Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Feb 12, 2004.
Let the games begin...
So it's gutter politics to ask about Dubya's service record, but it's perfectly fine to use photos like this to smear Kerry. This is only the beginning of the attempt to defame Kerry and define him as a communist sympathizer and worse.
When I first heard about this my thought was "this could get pretty bad". But then I saw the pic and I just had to laugh - I expected them to be like hugging, shaking hands, or at least posing together. Then I saw the picture, which is really just one of Jane Fonda (total babe, by the way) sitting like 30 feet in front of Kerry whose all blurry and out of focus in the background.
The story of this photo is more damaging than the photo itself. Ridiculous.
By that way - does anyone know why Ann Coulter's column this week refers to Kerry throwing "someone elses medals to the ground"? Did he not throw his own?
this is a non issue, republicans can do better then this. Just as the president and the National guard. Lets get down to current events and problems with our nation instead of digging up 30 year old non stories.
Actually this will probably work much better...
Heh, but remember who took the first shot.
Hey, it's an election year!
If yowling and howling was okay about what Dubya did, thirty years back, it's equally okay to go to yowling and howling about Kerry's doings in that same era.
If it's badnasty to bring that up about Kerry, it was badnasty to bring it up about Dubya.
Dubya's folks downplayed Dubya's doings; Kerry's folks now have their turn in the barrel.
I'm far more interested in whatever Kerry proposes as solutions; his policy views on a lot of stuff. Right now, he's doing the usual grandiose generality thing to make it through the primaries.
The media all love grandiose generalities; that way they don't have to think. And, scandal helps sell advertising. The media had their feeding frenzy with the attacks on Bush; now they're getting into a feeding frenzy with any attacks on Kerry. And folks posting here can go off harumphing in all directions.
What Kerry would do differently about the mideast, about the economy and about the budget: That's far more important than whatever anybody did thirty years ago...
None of which means I'm any sort of Kerry supporter...
Apparently a whole new line of attack has been opened up: You don't have to agree with someone, endorse that person, or even know the person. You just have to have been in the same room with the person at some point in your life. It's called guilt by non-association.
I agree with you there - and I'll be honest I'm growing a little tired of the National Guard thing, as it's starting to get slammed into the ground.
But if the repubs want something to stick to Kerry like the alleged AWOL thing to Bush, they're going to have to do more than this. Calling into question the service history of a self-described "war president", who allegedly didn't quite fullfil his duties as "war citizen", is at least somewhat damaging and at least somewhat relevant (although I hardly feel it's the smoking gun a lot of people are treating it as). Hooting and hollering about a picture which shows that John Kerry was once present within the general vicinity of Jane Fonda two years before her trip behind enemy lines isn't as much damaging as it is a neat coincidence about two celebrities.
Kerry has been up front about his opposition to the Vietnam war all along - it's what got him into politics in the first place. It would be one thing if they found this picture and said "hey look! John Kerry protested agains the Vietnam War" and then Kerry said "No, I didn't" then they would say "Yes you did" then Kerry would release his dental records. Kerry's anti V-War stance is well known, and is even a part of his platform. If the republicans want to work on defaming Kerry's character, they're going to have to do more than question his patriotism and his service to the country.
I don't get how you think this is an equivalent. Kerry makes no apologies for his opposition to the Vietnam War, nor should he. This story is not about Kerry's "doings," it's about trying to associate him with "Hanoi Jane." Are you saying this works for you?
Well if everyone does it, it's ok right?
that's the thing that's amazing me -- kerry is being punished for having an opinion. an opinion that was formed from experience (he fought) and not fear (texas national guard).
this affair thing, though, could be his undoing. much better to have a president who invades countries on a whim than one who can't keep his pants on.
looks like your vote in the primaries may count after all, eh?
While there are legitimate questions that can be asked of candidates about their past, this would be like a picture of Dubya being floated around where he's in a group of people that happened to include a guy who later was arrested for selling coke, and using that to imply that Dubya was buying from the guy.
I don't even see Kerry being punished for his opinions. If people want to criticize him for his active opposition to the Vietnam War, if they think that's relevant in 2004, then by all means, they should have at it. But this "Hanoi Jane" business is just plain slimy, not to mention, cowardly.
This will be the ugliest, dirtiest Presidential campaign ever waged.
While at the grocery store I saw one of those famous institutions of American media (the National Enquirer, I think) with a headline about Kerry's "face lifts, affairs" etc. I came home and tried to find the story online and instead found one about Bush having an affair with a stripper (same brilliant journalistic source).
Now, with that ugly face, do you really think Kerry had a face lift? And is there anyone in America that believes Bush ever has sex?
But it doesn't matter, America will read, and America will believe. And the dirt will continue to fly.
I like Begala's take on this...
Comparing being an anti-war protester (and one who actually fought in the war), to ducking out of military service and then lying about it.
Besides, what's worse, Kerry at an antiwar rally or Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein while he was gassing his people?
It may not be important to the non-Namvets, but there are a whole bunch of guys out there who still really hate Hanoi Jane's guts, and those of anybody whoever willingly associated with her.
There are guys who still remember what happened to some of those in the Hanoi Hilton after she passed on their private messages they thought she'd take home but instead gave to the NV authorities: They got the living crap beat out of them. And never forget that there is a tremendous amount of remembered bonds among combat vets. "You crap on my buddy, you crap on me."
I've read a lot of conservative views from people who are contemptuous of Dubya. Still, for many of them, his faults and flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the emotions engendered by any sort of association with Jane Fonda.
My $0.02 about some of the "why"...
I think most of know why just mentioning the name Jane Fonda still gets some Vietnam vets into a lather, but the question for now is: Why are some right-wingers trying to associate John Kerry with Jane Fonda?
I think most of us know the answer to that too...
I think the fools who fall for this propaganda were never going to vote for Kerry in the first place. Let's face it Bush has the listeners to Limbaugh and Pat Robertson locked up and Kerry is not going to pry them lose. Veterans who want someone in office who has experience with what war means will choose Kerry, those who don't care about a son of privilege who used and abused the system to stay away from Vietnam will vote for Bush.
Still we know Hussein was bad and Rumsfeld was all buddy buddy with him and yet when Kerry was in that picture with Fonda she had yet to go to Hanoi.
To me it sounds like typical gleeful republican trolling.
not to mention the documented Halliburton dealings with Hussein while Cheney was the CEO...
there is plenty of ammunition here