Kerry: No Apology

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It looks like John Kerry has created a little firestorm among the wingnuts over his "you-never-know-when-the-mic-is-on" moment yesterday. While he was removing the wireless gizmo from his person, it picked up a conversation he had with a Chicago sheet metal worker, where Kerry quietly told the guy, "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."



Needless to say, this is the new Howard Dean Yawp Clip. It took 24 hours for it to simmer, but now it's all the rage (pun unintended). All the news shows I've tuned into are running this repeatedly with the same outcue: The White House is demanding an apology, calling the statement "angry rhetoric."



Predictably, the right wing mouthpieces are getting out their 6-foot-wide paintbrushes to make Kerry seem treasonous.



Read on...



NewsMax says:



Quote:

If you dare to challenge Sen. John Kerry, you're part of "the most crooked ... lying group" he has ever seen.



And this gem from Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot:



Quote:

"Senator Kerry's statement today in Illinois was unbecoming of a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, and tonight we call on Senator Kerry to apologize to the American people for this negative attack. On the day that Senator Kerry emerged as his party's presumptive nominee, the president called to congratulate him. That goodwill gesture has been met by attacks and false statements."



You remember the day of that phone call, don't you? That was the day before Bush blasted Kerry for being in Washington long enough to take both sides of all the issues. Thus began the GOP's flip-flop meme which seems to have been designed to distract everyone away from noticing Bush's own waffling - which was MUCH more dangerous.



I have news for President Lying and Vice-President Crooked. Kerry's comment is probably going to ring truer with a lot more voters than your recent speeches declaring your plan to end of the horrific economy which you created. Lying? Crooked? How did he come to that conclusion?



You lied about Iraq. You lied about the economy. You lied about jobs (although your tax cuts DID create new jobs - overseas). You lied about supporting fire fighters. You lied about soldiers' benefits. You lied about taking "personal responsibility." You lied about financial commitment to the rebuilding of Afghanistan.



You achieved the presidency through crooked means. Your war was a crooked bonanza for Halliburton. Your sale of Harken stock smacks of crookedness. Your war for sport has killed hundreds of ours and thousands of theirs. If that isn't criminal, I don't know what is.



Let's add to the mix what a reader to the L.A. Times said this morning:



Quote:

What a brilliant ploy for the Bush administration to justify everything it does with its self-named "war on terror." Since terror is a state of mind, there can never be a declared end to this "war." It gives Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants, including the suspension of legal protections and civil rights.



You ARE liars. You ARE crooked. And with much more frightening results than Clinton's extramarital episode in which he was relentlessly labeled a liar AND a scumbag by Republicans. Your unfulfilled promise to restore dignity and honor to the White House was a direct attack on that. So spare me your tears over what John Kerry said.



John Kerry was speaking the truth, and he has no reason to apologize.



The above is from a posting on The Daily KOS from which I couldn't agree more. Josh Marshall makes an even more succinct point:



How soon we forget...



Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), said Kerry should apologize for a comment "outside the bounds of where people who want to hold the highest office in this country should be making."

Washington Post

March 11th, 2004




Bush, standing on a stage outside of Naperville North High School, pointed reporter Adam Clymer out to his running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. Then Bush described Clymer using a common obscenity.



"There's Adam Clymer, major-league assh--e from the New York Times," Bush said.



"Oh, yeah, he is, big-time," Cheney responded.

Houston Chronicle

September 5th, 2000




A major-league Santorum ...



The Hypocricy Astounds!
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 96
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    OK... there is a difference.



    When Bush's mic was left on- the NY Times Reporter incident... it was directed at a hostile member of the media.



    Kerry directly attacked the integrity of his opponent, who is the President of the United States. Kerry's a senator, and if he really feels that way (not just campaign drivel) he needs to get some investigations going on Bush.



    Its not hypocrisy... it is not the same situation.



    I know you are upset, but you will not have to wait long before ole GW again puts foot to mouth in public. Then you can swarm. Bueno?
  • Reply 2 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Jubelum: "These guys". Is that Bush? I am pretty sure it was directed towards the republican attack dogs.



    But no matter what it was a conversation between two persons in both cases. It wasn´t meant for the general public. So judge Kerry on the basis of your agreement with him, not that he broke some none-written "rule"
  • Reply 3 of 96
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    At the very least Kerry should explain what he means. Details. I'm sure he doesn't have the balls to do that.
  • Reply 4 of 96
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    A major-league Santorum ...



    http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
  • Reply 5 of 96
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Jubelum: "These guys". Is that Bush? I am pretty sure it was directed towards the republican attack dogs.



    OK. Kerry is a socialist, and the more the talks until Nov, the more we are going to see that. I have nothing whatsoever in common with him ideologically.



    "These guys" spin was done by Kerry's staff after the fact. Now Dems and liberals are falling in line with that pitiful excuse. BTW, I would like to hear WHAT he thinks is crooked, no matter who he is talking about. As a voter, I think it is relevant as I make my decision.



    And before a bunch of you vomit up all sorts of "crooked" things... I want to hear it from the candidate, not this board. I have read all of the Administration's transgressions posted here hourly.
  • Reply 6 of 96
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    And before a bunch of you vomit up all sorts of "crooked" things... I want to hear it from the candidate, not this board. I have read all of the Administration's transgressions posted here hourly.



    Ok so we can probably agree that if you agree with Kerry then this is nothing and if you disagree with him its a disgrace. So what it means is decided in advance based on rach individual stance.



    I would never vote on Kerry with a ten foot pole and I think this is a non event. Just like Bush and Cheneys small chat
  • Reply 7 of 96
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Ok so we can probably agree that if you agree with Kerry then this is nothing and if you disagree with him its a disgrace. So what it means is decided in advance based on rach individual stance.





    Bingo. It is a non issue, and will be in about one or two news cycles. I just want to know what he thinks is crooked. I am intrigued.



    As I wrote concerning the RNC 9/11 ads:



    Quote:

    If candidate A ties his shoes wrong, but I really hate him because of his stance on cabbage prices, I will gladly call for an investigation of his shoe-tying, even though I really do not care about how the man ties his shoes.



  • Reply 8 of 96
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Like my dad said, Kerry should go on air with a new commercial saying simply "I don't apologize for suggesting the truth."
  • Reply 9 of 96
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    well, this will go over well with the crowd that hates bush, which he didn't have to get anyway.



    it will go over poorly with those that like Bush, which he never had a chance at anyway.



    but i don't think it's going to play well with undecided voters.
  • Reply 10 of 96
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    but i don't think it's going to play well with undecided voters.



    But it's not going to play to them at all. Undecided haven't started paying attention to the race yet.
  • Reply 11 of 96
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Two words: WHO CARES?



    Fellows
  • Reply 12 of 96
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    easy, kerry should offer to apoligize to the repugnates as soon as bush apoligizes to the american people for starting a war with knowingly made up information....



    g
  • Reply 13 of 96
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    It's a hilarious example of guilty conscience on the part of the Bush administration



    Hmmm....someone says ""These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." and they automatically think he's talking about them!



    But back up and listen to what the old man Kerry was speaking to said first, something like "Hang in there" (sorry I can't find the full quote and they don't play that bit much). He clearly meant any and all of those that have been, are and will attack Kerry in the upcoming months.



    If the Republicans and Bush administration count themselves as Kerry attackers, then the shoe fits. If not, then it's no flap.



    Big yawn. Next!
  • Reply 14 of 96
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    It's a hilarious example of guilty conscience on the part of the Bush administration



    Hmmm....someone says ""These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." and they automatically think he's talking about them!






    check and mate
  • Reply 15 of 96
    i think it was a brilliant masterstroke.
  • Reply 16 of 96
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Northgate:



    I have to object to this thread on the grounds that it gets off topic in the opening post. Your post is nothing but an attack on Bush rather than a discussion of whether or not Kerry should apologize. As for your statements like this:



    Quote:

    I have news for President Lying and Vice-President Crooked.



    That's uncalled for and devoid of any decency. As is this:



    Quote:

    You achieved the presidency through crooked means.



    Unsupported and unreasonable. Congratulations on displaying you absolute hatred for the President. You've pretty much invalidated your own opinion on ther matter through your venom.





    My two cents: I think it was a cheap statement and pretty below the belt. Seeing the statement gave me the impression he was talking about the Administration, not "Republican attack dogs" (whomever they are, I don't know). But, seeing it out of context it's hard to tell. Should he apologize? Well, I'd say if he was referring to Bush and his Admin., then yes. If referring to pundits and the media, then no. Politically, I don't think it will help him...and it will certainly not be beneficial with indendents. But honestly...I'm with Anders in the end...I think it's pretty much a "non-event".
  • Reply 17 of 96
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jubelum

    I just want to know what he thinks is crooked.



    You mean it isn't obviouse to everybody?
  • Reply 18 of 96
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Crooked? He's too busy flying the bin Ladens around the country to be crooked.
  • Reply 19 of 96
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Quote:

    I have read all of the Administration's transgressions posted here hourly.





    Because there are so many of them.
  • Reply 20 of 96
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    I don't know what to make of this. I agree with what Kerry said but I still have this view of him that he will say anything to get elected. This obviously wasn't--he thought the microphone was off. But it does dispel some views of Kerry I had of being a war hawk Bush-lite. He's still impotent against Bush on the issues because of his voting record.



    Depending on who Kerry picks as his running mate, ie. (gender orientation, sex, and underrepresented ethnicities) I might be persuaded to ditch Nader hold my nose and vote for him in November. Kerry has also got to come out for fully for gay marriage.



    We'll see.
Sign In or Register to comment.