« tv or not tv | Main | She's drinking my kool aid! »

The Speech: A Day Late and a Link Short

[Hey, I've been sick. I'm still trying to catch up on my missed homework] Interestingly enough, I thought the Dem convention (speaker-wise) was great, right up until the main event. I think Kerry came off as arrogant, but that's just me. He wasn't out to convince me. Nor was he out to convince the his cheerleaders. He needed to convince that 7% that are still sitting on the fence (or sitting on a third party candidate's fence). So what did everyone think about the basics of the speech? Well, it had 52 applause points (and sweat broke out at point 32). Now, I know that speeches are made for maximum applause. They are meant to manipulate, cajole and convince. But sometimes the manipulation factor goes into overdrive. Kerry's speech came right out of the Pander and Dig school. Pander, pander, pander, DIG. Wash, rinse, repeat for thunderous applause.
When I checked my email this morning there were three identical emails from three different people. All just contained one line: Did he just salute? Yes, he did. Couple that with his "Help is on the way!" mantra and you've got Dudley Do Right, at your service. Kerry should have come out with an "S" emblazoned on his shirt. It would have been more subtle. bq. And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW’s and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam. At Command Post (where Alan did a superb job of objective blogging from Boston), someone commented on that line: bq. THIS is ALL he had to say about how he stabbed all soldiers in the back when he returned from his BRIEF stay in Vietnam? That’s all? That’s it?
There are no words to describe the anger that I feel after reading this speech - especially the sentence quoted above. The problem is, Kerry gave his speech in an echo chamber. If anyone else felt anger over that line, it won't get heard while the sound of applause is still ringing in Kerry's ears. I didn't really expect Kerry to address the protesting or throwing of medals incident, but if he wanted to completely whitewash it, he shouldn't have said anything at all, especially using a euphimism like making peace with Vietnam, which I guess means years of protesting the war. bq. The United States never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to. Which, I suppose, let's out the possibility of going to war because we are provoked. Also, as E. Nough says: So the Iraq war was elective? We should have left it alone, even though everyone thought it had a WMD program? Hmm. Oct, 1998, Kerry signed a letter to President Clinton that read, in part: bq. "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. In January 2003, he said: bq. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. I would like John Kerry to clarify what he means by "have to" go to war. Would that be to retaliate after we've already been attacked or would it be to protect ourselves when threatened or provoked? Or, as Captain Ed said: bq. "We only go to war because we have to." After twelve years of failed containment, I suppose this means Kerry would have waited until the sanctions utterly collapsed, Saddam re-armed, and actually did catastrophic damage before doing anything about him ... Other random thoughts: A lot of the speech was filled with nastiness directed towards the Bush administration. I thought the Bush bashing was verboten during this convention? Or did Sharpton's ad-lib moments give way to Kerry's verbal attacks? Hey, barn door is open, may as well let all the bulls out? I really thought Kerry would try to appeal to the center with his speech. Instead, what we got was a private talk with the left. How much of a bounce can he get by delivering a speech to a targeted audience of people who are already voting for him? For a candidate that stresses he wants to be a uniter, not a divider, he sure did a lot of divisive speaking last night. If this was what a positive campaign looks like to Kerry, we're in for a nasty few months ahead of us. There was a underlying sense of socialism running through the speech. Everytime someone talks about one of those programs - like Head Start - I hear my college professor screaming about the dangers of "from each according to his abilities to each according to their needs." He was right. I heard this speech not as a "What can a John Kerry presidency do for you" moment but as a "What can not voting for George Bush do for you" thing. Again, Kerry isn't really telling people what he will do, just what he won't do. All in all, it was typical of any convention speech. If you're a Kerry supporter, you thought it was great. If you're not a Kerry supporter, you'll pick on his words. The problem here is, for anyone who is not a Kerry or Bush supporter, for those proverbial fence sitters, there wasn't much to cling to. I hope Bush remembers that 7% when he stand up at the podium in August. Around the sphere: Stephen Green did a great job blogging the speech as it happened and Glenn Reynolds actually had comments open on his speech post. Kerry alluded to the "bake sale for body armor" myth. Michelle Malkin points the way to a debunking of that lie. She also has a few links to go with the air pollution/asthma lie. John Podhoretz in today's New York Post: So, in the end, it appears Kerry has decided to run as Howard Dean with some medals. Mickey Kaus: This is the Eddie Yost candidacy. Say as little as possible and hope for a walk. My favorite speech related post comes from Jesse Walker at Reason: bq. Don't mind me, I'm obviously not the target audience for these things. I keep getting bored and flipping over to the convention reruns on C-Span 2. Last night I saw George Bush '88 promising never to raise our taxes. Tonight I saw Bill Clinton '96 promising to protect our airlines from terrorists.
Kind of puts the week in perspective, no? For now, the only speeches I enjoyed at this convention were Bill Clinton's and Al Sharpton's. The rest will only become entertaining after history adds some layers of irony and dust. I think that when history adds those layers, we'll be fondly recalling the 2004 Democratic Convention with memories of rodent mouth-to-mouth and fucking balloons.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Speech: A Day Late and a Link Short:

» John Kerry's Convention Speech from Outside The Beltway ™
I watched the speech in a somewhat noisy bar last night, so admit that I wasn't in the ideal setting to soak it up. But Matthew Yglesias pretty much sums up my reaction: "I thought it was crap." Granted, Matt thought so for entirely different rea... [Read More]

» The Historical Journalistic Impact of the DNC Blogging Experiment from INDC Journal
Can be felt here: The Main Event: John Kerry Hits it Out of the Park If by "park" you mean Fleet Center packed with the Democratic Party faithful, sure ... I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty." We're here... [Read More]

» Kerry Do Right from PoliPop
Michele, over her ills, or at least well enough to blog, has a nice write-up on her view of Kerry's speech last night. Her best comment there is: When I checked my email this morning there were three identical... [Read More]

» The choice is yours from protein wisdom
**** see also: Bill, TalkLeft, ASV, Malkin, Steve Green, Captain Ed, Instapundit, Ace, and John Beck [Read More]

Comments

As I said elsewhere, where is this question?

"Senator Kerry, you accused the President of the United States of 'misleading the nation into war.' But you had access to the exact same intelligence information he did. You drew the exact same conclusions about the danger presented by Saddam that he did. And you voted in favor of giving the President authority to go to war. Senator Kerry, were you misleading the public then, or are you misleading the public now? If not, can you please explain yourself and why you would say something so divisive to a nation at war?"

Feh. Good luck getting anyone to ask him that point blank.

the most important part of that horrible speech was when he said if attacked we will strike back hard. in other words, we're not at war, it's all a criminal act and until the Sears Towers is knocked down, don't sweat it.

he layed his cards out for the world to see. i'm sure AQ was paying attention and loving every minute of it.

Kerry speech was sound. He will do very well on election day.

I mean if the best the right has to offer is attacks on him based on how he saved a family pet, balloons or NASA pictures I feel good about his chances.

i don't get how you claim so often to be distressed by how partisan and depressing all of this is and then write such a bitter post.

I wonder how evil a dictator would have to be for Kerry to consider toppling him to be justified. Moore has said that he wouldn't have supported toppling Adolph Hitler until Americans were directly attacked, for instance. Hopefully Kerry would be a little more flexible.

Some of the Evils of the Hussein regime:
1. Saddam Hussein was the only living dictator to use Sarin Nerve Gas and Mustard Gas on his country's own civilian population to exterminate members of a disfavored ethnic minority.
2. Saddam Hussein was the only living dictator to attempt to assassinate a U.S. President and First Lady.
3. Saddam Hussein was actively seeking to purchase Uranium for his nuclear program.
4. Saddam Hussein enforced his regime through large-scale torture, mutilation of Iraqis, and frequent executions. Videotapes were made of his secret police slowly feeding Iraqis into wood-chippers and chopping off hands, feets, arms, legs, and other appendages. Government facilities had designated 'rape rooms'.
5. Saddam Hussein's sons and heirs to his throne were dangerously unstable rapists, mass-murderers, and sadists whose rule was predicted to be far more bloody than even their father's reign of terror.
6. Iraq's oil profits were being diverted away from benefiting the people so as to build elaborate palaces and provide opulent luxury to Saddam Hussein, his family, and his supporters. As a result, no attempt was made to build a diversified economy in Iraq which would avoid economic collapse when Iraq's oil supply finally runs out or alternative energy technologies are developed.

And, of course, among the things we did find in Iraq after the war included:
1. Nearly 2 tons of Enriched Uranium
2. Sarin Nerve Gas
3. Mustard Gas
4. 1,000 high radiation components - potential 'dirty bomb' material
5. Nuclear Weapon Centrifuges

Mark Harm
Candidate for State Representative - Michigan
http://www.markharm.com

Mark - how dare you use facts. After all, John Kerry is a war hero. I know this is true because he told me so. And that's all that matters. I mean look at how the libs flocked to GHB and Bob Dole in 92 and 96.

Sarah, I hardly think this post was bitter. Really, I was just giving my take on what I saw and heard.

And when I talk about being distressed at things being partisan and divisive, I'm usually referring to things like the 9/11 commission. All in all, one would expect a presidential convention to be partisan, no?

mostly was referring to the rodent-mouth-to-mouth/fucking balloons comment.
anyway i'm a former gw supporter but i thought kerry's speech was great and didn't just appealt o the left.

Mark makes some very valid points. Saddam was a bad dude. But so was Pol Pot, and we never tried to install a government in Cambodia. Call me a xenophobe, but what the F#CK are we doing building governments in other countries anyways? We've got some of the best special forces in the world, why didn't we just go in there, get the evidence we needed and then go after him? This whole thing was a cluster-fuck from the start, the current administration keeps throwing good money after bad. It has nothing to do with statistics and figures, it's the priniciple of the matter: there was a more efficient way to acheive our ends without having to deal with such an elevated level of political turmoil. When did governments abandon espionage? Where have all the James Bonds gone?

The most bizarre thing about Kerry to me is that a guy who, by most standards, has had a very successful political career (20 years in the Senate is no small thing), does his utmost to downplay it.

I mean, you can understand Edwards downplaying his Senate career, since it was so short and undistinguished. And Kerry's Senate record is pretty undistinguished compared to other senators of similarly long service, but.... He's campaigning as if he was frozen in a block of ice by Baron Zemo (or perhaps more appropriately, Hanoi Xan?) 35 years ago, only now emerging to take the reins of the country. He was in Vietnam, what more do you need to know?

Jeez, Sarah. Chill out a bit. I was just referring to what most people will remember about the convention. Things like that - on the Rep or Dem side, doesn't matter - seem to stick out as history's little jokes.

Good point skank. Why the hell did we knock Hitler out of office? After all Germany never attacked us.

I trust you know nothing about SF to make such a ridiculous suggestion. Perhaps you don't know this but James Bond is a fictional character. You know movies aren't always documentaries, like MM's flicks; well except for the Halloween series - that was based on a true story, as far as i cd tell......(wow).

That salute was the funniest thing I'd seen all night. Arguing against going to Iraq is revalatory of a dangerous mindset. This isn't Vietnam. (hello) We have to strike first or they will kill more of us. Why people can't understand that is beyond me. As evidenced by his statement last night, Kerry is willing to wait until we are attacked again before combating terrorists in the field: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." He's waiting for an attack! Bush isn't. He is killing terrorists. And he'll keep killing them until he can't kill them anymore. Anyone who's been in a barfight knows how to win: Hit first, hit hard, don't ever play fair. Bush used to hit the sauce pretty hard... Get it?

My jaw dropping moment? When, after slamming President Bush on just about every issue, calling him a liar, accusing him of only giving tax cuts to the rich (I got my check...didn't you get yours?), he THEN asked for a civil exchange of ideas during the rest of the campaign.

As a former democrat, I really wanted this convention to show me something, to change my mind about my disillusionment...it failed miserably.

Listening to Kerry last night, especially in light of his own recorded statements over the last 20 years, with absolutely no acknowledgement that his statements today do not square with his statements yesterday, I'm reminded of the joke popular among Soviet dissidents:
in the Soviet Union the future is known, it is the past that is always changing
Drew, pay attention. How can you trust such a man that just denies his own recorded statement? I mean, nuance goes just so far. Or as James Lileks says
All the stuff about restoring trust and credibility is nice, but note how no one is questioning the trust and credibility of the Brits, the French, the Russians and the UN, all of whom shared the same opinions about Iraqi capability. What it says to me is this: if John Kerry had been president after 9/11, he would have looked at all the intel about Iraq, studied its history, examined its strategic value, shaped up the nature of its leadership, and declined to depose Saddam.

Fine; I understand that position. I understand that he defended America by serving in Vietnam.

One question: did Vietnam attack America?

Ah! The Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent resolution made it seem as if they had. So he fell for that, as everyone did. He voted to wage war against Iraq because he fell for that, as everyone did. He's learned. Next time he needs hard proof, like a smoking crater in New York.

Make that another smoking crater in New York.

hen,
Saddam is no hitler. Comparing the two is ridiculous. Why? Hitler was a brilliant military stretgist, Saddam isn't. Hitler motivated milions of willing people behind him, Saddam has a relatively small number of supporters. And at the point we were joining the war effort, Hitler had whopped ass all over the european continent. Saddam could barely manage to put together a dirty bomb.
If the administration would have covertly acquired the evidence they needed to put some serious heat on Saddam via the UN, or at least a large number Secuirty Council nations; the US wouldn't be in this quagmire alone.

Shank speaketh thus:

Mark makes some very valid points. Saddam was a bad dude.

I think when you've murdered hundreds of thousands, started multiple wars, and used chemical weapons, "bad dude" doesn't quite cut it any more.

But so was Pol Pot, and we never tried to install a government in Cambodia.

Umm, hello? Vietnam War, remember that little thing? We had just pulled out of an intensely unpopular war, and do you think the President would have gotten any support for going right back into SE Asia, for any reason? Come on, Shank.

Call me a xenophobe, but what the F#CK are we doing building governments in other countries anyways?

Because what happens in other countries affects us. There are times when we have to build a new government in a country, because not doing so will result in a repeated threat. Take a lesson from Afghanistan. When the Soviets were gone and the Cold War over, the American government's attitude was "well, good luck with that."

Look what it got us.

We built a new German government after WW2 because we wanted to make sure that government wouldn't become a threat again. Ditto Japan.

Ditto Iraq.

We've got some of the best special forces in the world, why didn't we just go in there, get the evidence we needed and then go after him?
Do you think special forces are some kind of magic ninjas who can do anything? If years of inspections didn't find the evidence you were looking for, what makes you think a few special ops were going to? Special forces aren't arms inspectors. And "going after him" implies INVASION.

This whole thing was a cluster-fuck from the start, the current administration keeps throwing good money after bad.

Man, you would have been fun to listen to after WW2... "Why are we still in Germany?!? It's been a year, and US troops are still getting attacked. We should have just send special forces into Germany!"

It's easy to say, after the fact, how things should have gone. It takes no effort at all, Shank, because you don't need to see the results. You can just pretend they'd be better than the current reality.

It has nothing to do with statistics and figures, it's the priniciple of the matter: there was a more efficient way to acheive our ends without having to deal with such an elevated level of political turmoil.

Except that you haven't actually presented any "more efficient" way.

When did governments abandon espionage? Where have all the James Bonds gone?

Do I need to remind you that James Bond is a fictional character? Espionage is not some magic bullet that can accomplish anything. Our CIA "James Bonds" were telling everyone that Hussein had large WMD stockpiles, as were the Bonds of virtually every other agency.

Hitler was a brilliant military stretgist

Oh, for God's sake.

NO HE WASN'T.

Shank, do me a favor. Don't argue history if you don't know history, OK?

Shank,

The UN? Serious pressure? What planet are you from?

This would be the same UN that's acting so decisively on Iran's nuclear program? That's stopping the genocide in Sudan?

That made a lot of it's members rich off the oil for food program?

Please.

"I think that when history adds those layers, we'll be fondly recalling the 2004 Democratic Convention with memories of rodent mouth-to-mouth and fucking balloons."

Gee, Michelle, I thought this was a family-friendly blog.

Two things have struck me the most about the entire convention. First the breadth of background and character of the people who are most prominent in the Democratic Party and on the podium. When your tent covers everyone from Al Sharpton to Theresa Kerry, it truly is a big tent.

The Republicans used to be that way too, when I was young: Everett Dirkson, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon--all men with distinct public characters and individual foibles, not interchangable grave faces in identical blue suits with well-groomed, but ever so slightly dowdy wives. But, alas, no longer.

Then of couse there was the convention hall full of the Warner Brothers cartoon characters (all uncharacteristicly on their best behavior) that anyone familiar with Democrats comes to know and love.

And the most important thing about them was that George W. Bush has finally transformed them into an organized army ready to fan out across the country for Operation American Freedom. The only reason they were there in Boston, really, was to get their marching orders.

I know I'll be on the phone banks this Saturday in Ohio drumming up voter registration and I'm looking forward to my fellow Deaniacs in the Ohio delegation being there soon, too.

By the way, I haven't received a single call or seen a single Republican face at my door so far in my very Republican ward of my mildly Democratic city. Plenty of Democratic ones though.

Do any of the really rabid conservative or libertarian posters here do phone banks or canvassing? Do you? I'll also be doing poll judging, making sure all votes are properly counted in November. Care to join me? We really could use some younger faces from both parties in November.

Finally, after all the highfalutin' talk of patriotic valor in arms enenating from a certain address in Washington, it was refreshing to see a bunch of real guys, with their old skipper, who actually have done some of it.

Yes, I know, I know, all the fellows in Washington who weren't tooling around in F-102's in the skies over Lubbock, or drawing their pay while campaign working in Alabama (and probably violating the Hatch Act), "had other priorities."

I had the same priorities, too, actually. To repair some of the family-friendly tone I won't describe them as honestly as I could. But they were certainly more involved with personal saftey than they were with public service or valor in arms.

So its nice to cheer some real men who didn't quite have the same priorities I did. Nice to see them say things like, "I didn't come here because I was asked."

I think most everybody there was there because they wanted to be, really, and its good to finally be able to introduce this country to the Democratic Party again.

good god, skank, even if we had Saddam himself on tape exchanging suitcases of cash for yellowcake the UN would not do a f**king damned thing because they were getting kickbacks from Saddam!

What, 12 years of "sanctions" and direct anti-aircraft shots at our planes in the "no-fly zone" not enough time?

BTW hen wasn't comparing Hitler, per se, to Saddam but to the whole contention that we have to wait for Iraqi soldiers swarming up over the Mexican border before we should do anything about him.

SO what that there are other dictators besides Saddam. We had a plethora of legal justification (not to mention protecting American interests) to go after him, and we need to start somewhere.

And one last on the Hitler/Saddam comparison
Louis Bonaparte was no Napoleon. And when the pathetic nephew came to power in France aping his tyrannical uncle, Karl Marx in 1851 dismissed the silly charade with the famous line, "History always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, and the second as farce." Marx was stealing from Hegel and Engels, as he often did; but the truth of that dictum has never been more evident than in the recent sad spectacle surrounding the pygmy tyrant Saddam Hussein and the echoes of 1930s Western appeasement.

Saddam — in capability but not intent — is no Hitler. Even though he still tries to talk grandly about British and American decadence, blusters about liquidating the Jews, and counts on the indifference of France, his Republican Guard is hardly a Waffen SS and his scuds no more advanced than Nazi V-2s 60 years ago. Gassing the Jews while Europe watches is with us again: but while Germans once built nightmarish factories of death like Auschwitz, Saddam counts on a few missiles armed with Sarin gas to do the same to those huddling in plastic-lined rooms with their babies in gas masks.

You might want to read the whole thing and pay attention to the last paragraph.

Skank - I was comparing the fact that Hitler left unchallenged ran roughshod over Europe (note America is not part of Europe), but we deposed of him, right? Was Hitler far more of a menace then Saddam? Yeah. Did Hitler, unlike Saddam, ever actively attack American targets? Not compared to Saddam.

Saddam supported and protected the terrorists who took a shot at the WTC in 93; Saddam attacked the Stark; Saddam approved and probably initiated the plan to kill a former US Pres; Saddam showed the world that he wd not hesitate to 1) use WMD's, 2) kill his own citizens, gladly and 3) attack neutral nations (Israel). Here's a quarter....

Oh and you are still clueless about the role of SF in intel work. Absolutely clueless.

Hitler was a brilliant strategist. Yeah breaking the MRP was brilliant. LMAO.

Actually the hamster CPR and bunny suit jibes are a nice tar baby.

The campaign will very shortly shift to dissecting, in excruciating detail, the fallacy of his points and positions - and when it happens, mark this down, the responses will be more distortion, and then a whole LOT of complaining about people making hamster and bunny jokes, and how mean the whole thing is - while avoiding the substance.

And that is what I'm hoping people will eventually notice. Not the hamster gags.

The hamster gags are a bonus - because there's plenty enough to take this guy apart over on the issues.

I just want to know how individuals on the Left can say that Pat Tillman was a fool for giving up a wealthy future to serve in the military in risky enough operations to get killed, but John Kerry is called a hero for going into the military despite a wealthy background and voluntarily engaging in risky operations to the point of earning three purple hearts.

Let me second Big Brother's "[o]h, for God's sake" over shank calling Hitler a brilliant military strategist. He was constantly overriding his generals, including some who really were great military minds, and we should be very glad about that. Hitler's supposed military genius, or rather self-destructive total absence thereof, is probably epitomized by him forcing Erwin Rommel to kill himself.

Napoleon, before him Charles XII of Sweden, and before him Genghis Khan, all invaded Russia, and they all WERE brilliant military strategists, but doing that alone isn't enough to qualify.

Darleen on this blog (other right wing sites) I have seen a parade or pictures of Kerry at NASA (and the photoshops that followed).

Are those designed to help us debate issues or just poke fun at the left or those that don't agree with us?

Remarks such as "Tin Foil Hats" ,"Digital Brown Shirts" and various remarks about Michael Moore's weight does not help to accomplish that and if nothing shows the growing attempt of some on the right to grasp at straws to help turn things around so the President can be re-elected.

As Kerry said the flag does not belong to just one group. I love this country and would enjoy a open discussion on current events. However many of us in the middle or leaning left are made to feel as we are less Patriotic then the right simply because we don't want to go along with their agenda.

In the end it will come down to that small group of undecided voters. I have to think the party who takes the high road in the end will come out on top.

It's fun to see a reprise of the "Saddam isn't Hitler!" meme, too. I've always found the implications of that one amusing - what, we're not allowed to act unless we're acting against someone as bad as Hitler? The general world-consensus Most Evil Man Who Ever Lived?

And for every picture of Kerry in the bunny suit, there's one of Bush falling off his bike, or the photoshopped picture of him with the binoculars.
And let's not forget - it wasn't the Bush campaign who released the space photos, it was NASA. Yet it was the Kerry campaign who responded with photos of a Bush picking his nose.

It was Al Gore who used the term "digital brown shirts," by the way. Isn't he on Kerry's side?

Joseph

It was nice to see the Democratic Party, as it is today, drop the veil a bit.

The major theme of it was (while pretending to be pro-military)
Welcome to the Nanny State

When "hope" is equated with Government, then it is clear that the Democratic Party has become indistinguishable from the Left.

Pity.

Drew

Kerry posed for those pics at NASA (and how much credibility are we supposed to give his campaign who is out being trotting the line that these pics were secretly taken and released by the vast rightwing conspiracy?)

And I'm so effing tired of Democrats screaming about how their patriotism is being questioned, or those idiot "flag" statements. I have heard no, NO Republican official ever call Democrat official un-American (unlike Teresa), or say the flag belongs ONLY to Republicans.

Such demagoguery from Kerry, et al, is using false self-defense in order to charge Republicans with things they haven't done.

Or just projection.

To stay out of most of the argument... (it s safer that way for me... laugh), I'll just say that if I wanted to see a Dean speech, (and I desperately did), I would have preferred to see Dean giving it.

I got kinda annoyed once Kerry said "That flag is not the property of either party"... I was about to just start singing the faulkner remix of Dean's speeches after that to see if he'd say any lines right as I said one... you know, check if he has his tempo right and stuff.

Drew,

Are those designed to help us debate issues or just poke fun at the left or those that don't agree with us?

Well, I don't know.

You tell me:
Shrub
Bushitler
Chimpy
Digital Brown Shirts (that's a remark by Al Gore, BTW. Michele and other bloggers have just appropriated it)
Liar
Fascist
Warmongers
Dumbya
Bushie (often used on blogs to refer to anyone who supports Bush in any way)
RepubliKKKan

Sorry, Drew, but if the left is going to casualy toss around insults, then I for one am perfectly willing to hit back just as hard. This IS one of those "they do it too" situations, and both sides use insults. To expect one side to refrain while the other feels no such compulsion is foolish.

I'm just dumbstruck by the fact that neither Kerry nor anybody else I saw at the convention said word one about what we're fighting beyond "terrorists" and "Al Qaeda." Radical Islam, people? Tyrannies? That's the big divide in this election, and it explains everything about why Bush saw Iraq as he did: because he views us as being threatened by the status quo in the Muslim and Arab worlds. You disagree with that? TELL US. Ignoring it is like having a convention in 1948 and not mentioning Communism.

Joseph wrote:

"First the breadth of background and character of the people who are most prominent in the Democratic Party and on the podium. When your tent covers everyone from Al Sharpton to Theresa Kerry, it truly is a big tent."

Let's see, the guy who falsely accused a prosecuter of rape (one which NEVER HAPPENED at all) and was successfully sued for his lies. A woman who used the word un-American ON TAPE then denied it telling a reporter to shove it. Caught flat lying.

You have odd role models.

Hi Michele. Long time no see!

So ten posts in, Godwin's law is invoked. Nice job hen. Makes for real rational discourse.

Not.

Uh Kevin how dumb are you exactly? Never mind, it's obvious. I was comparing no one to Hitler i was just making the point that to argue "Saddam never attacked us" is as dumb as "Hitler never attacked us".

Take some remedial logic classes and reading lessons then come back real soon.

"Are those designed to help us debate issues?"

As a matter of fact, Drew, they are.

Pictures like that give certain fine citizens a lot of help.

Like these poor folks at the Crawford, Texas showing of Farenheit 9/11 in Crawford, Texas:

"Eventually, most of the right side....made their way to the screening about a half-mile away, some greeting the more than 1,000 moviegoers with chants of "Bush, Bush, Bush." And, in an ironic twist of fate, many of the noisy Republicans were turned away because they lacked a permit to protest."

"Perhaps Moore's absence kept things from collapsing into an all-out polarization parade; most discourse with the Bush crowd was already limited to phrases such as "Michael Moore should be tried for treason" and "Kerry is a fairy."...."

"'We thought we'd come out and get both sides of the story and try not to be too partial,' said Ronnie Dieterich, who grew up in Crawford but now lives in Austin."

The Daily Texan

hen - reading lessons?

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Shank,

YOU might want to try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

One common objection to Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." This is a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler because he is a universally known leader and the example requires no explanation. Pretty much everyone would know exactly what you were talking about in the above example. Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact.

Hmm... let's see, I'd think that when we're talking about a man who murdered hundreds of thousands, invaded two of his neighbors, attempted genocide againt the Marsh Arabs, and generally behaved like a "bad dude," (sigh) one can safely make a Hitler comparison without a netcop screaming "Godwin" the second someone does.

Now... do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

Shank - since she was not calling anyone here on the thread a Nazi - but explaining - Godwin's law doesn't apply.

---

Joseph, you should pick up a copy of GQ. There's an article there w/W posing w/Geisha girls, I hear. Just to add to your talking points.

Yes, I know, I know, all the fellows in Washington who weren't tooling around in F-102's in the skies over Lubbock, or drawing their pay while campaign working in Alabama (and probably violating the Hatch Act), "had other priorities."

BTW, how does the NG work?

the discussion about the speech, the discussion about hitler/saddam, or the discussion about Godwin's law?

the discussion about the speech, the discussion about hitler/saddam, or the discussion about Godwin's law?

Anything, Shank. Anything at all. So far you've demonstrated that you know very little about any of the subjects you've chosen to comment on.

Thanks Sandy P. I'll check it out.

i appreciate the defense from the very dense shank and kevin.

some people are so dumb you just know that they have to be libs.

btw - hen don't make me a female. small correction.

I know, what can I say. It's too much fun giving you people e-wedgies. A guy asks a few unpointed questions and throws in a cheesy song parody at the end and get hen-pecked by every ego with a bone to pick. I guess there are some people who take politics pretty seriously; that's their mistake.

OT - hey big brother, are you gonna blogroll me?

Oh, Joseph? I forgot to mention 1 thing.

Seems those geishas were in Viet Nam when the pic was taken.

Ponder that for a mo.

Regarding Godwin's Law:

A reasonable use of the Hitler comparison:

John Kerry says he would not have invaded Iraq because they did not directly attack us. There are numerous nuances that can be applied, but the upshot it Kerry says he wouldn't have fought the war he voted to authorize. People then compare Saddam to Hitler, and extend the question to "in 1941, would you have gone to war with Germany." You will notice, this implies Kerry is unwilling to use military force, it does not imply that he is a Nazi. No violation of Godwin's Law here.

A slightly different scenario:

Al Gore rants about how the Bush Administration has sent forth armies of "digital brownshirts" to stifle dissent on the net. Al is implying that both the President and Michele and other bloggers are Nazis. Yeah, that's a time to invoke Godwin's Law.

...i appreciate the defense from the very dense shank and kevin.

..some people are so dumb you just know that they have to be libs.

God, you are so old school. Cute too! I love it when flaming righties sense their reign is over and start knashing their teeth when backed into a corner. It's so unbecoming but typical. Suggestion: keep whistling in the dark to keep up your spirits. It'll come in handy come November 5th.

OT - hey big brother, are you gonna blogroll me?

Hmmm... what do you think the answer to that is going to be, Shank?

Kevin - Have you anything to contribute at all or do you just enjoy making posts to tell one and all "Look at me! I'm a moron!"

Again, don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.

But how about a $50 bet on the election? Naturally you can have the war crim...err 'hero' and i'll take the President. Yes?

God, you are so old school. Cute too! I love it when flaming righties sense their reign is over and start knashing their teeth when backed into a corner. It's so unbecoming but typical. Suggestion: keep whistling in the dark to keep up your spirits. It'll come in handy come November 5th.

And I love useless trash talk. We'll see who wins, Kevin.

Make that another $50 and it all goes to Michele and I'm in.

Hey Kevin

I don't think I've ever seen anyone "knash" their teeth.

Is it a regional or political behavior, or just in your family? Do you have pictures?

I'll ask again...

Why do supporters of Bush ONLY have negative things to say? Tell me something positive.. spend a week,telling us the virtues of Mr. Bush and why America should vote for him instead of why Michael Moore is Fat and when sweat breaks out on someone's head.

Chris you are kidding right? The negative talk is all from the left. You did hear Super War Hero Man Kerry's speech, yes?

Oh but let me humor you: Bush is honest. He is principled. He cares about the average person. He doesn't fawn over hollywood pretty boys. He is not a liar. He is strong. He loves his country and wd never slander it. He has brought dignity back to the WH. He is doing a very good job, during a very difficult time.

Need more?

Pls tell me why i sh vote for Kerry. By all means tell me what wonderful work he has done in his almost 20 years in the Senate and 8+ yrs on the Intel Committee.

Chris,

That is the exact thing I've been asking the democrats for for months now.

And I'm still waiting.

Here's the deal: Bush, for all his faults, believes in something. I may not always agree with him (for example, on stem cell research or abortion), but I know where he stands.

John Kerry drifts with the wind. He's for the Iraq War. He's against it. He believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He doesn't. He's for the Patriot Act. He's against it. He's against the death penalty. He's for it.

Jesus H. Cthulhu, I liked Howard "Yeeaaaaarrrggghhh!!!" Dean more, even though I agreed with nothing the man stood for. At least he took positions on things and didn't let his support or opposition to something change based on the latest poll numbers.

John Kerry believes in one thing only: that John Kerry should be president.