« The Horror! | Main | The Daily FAD (Updated) »

quack, quack (Updated)

You knew I was going to do it. George Bush, speaking at the UNITY conference today. bq."When we find out intelligence that is real, that threatens people, I believe we have an obligation as government to share that with people," Bush told a convention of minority journalists. "Imagine what would happen if we didn't share that information with the people in those buildings and something were to happen, then what would you write? What would you say?"


"The threats we're dealing with are real and therefore we must do everything we can to ferret out the truth and follow leads," the president said. "These recent threats, that are becoming more and more enriched, as you're finding out. There was more than one thread-line, threat-line. People are now seeing there was other reasons why we took the action we took."


"This is a dangerous time," Bush said. "I wish it wasn't this way. I wish I wasn't the war president. Who in the heck wants to be a war president? I don't. But this is what came our way. ..." Iraq Evidence Led to Missile Arrests (but...but...there's no link between Iraq and the war on terrorism!) Al Qaeda Suspect Cased New York Terror Targets Pakistan Arrests More Terror Suspects British Agents Search For Five Terrorists But it's all still oh, so funny to some people. And Oliver, to call this a flip flop: bq. 08.06.04: "Who in heck wants to be a war president?" 02.08.04: "I'm a war president" is dishonest. bq. "I wish it wasn't this way. I wish I wasn't the war president. Who in the heck wants to be a war president? I don't. But this is what came our way. ..." He didn't want to be a war president. It's what came our way. He didn't ask the Taliban to drag us into a war with Afghanistan. It's what came our way. And Bush accepted his role, like any president would. And: you can search for clues and coincidences all you like. Dress a turkey up like a duck and soon enough everyone will be convinced it's quacking. You go on and believe there's no real war on terrorism. Yep, it's all a setup, a lie, a charade. Are there lollipops in your fantasyland? Update: So, Ms. Cox, do you believe the statement that the war on terror is: bq. ...[T]he struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. to be false? Figures. Stick to the sex, ok? It scans better. [thanks, Crank]


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference quack, quack (Updated):

» Secret Intelligence Intercepted from mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta)
****TOP SECRET**** **FOR YOUR EYES ONLY** FROM: Oliver Willis, CPRF (NKVD Station Chief, Boca Raton Consulate) TO: Politburo, CPUSA CC: Kos, Atrios, Drum, Marshall, Jesse Taylor BCC: AS (aka, The Mole) RE: Trotskyite Infiltrator & Other Surveillance Ma... [Read More]


What a snivelling, craven, dishonest, malicious little Democratic toady.

I almost registered on his website just so I could post this over there. But why bother? I don't care to read anything over there anyway, since he obviously has nothing of any real value or substance to say.

When people stoop to this level of duplicity, they lose any sense of credibility with me.

Fine. Let's do the same thing with Oliver:

"One of the things lacking on the left has been a set of pundits who know what the hell they're doing"

Yeah, that's Oliver to a T.

Funny you should mention "lollipops", Michele.

Two columns within days of each other:

Victor Davis Hanson A Return to Childhood
I would never have imagined that journalists, academics, actors, artists, and the intelligentsia in general would have so opposed the end of dictatorship and promotion of democracy abroad. And who would have thought that Vietnam would become the source for Democratic nostalgia, rather than the usual recrimination? Did anyone think the appointment of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, promises of $15 billion in grants to combat AIDS in Africa, and lectures to the politically powerful Arab world to cease the genocide of black Sudanese would earn George Bush slurs evoking the Taliban, the old Confederacy, and fascism? Have we become children who live in a world of bedtime stories, afraid to face the cruel truth around us?
Dennis Prager Why the Democrats use 12-year-olds
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age). I enjoyed meeting Democrats last week. Many are people I would be happy to have as neighbors. But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up. When George W. Bush was elected, I felt as if adults would now run the country after the adolescent-like President Clinton. Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children.

He may not want to be the war president, but he sure as heck wants everyone to know he is a war president. There is no question the war in Iraq is closely tied in with the war on terror, but that is only because we made it so. Had we not invaded Iraq, Iraq would have been a bit player at best in global terrorism.

Why even acknowledge people like Mr. Flypaper-to-Stupid? Just let him waste away his days in Moonbat Land and don't pay any attention to him. He's of no consequence to thinking people.

My favorite thing about Oliver is that he posed in his 'good' t-shirt for his picture on his blog.

twoghosts: This is a war on terror, not just a war against those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, right? That would include terrorists that strike our allies, right?

So Saddam paying $25,000 to the familes of Palestinian suicide bombers would be supporting terrorism, wouldn't it?

You know, just saying.

Ah, Michele, if you were a bought and paid for propaganda generator we wouldn't love you.

Welcome back to the dark side!

What imecility. Looks like somebody else got in over her head trying to do punditry on this speech:

Apparently, 9/11 is sort of incidental to his foreign policy -- the hijackers just "happen to use terror as a weapon." Like they picked up some airplane tickets at the checkout stand or something.

Bush is making a serious point here that he hasn't stressed enough - we're not at war with an abstract noun. There are particular people with particular ideas and particular friends in particular parts of the world who are at war with us. The fact that they use terrorism as a tactic is not the central reason to oppose them; the central reason is their hostility and propensity to any sort of violence. It just so happens that unlike the Soviets, terrorism is the only weapon they have, for now.

Dress a turkey up like a duck, and IT'LL STILL BE FAKE!!! Har har har, what a stoopidhead!

What? The fake turkey story's not true?

Uh... ummmm... LOOK! Abu Ghraib!

I don't know if Michele reads the comments - and this isn't a request for her to post that she does - but the contexts of the two Bush quotes is instructive.

One is from an interview with Tim Russert. The other is from an interview with David Frost on, gasp, PBS.

If you read the interviews in their entirety Bush comes off as a calm, thoughtful person having a conversation about his actions and decisions as president.

Not what Oliver had had in mind, I'm sure.

But, Li'l, they have to take things out of context or they'd have nothing to write about.

And Bush accepted his role, like any president would.

I would say like a real president would.

Mike Borrelli, this is a war on terror, true. But did we attack Iraq because of those payments? Saddam frequently fanned the flames of the Israel/Palestinian conflict for political ends. He thought it would garner support in the region. It was a deplorable thing which needed to be addressed. However, there were bigger fish to fry in the overall war on terror and SH was being effectively contained. His time was well on the way.

Incorrect, Two. The folks Saddam had paid off with the oil-for-food program (Like the French) were in the process of getting the sanctions lifted.

Saddam needed to go. The are 25 million people with a chance to be free.

All of that is well and good, but it is a retrofitted rational. We took Saddam on because he was a threat to America. Those other reasons (which I support), were an after thought when WMDs were not discovered. If there were other reasons to go in, Bush should have been as forthcoming as national security would allow.

And Oliver, to call this a flip flop:

08.06.04: "Who in heck wants to be a war president?"
02.08.04: "I'm a war president"

is dishonest.

Since when is honestly a qualification for claiming something is a flip-flop? I agree that the "war president" and "peace president" statements are intellectually consistent. However, so are almost all the major "flip-flops" anyone has described for either candidate. The only qualification for a playable "flip-flop" is that it be an easy sound bite with a superficial contradiction, so Oliver is actually correct under the current usage.

For the record, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to change your mind in the face of new evidence (a situation which can be cheaply portrayed as a "flip-flop"). It's also perfectly acceptable to get new evidence and find it unconvincing or insufficient to require a change in position. I have no problems with either of these behaviors if the decision maker is exercising a reasonable level of good judgement (ie as long as the person agrees with me in the end ;)).

I also think that "to try to shake the conscience of the free world" is false. That isn't the goal of the terrorists at all. I am quite certain the terrorists don't give a hoot about shaking us up. Their goals are a lot more like: 1) get the American bases out of Saudi Arabia, 2) destroy Israel, 3) do as much damage to "the west" as possible.

I'll never understand why people who aren't already in agreement with everything Oliver Willis says ... continue to read him. He is a barking moonbat.

Just say no.

WMDs were never the main rational, two.
Nor was it because Saddam was an "Imminent Threat" (words Bush never used).
And why do you assume Bush was NOT as forthcoming as he could be?

Soli - There's plenty of Kerry flip-flops that can't be defended as anything but shifts with the wind. Watch the RNC video on his many Iraq positions, all laid out in his own words. Although as Mickey Kaus has pointed out, Kerry's signature is not the flip-flop but the straddle, where he only gives the appearance of taking a position but really doesn't stand for anything at all.

Hello Ray. First, I never mentioned that Bush claimed Iraq to be an imminent threat. But now that we are on the subject, he did say"

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” (October 2, 2002)

“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.” (October 16, 2002)

“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.” (November 23, 2002)

“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.” (September 26, 2002)

Those are just a few of his quotes on the subject. So we can argue over whether he actually used the word "imminent" or we can accept the greater point and move on.

Second, whatever you feel about the above quotes, it's disingenuous to downplay the importance of WMDs in the justification to go to war.


I have watched the video and read all the "flip-flop" lists from both sides. I found Kerry's position on Iraq to be consistent (I make allowances for change when stated reasons for the war such as WMD stockpiles and al Qaeda connections turn out to be minor), while the "in his own words" segments either do the same "war president/peace president" superficial contradiction or are found to be dishonestly taken out of context when researched further. For example, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is often listed as a flip-flop, but I have never heard one person who makes this claim turn around and complain that President Bush promised to veto the $87 billion before he signed it.

As for Micky Kaus, I don't like him and I don't read him. I have not seen any indication of the existence of a way to vote "straddle." If you want to list some specific instance of this "straddle" strategy, I would look into it as long as it doesn't require me reading Micky "Wonkette without the sex" Kaus.


Off hand, I can think of a classic Kerry straddle..one in which he promotes himself as a practicing Catholic and yet has never voted to restrict abortion in any way, including voting against the ban of partial-birth abortion.

Like Kryptonite To Stupid, If Kryptonite Automatically Got 400 Points On Its' SAT Score Just Because It's Kryptonite.


I missed the part where Jesus said unto his disciples "Go unto Caesar and tell him to enact the laws of heaven into his kingdom on earth." Kerry is pro-choice and I know many people who are Bush supporters just on this one issue. That's not a straddle, it's prefectly clear and he's always taken full responsibility for it. As long as he does not have an abortion (that would be quite a trick!) or force anyone else to have an abortion, he's still a practicing Catholic.

I challenge you to apply your phony test to President Bush (or any other politician that you like). President Bush is a Methodist and promotes himself as such. Methodist's believe that you should not take the name of God in vain, yet President Bush has utterly failed to call for a measure punishing people for taking the name of God in vain, including not telling Michael Powel to enforce FCC obsenity regulations against those who take the name of God in vain on the public airwaves. Does that make him a straddler?

Wow, Soli -- it's a really long time since you've cracked a Bible open isn't it?

Andrea Harris,


Michele - I dont know if Oliver's worth the effort anymore. He really jumped the shark with his idiotic 9/11 comment to you last week. I use to think he was interesting but wrong on a lot of issues. Now I think he's just wrong on a lot of issues.


If you think "taking the Lord's name in vain" is about bad language, well ... how do I put this?

You're wrong.

If JK wasn't "straddling" the issue of his professed Catholism and his pro-abortion (if someone supports partial birth abortion cannot be called "pro-abortion" then the term has no meaning) stance, he wouldn't be trying to have it all. The "I'm not going to impose my religion on anyone" is a sop. There are many areligious people who just don't think "any abortion at any time under any circumstance at any age and should be available and affordable" is good social policy. All lawmakers (and a Senator is a legislator as opposed to the President) are constantly regarding laws dealing with social policy. That JK can't find one thing socially wrong with such an extreme stance on abortion belies his claim when he stands before Catholic groups and professes kinship. But trying to be all things to all people is definitely a straddling strategy.

All right, let's take the President seriously since I am perfectly willing to concede that no one sensible would take Oliver or Wonkette seriously based on the stuff you linked.

If I were to ask the "homeland security" question like an undecided voter from Ohio would, it would go like this: What has George W. Bush done about security that John Kerry couldn't do?

Why this way? Because if the election were held today, without the security issue, in Ohio, George W. Bush would be toast. His "recovery" has simply cost us too many jobs. Period.

So the President can tell us we're in danger. He has a cabinet member who can bump up the alert to orange when "new information" warrents it. He has the FBI spying on and stinging Muslims in America.

He has the CIA infiltrating Al Queada. He has the NSA listening to every cell phone conversation on the planet and running them through Cray Supercomputers. He can fly Predator drones over suspicious sites in the Middle East.

He can ask municipalities to increase ruinously expensive surveilance and police presence around potential targets--without the Federal Government giving them any funding help to do it, by the way. He can ask the Brits or the Pakistanis to round up suspicious characters. And he can have every commercial plane passenger in the country shaken down for nail scissors.

So what's so special about any of this that only George W. Bush can do it? As far as I can see, these are only the most obvious measures that any prudent President would do under the circumstances.

Does anyone here seriously think that if John Kerry were elected he would disband the Homeland Security Department, stop all the FBI investigations, not put us on alert if he thinks we're in real danger, and tell the CIA and the NSA to take an extended vacation?

I don't think so.

And if I were a genuine undecided voter, I'd want some serious proof (and not just rumor and innuendo) that he was so bereft of common sense (or political sense for that matter) as to do any of that under the current circumstances. And the idea that he would is simply silly.


I didn't say it was about bad language, I said he could tell Michael Powel to "enforce FCC obsenity regulations against those who take the name of God in vain on the public airwaves." If you think that's the same thing ... you're wrong.

The fact is, John Kerry is pro-choice and everyone knows it. If he's "trying to be all things to all people," where are all the people who think he's pro-life? Trying to pretend it's a "straddle" is just amusing. Trying to pretend that being a Catholic requires you to attempt to selectively enforce Catholic beliefs on the entire American public is a joke.

No doubt you are also aware of the vast gap that exists between the strawman argument: "any abortion at any time under any circumstance at any age and should be available and affordable" and the actual argument on banning partial birth abortion is that it be used only to save the life of the mother (not to save her from organ failure, not to save her ability to bear more children, not under any other exceptional circumstance which might come up).

Mara- Ollie Willis jumped the shark LOOOOOOOOONG before last week. It was sometime during the run-up to invading Iraq.


You still are operating under the erroneous assumption that "taking the Lord's name in vain" falls under the legal definition of "obscenity."

It doesn't. Your argument is based on a false premise.


Does partial birth abortion (which falls under both 2nd and 3rd trimester) "only to save the live of the mother" fall under the legal status of abortion regulation as defined in Roe v. Wade?

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

© For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. [emphasis mine]

It doesn't, so my argument is not that far off base. In any case, the fact remains: there are numerous Methodist beliefs which President Bush is correctly failing to enforce on the American people. Does this make him a phony Methodist, trying to please everyone? No. The line of argument is simply ridiculous, and you would never apply it to a politician you liked or even on an issue you didn't care about. If this you only apply the logic based on how much you personally care about the issue and only to politicians you don't like, you are not making an intellectually honest case.

Soli, a correction before you continue this line of argument: while the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the underlying principle of Roe, in the very same opinions where it claimed to be doing so it actually changed the law of the subject dramatically. First off, you have to look at the bright-line three-trimester structure of Roe in light of the even more radical restriction on state authority in its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, but regardless, neither case represents the governing standard anymore; rather, that's the typically vague O'Connorism enunciated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey of whether state law imposes an "undue burden."

Dave J,

Good point, I don't know why I let myself get side tracked on this anyway. The issue that Kerry is pro-choice is established, and the fact that being pro-choice is not a "straddle" has been clear and unquestioned from the opening moments. There's no reason for me to get bogged down on legal issues (which I readily admit Darlene knows far more about then me).

Then you must not have understood what you read. That's too bad -- unlike the Koran, the Bible is fairly straightforward, especially some of the updated (for people who get hives from Jacobean prose) versions. But then I am not surprised since you can't even seem to understand what the obscenity laws in this country are about.

Andrea Harris,

One more time, real slow. My point never had anything to do with the current legal definition of obscenity. I said President Bush could tell Michael Powell to "enforce FCC obsenity regulations against those who take the name of God in vain on the public airwaves."

In other words, we have a set of laws on the books which give Michael Powell the power to punish a certain class of speech with the goal of preventing it on the public air waves. Taking the name of God in vain is a class of speech, so expanding Michael Powell's job to include that too is not an enourmous stretch. Would it be legal for the President to just do it, as I implied? No, you're right on that score.

Then you must not have understood what you read. That's too bad -- unlike the Koran, the Bible is fairly straightforward, especially some of the updated (for people who get hives from Jacobean prose) versions.

If you've got some "updated" version of the Bible that is "simple," I suggest you go get an older version, because you're being snowed. The real bible is not simple. I have not actually read the Koran, so I can't confirm or deny your comparison. There are indeed many things in the Bible that I struggle to understand, so it is quite possible that I am wrong.

Soli, I'm afraid I have to agree with Andrea and Darleen. Your obscenity arguement is based on a false premise.

I frankly don't care where Kerry stands on abortion. Or his faith.

As to flip-flops, maybe you could explain how his changing stories on the throwing away of medals does not constitute flip-flopping?


My argument is not "based" on the premise that the legal definition of obscenity could be used to censor taking the name of God in vain. My argument is, in fact, that it would be ridiculous to accuse President Bush (or any other Methodist) of "straddling" the issue of being a Methodist because they aren't trying to enforce all the aspects of being a Methodist on the country. Yet that is the standard that Darleen suggests for Kerry. As I have said previously, I agree with you, Darleen, and Andrea that taking the Lord's name in vain does not fall under the legal definition of obsencenity. The premise of this argument is to show that the proposed standard of "straddle" is not being applied in an intellectually honest manner, which remains both true and unquestioned.

Kerry's "changing" of his throwing the medals story (I threw medals/I threw ribbons) is a flip-flop as I have defined flip-flop in the exact same sense as War President/Peace President is a flip-flop. It's a great sound bite and it's completely superficial. The missing context is that "ribbon" and "medal" can both be used to describe the same thing (a piece of fabric with a piece of metal attatched which represents an award).

Absolutely wrong on that one, Soli. Anyone can buy any ribbon at any PX, BX or even in surplus stores. You can buy them without having to prove you won anything. The actual medal cannot be replaced. Huge difference.

Throwing away a medal is an irrevocable action. Throwing away a ribbon is a stunt. Claiming they are the same is bull. Changing the story on several occasions through the years is too.


Anyone can buy any ribbon at any PX, BX or even in surplus stores. You can buy them without having to prove you won anything. The actual medal cannot be replaced. Huge difference.

That does not change the fact that you can refer to a ribbon as a medal or as the representation of a medal. The question is, has Kerry tried to convince people that he did one when he actually did the other. My understanding of the situation is that he did not. The fact is, when he was making those original statements which you can go back and soundbite, he had been taped through the whole event and everyone he was talking to had seen it. The facts of what happened are well established, on video and with multiple live media witnesses.

To my knowledge, every time John Kerry has been asked to make the distinction, he correclty clarified that he did not throw the display piece medals. So, I put to you, you're argument is based on the false premise that in the interview he did in 1971 on tv when he said "medals" he meant for the watchers to totally disbelieve the video that had just been shown of him pulling his ribbons off his chest and throwing them and instead think that he did something else. Maybe he did mean that, maybe there was some other reason, but I put to you, sir, that it is completely dishonest to frame this issue without attempting to address the context which I have put in bold.


In context.

I assume you do not have a military background, Soli. Forgive me if I am in error.

The medal is most assuredly NOT the ribbon. There is a huge difference.


You are correct, I do not have a military background. Even if I did have a military background, it would not have been in the correct time period to make that evaluation (ie if there is a distinction now but not at in 1971). Instead I evaluated the question of whether dress ribbons are commonly refered to as medals as follows (completely unscientific):

Google search for "medals on his chest" (510 results)


"In 1996, a left-wing news service raised questions about two small "V" clips that the chief of Naval operations wore over two of the medals on his chest full of them."

"That was my brother Sylvest’ (What’s he got?) A row of forty medals on his chest"

"In Remembrance. THE VETERAN. Proud he dons the medals on his chest."

"So when you see a Veteran Give the man Your hand For those medals on his chest were won ..."

"He was wearing his dress greens, and the medals on his chest included a Purple Heart, a Distinguished Service Cross, and a Silver Star."

Google search for "ribbons on his chest" (265 results)


"The second man was a Vietnam hero who could display six rows of ribbons on his chest"

"Ted Lenahan carried combat in his scars and in the ribbons on his chest."

"The second man was a Vietnam hero who could display six rows of ribbons on his chest."

"There were ribbons on his chest, not many just a few, and he'd point at every one and all the stories that I knew"

My conclusion ... dress ribbons may be refered to as medals. Again, this is with no military experience on my part, only a quick and dirty evaluation of the kind that I often make when confronted with contradictary claims of this nature.

As for your link, I challenge you to show me where in that ABC story they talk about how, during that Viewpoints interview, they played the clip of Kerry throwing away his ribbons. Again, I find it likely that both Kerry, the news anchor, and the audience understood what he was refering to. The fact that it was muddled by 1984 does not shock me, as 13 years is a significantly longer period for a memory lapse than 3 days. I have a very hard time giving serious consideration to the idea that, 3 days after the event which was, again, video taped and witnessed by multiple press persons, Kerry was trying to change the obvious, factual details. It makes much more sense that he would be simply refering to the dress ribbons considering the terms appear to have been interchangable.

The ribbon represents the medal, since it is improper to actually wear medals on the uniform (exception: CMH). The medal does not represent the ribbon.

My father's lost medals could not be replaced. His ribbons were easy to get.

I did ask my son, he confirmed this for me.

And I keep coming back to the fact that Kerry had to know the ribbons were replacable. Therefore it was a stunt, not a statement.

And I know you think his hard veer to the left during the primary represents a flip. You've admitted that bothered you.


I have never disagreed with you on the fact that throwing away the actual display piece medal is 1000 times more meaningful than throwing away the ribbons. That does not mean that throwing the ribbons was not a statement, just that it could have been a much stronger statement. The facts are not in doubt, the only question is ... did Kerry attempt to decieve the public into thinking that he threw away the real medals in 1971 and then "flip-flop" back into telling the truth by 1984? My analysis is that the simplest explanation that fits that facts is when he said "medals" in that 1971 interview which had played clip of him throwing his dress ribbons, he was using the word to refer to those ribbons. My quick and dirty research suggests such a reference is common usage.

You are correct, I do find Kerry's veer to the left quite disturbing. I don't know if it specifically fits a "flip-flop" category as it is hard to narrow down specific issues he drastically changed his policies about, it was more along the lines of the slimy feeling you get when a used-car salesman suddenly switchs into hard-sell mode (even beyond the natural repulsion I always feel when exposed to a "real" fanatic from either side). I don't think you'll see this brought up in the "flip-flop" campaign simply because it is extremely hard to condense into a sound bite, and also because it has sadly become an accepted structure in the primary system.

Well, Soli, by now you realize I think Kerry is a complete sleaze. I also have been around long enough to know how things work in the world of politics. So I will continue to exercise my "least worst" option.

I frankly have felt nothing but disgust for Kerry since 1971. I believe he has purposly avoided making any unalterable stand on anything for his entire career. That is not the kind of man I want as President.

The Dems really blew it with this cypher.