Almost every statement was at war with the facts or with other statements he made elsewhere and in this same interview.
On North Korea, Kerry said, "One of the reasons that North Korea can misbehave the way it is today is because the United States has lost its leverage, lost its credibility and doesn't have the capacity to be able to bring countries together in the way that it used to. This administration is allowing North Korea to get away with what its doing."
U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry discusses health care issues of concern to senior citizens when he campaigns for Jack Carter, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, at the Nevada State Veterans Home in Boulder City, Nevada, Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006. After Sen. John McCain accused former President Clinton Tuesday of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, Kerry said, "He must be trying to burnish his credentials for the nomination process," said Kerry, who labeled McCain's comments "flat politics and incorrect." (AP Photo/Jane Kalinowsky) Notice Kerry didn't make the argument that we haven't brought enough force into Iraq and so we lack the credibility to inspire fear in and thereby deter the North Korean regime. No, the context makes clear that Kerry is talking about our failure to approach our diplomacy multilaterally: We don't "have the capacity to be able to bring countries together."
So one would assume that when Chris Wallace asked Kerry what he would do differently, he would respond that we need to work more closely with other nations. Wrong. Kerry said, "I would engage in bilateral, face-to-face negotiations with North Korea, make it absolutely clear that we are not intending to invade and have a regime change, and work on the entire set of issues that are outstanding since the armistice with regard to the north."
Kerry was saying -- if anyone could follow him without falling asleep -- that because of our alleged "go-it-alone" policy on Iraq we have lost our credibility to employ a go-it-alone policy with North Korea. When Wallace asked him to explain the obvious inconsistency, Kerry didn't even bother to clarify. In fact, a little later in the interview he went back to the same point, saying, "[Bush] has made every mistake possible so he has isolated our troops, isolated America." Yet, Kerry would have us isolate ourselves with respect to North Korea.
Kerry lambasted Bush for his six-party approach, saying he was only engaging in this multilateralism as cover -- as an excuse not to continue with Clinton's agreed framework and go-it-alone approach. But why would Bush need an excuse not to continue with a failed policy?
All of Kerry's hollow criticism is rendered even more absurd when you understand that Bush did employ a multilateral approach to Iraq -- painstakingly working with and through the United Nations and building a coalition as large as reasonable nations would cooperate to make it -- until the U.N. and France, Germany and Russia wrongfully refused to cooperate. Ultimately, he decided he shouldn't undermine our national interests for the sake of appeasing Old Europe. So he attacked with a multilateral, but not a unanimous coalition. Bush has adopted a similar multilateral approach to North Korea and Iran, believing our leverage against those regimes increases with the cooperation of other nations.
Another nonsensical Kerry utterance was that "while we knew [North Korea] was probably cheating [under the agreed framework], we were on a road where we had them in the non-proliferation treaty." In other words, though North Korea was cheating on one agreement with us, it was good that it had agreed to another -- as if it would inexplicably be more honorable on non-proliferation, which it manifestly wasn't.
Perhaps more maddening than the foregoing was Kerry's attempted explanation for why he is now saying his vote for the Iraq War resolution was one of his biggest mistakes in public service. "There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close."
When Wallace confronted him with his August 2004 statement reaffirming the correctness of his decision to vote for the resolution, Kerry said he had not been aware then "of the degree to which [the Bush administration] misled us, the degree to which they have abused the authority that they were given."
I hate to rain on Kerry's parade of lies, but in July 2004 -- which happens to have been a month before August 2004 -- at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry said, "As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House. I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."
Does Kerry think we don't have recording equipment -- or even the ability to remember what he says from one point in an interview to another? I'll bet the Swift Boat Veterans are quaking in their boots with Kerry's threat to bring to bear all his rhetorical fire power against them should he run for president in 2008.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!
Townhall.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
streetsweeper95B
PO2
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 365
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent work you guys! Yes, Kerry or any other political candidate should vacate the office their in before running for another.
Wasn't there a term limit thing that swept this country back in the 90's that yanked some from their cushy jobs back in DC?
I seem to remember one was a Tom (big ears) Foley? from Eastern Wa state.
Is that correct Lew?
_________________
"Proud Member of the Freak Show" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
