<< JIHAD ALLEGEDLY THREATENED ~ MAIN ~ NATION GOOD >>
KERRY "COMPELLING"
The Nation’s Ari Berman hails the new John Kerry—a flip-flopped version of the former flip-flopper, in other words:
In the past few months Kerry has presented a side of himself very different from the one the public saw during the 2004 campaign. Freed from the grip of consultants, the spotlight of the national media and the Republican attack dogs, he is looser, clearer and more compelling.
Translation: can’t handle pressure. Keep away from White House.
Call it the Al Gore Effect.
Hey! Handing out the insults is our job, Ari.
People close to him certainly sense a change in attitude. Former Senator Gary Hart, a confidant, believes Kerry has circled back to the Vietnam era ...
This is a change?
"What does he have to lose now?” says Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley. “He might as well go for broke."
Broke? What, is Teresa cutting off his allowance?
That wasn’t always Kerry’s attitude.
Nothing ever is.
And after years of vacillation, he has found his voice on Iraq.
So now he’s demanding the Bush administration stop vacillating.
His new mantra, says Kerry, is “clarity and brevity."
Not just brevity. Clarity and brevity. Please run again, Mr. Kerry.
he is looser
Switched to boxers, did he?
clearer
Boxers I hear will do that for a guy, Briefs can really tighten the nuts....:).
more compelling
First definiton of “compelling”
Urgently requiring attention.
“clarity and brevity.”
clarity = lucid = intelligible
never happen Kerry
brevity = The quality or state of being brief in duration
We hope your stay is brief (not boxers) too, Kerry.
You want clarity and brevity?
Kerry? Like hell.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 11 at 09:28 PM • permalink...after years of vacillation, he has found his voice on Iraq.
It took him only something over three years to make a decision? Hot damn, he’s on a roll!
That’s what I look for in a chief executive: Somebody who spends a few years formulating his lightning-fast response to something he knew about months in advance, all those years ago.
Catlike reflexes, baby. Catlike.
Posted by P. Froward on 2006 05 11 at 09:39 PM • permalinkSo when he voted yes, in ‘98 and yes again on the AUMF, that was someone else’s voice? Karl Rove had his hand up Kerry’s butt to make his lips move?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 11 at 09:47 PM • permalinkI think Ari had a couple of typos when describing Kerry with “he is looser”.
Ari actually meant to write “he is a loser”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 11 at 09:47 PM • permalinkClarity and Brevity? OK, but what about a new haircut - you know, go for broke.
Posted by pick-your-pun on 2006 05 11 at 09:50 PM • permalinkLileks — Better not let Jane Hamsher hear that. Ask Jeff Goldstein.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 11 at 11:46 PM • permalinkAs far as I know he’s the same old cut-n-run Kerry we all came to know and loathe so many years ago. Kerry has the acute knowledge and appreciation of military and geopolitical strategy of a rather dimbulb butterbar. Without a minder to tell him what to do he is lost if even a trivial decision must be made (and that was according to his campaign staff). Nonexistent events are “seared” into his memory, so that his decisionmaking, such as it is, is based on hallucinations. This is the man the Dems thought was more electable than any other Dem candidate and whom they wanted with his finger on the nuke button.
If you Dems want to win in 2008 here is the formula. Get to the right of the Packs on social issues. Get to the right of Attila the Hun on the War. You can spout your usual nonsense about economics since most voters don’t know enough about the subject to realize how stupid your ideas really are. That will sweep you into the White House and probably control of the Congres as well. Of course you’ll lose the KosKidz and the other raving lunatics, who will find their natural home in the “Joe Stalin Was A Great Man” party and simlar oases of insanity, but you don’t really need them do you?
Of course you could have done this in 2004, so maybe the Dems don’t want to win, just to vent your more base emotions like rage and terminal selfishness.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 05 12 at 12:17 AM • permalinkHow does a grown man get to the point where he believes that if he can just change how he presents his image, people will ignore the fact that there is no substance to the form. He is an empty vessel waiting to be filled by an audience, be it the amorphous collective of a mob or the upper-class twat of any year you care to mention that is his wife.
Polls also predicted Kerry winning the 2004 election. And I am NOT referring to the exit polls.
Go back to your crayons, Addamo. The grown ups are talking about grown up matters.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 12 at 01:17 AM • permalinkJohn Kerry has remade himself. In fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.
Posted by tachyonshuggy on 2006 05 12 at 01:19 AM • permalinkHmmm. If I recall World Religions 101 correctly, a mantra is a short saying or poem that the devout use - among other things - to wipe out their enemies. I could be wrong, but has anyone tested what happens if you walk around the White House intoning “Clarity and Brevity” for hours on end. Just askin’...
The_Real_JeffS ,
You still have some drool hanging from your chin. Never mind.
The Polls of the 2004 election where nowhere near as lob sided as they are now. Bush has just cracked the 30% approval rating. His base is deserting him in droves. Cheney’s popularity is below that of OJ Simposon.
The Dems only need to pick up 15 seats to take back the house, and at the rate that Repugs are being indicted, they probabytl wont even need to campaign to do it.
Having said that, I don’t regard the Dems as a solution to the GOP. Washington needs an thorough enema.
In mean time, we’re stuck with a Forrest Gump, who believes that “men and fish can live in peace”.
Our two weapons are Clarity and Brevity...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are clarity, brevity, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no… *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as clarity, brevity.... I’ll come in again.
Addamo, how about the Dems’ numbers? Gee, I wonder why you’re not mentioning those.
Oh, that’s right: You’re not mentioning them because they’re just as bad. This year, the Congressional Democrats are scoring about on par with salmonella. Part of what’s clobbering them is voices-in-the-head wing of their party who want them to run howling off into the darkness somewhere left of Karl Marx. But part of it is the Democratic party’s traditional working-class/unionist base, most of whom still have this weird atavistic notion that “patriotism” actually *excludes* obsessively hating your own country. Baffling, I know.
The more severely impaired Democrats increasingly live in a white, affluent, urban echo chamber on the fringes of American politics. The fact that much of what they believe is derived from the KKK and the John Birch society, rather than traditional “left” sources, is neither here nor there; Blair’s Law at this point is a commonplace. The point, rather, is that in their echo chamber they think they’re the mainstream, and that the way for the Dems to succeed electorally is to play exclusively to about 2% of the electorate. Luckily for the Democratic party, it’s unlikely that candidates outside of the Cambridge/Austin/Madison/Berkeley freakshow are dumb enough to try that. But the padded-cell wing are going to do their level best to destroy the party if they can’t control it. They’ll do real damage to the (relatively) sane Democratic candidates in the process.
You’re also making a mistake in assuming that conservatives who are unhappy with Dubya have suddenly turned into psychotic Kos shriekers who want us to lose the war.
Given a choice in November between fools and hopeless infantile morons like Pelosi and Kerry, I’d grit my teeth and settle for the fools. Unfortunately, I live in Massachusetts, where I don’t get even that much of a choice. Guess I’ll be writing in Andrew Jackson again…
Posted by P. Froward on 2006 05 12 at 09:40 AM • permalinkI agree that the selective reliance on polling numbers and other statistics is amusing at best, and dishonest at worst. Polls conducted in Iraq indicate that the people who are living through the events firsthand have a more positive opinion of the future than we do. But others indicate that they want American troops to leave, at some point. So which poll do Democrats and the loveable loony Left wish to embrace? Gee, there’s a toughie.
Shall we now cite the domestic polls that show broad opposition to gay marriage, even in states that voted for Kerry in 2004? No? How about the polls that favor curbs on abortion? No, instead, let’s concentrate on the poll that shows a majority that opposes outlawing it totally.
For fun let’s now tally up the money received by Congressmen from Abrahmoff, and provide subtotals by party. Anyone interested? Addamo?
How about we return to the loveable tots that were dragged off into the evil American military, and sent to their death wearing cardboard. I’m referring to Kosovo, Haiti and Liberia. Funny how their age or economic background and politics of the greiving parents don’t seem to matter as much when it’s dear Kofi and Co. sending the moppets off to die. The world is still waiting for Ted Koppel to explain why he counted US casualties in Iraq, but not from UN deployments, not to mention Bill Clinton’s incursions, which had neither Congressional authorization OR the blessings of the UN/Michael Moore.Kerry wouldn’t be compelling were he wearing a naked Jessica Alba.
I don’t know what that means, but trust me, Kerry wouldn’t be compelling.
Posted by Bill Spencer on 2006 05 12 at 11:02 AM • permalinkProfessor Froward,
I made it pretty clear that the Dems are a pathetic alternative to the Republicans. Pelosi is a completely spineless and Kerry is worse than dismal.
You are also falling for the nasty habit of inventing statements. I made no mention of the war, but seeing as you brought it up, it’s pretty clear that not only are the majority of Americans against the war, but that this number is on the increase.
The fact is that absent an October surprise (which is more than likely) Bush’s numbers are going to set a record before November.
You got to hand it to Bush though. He promised us he would be a uniter, and in that regard, he has succeeded admirably.
Blue Hen,
Yes I would be more that interested in hearing how much the Democrats received from Abrahmoff vs Republicans. As I said before, Congress needs an enema and the Dems are not a cure to the stench. Got a link?
Speaking of Clinton’s crimes, I couldn’t agree more. There is a delusion amongst the left that Bush rearranged US foreign policy after 911, when in fact, he simply removed the sugar coated veneer from the status quo.
How does a grown man get to the point where he believes that if he can just change how he presents his image, people will ignore the fact that there is no substance to the form.
Well, Bill Clinton was elected to two terms. I believe that in Presidential elections, the “swing voters” end up voting for the man they trust more, rather than rationally choosing which ideology (if any) more closely matches their own (if any). Can you think of any elections (in the TV era) where the more “likeable” Presidential Candidate lost? (Bear in mind that Nixon was not actually universally reviled between 1968 and 1972, though you might believe so on evidence of popular culture.)
...the Dems could probably roll out a Michael Jackson and still probably win against Bush.
Unfortunately, they can’t run against Bush anymore. They can try to frame Congressional elections as executive branch opinion polls, but incumbent inertia is hard to overcome.
The threat of impeachment from a Democrat controlled Congress on the basis of “misleading lies” is pretty hilarious. I just keep thinking: President Cheney...
Outside the Beltway and the enclaves Professor Froward mentions, a lot of people can tell when they’re being treated with condescension (which seemed to me Kerry’s biggest problem in flyover country). Many can’t, of course, and love it when empathetic platitudes are mouthed, vaguely promising them new entitlements. What Dubya and crew need to remember is that acting more like Democrats doesn’t win any more support from liberals, it mostly loses support from conservatives. There’s more to leadership than poll numbers, no matter which media outlet is framing the questions.
“If the Pope were less Catholic, maybe more atheists would carry his picture in their wallets.” (I wish I could remember where I read this yesterday!)
Oh please. Senator Swiftboat couldn’t be brev and clar if his life depended on it.
To bolster his national profile, Kerry is launching a think tank--helmed by Gary Hart--to train the next generation of progressive foreign-policy thinkers; coming out with a book on the environment this fall; and scheduling a full plate of political events before the 2006 midterms.
Heaven help us--another progressive think tank. I spent some time a while back perusing the self-described bold 15 New Ideas that the progressives at the American Progress think tank thought up to meet America’s “profound challenges”. I defy anyone to find anything bold or new about them. Just more warmed-over liberal tripe. And, hey, just who the hell does Kerry think he is working Gorebot’s side of the street?
Gary Hart, btw, is a former Senator from Colorado (or, according to his website: Gary Hart - statesman, scholar, attorney, writer - is a Renaissance man of new ideas.) who probably would have been the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee (and quite possibly winner of the general election) had he not arrogantly challenged the media to catch him in an extra-marital affair. They took the challenge and shortly after this appeared effectly ending Hart’s run for the roses and saddling the Dems with this. Well done, Senator Hart.
Please run again, Mr. Kerry.
Don’t worry. He’s got the money, he’s got the ego and he’s got a bone to pick. He’ll run. And it’ll be beautiful.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 05 12 at 12:29 PM • permalinkPlease note that I didn’t say that they were crimes. I said incursions. And I was pointing out the difference in the reception that these received over current events. Indeed, the UN deployments continue to receive a markedly different response from the beautiful people, especially the MSM and Hollywood.
As for “running against Bush”, I have to break this to you… He isn’t likely to be running again. Also,I hadn’t heard about any serious plans for drafting Cheney to be the Presidential nominee. Why would you fixate upon either? Unless you were perhaps yearning for a gridlocked government? Your comments regarding control of Congress may have more traction.
I also note that you declined to respond to the polls conducted within Iraq. Please explain why Iraqis are more confident in the current situation than the US is. Indeed, they’e more confident of their future than the French are of theirs.
“Status quo”!?!
1.The President of the United States was also a witness to devastating terroist attacks upon military and civilian targets in the domestic US.
2.He ordered forces into Afghanistan to destroy the bases from which the attacks were supported.
3. He appealed to the General Assembly of the UN to enforce the provisions of the cease fire agreement between the coalition and Iraq. He also asked for, and received, authorization from Congress to deploy troops and use force.
4. When the appeals failed, for reasons which are becoming more apparant (French arms sales to Iraq, oil credits, the oil for food schemes) he then employed that force.
5. The President also stated that US policy would no longer support stability over democratic forces or movements during his visit to Britain.This you perceive to be the status quo? If that were true, then why are policy makers from the Clinton, Bush41 and Carter years bemoaning the movement away from “stability”? Scowcroft and Brezinski are the best examples that come to mind.
Tim, set up a PayPal box for Kerry. You can keep a cut.
We need that man to run.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 05 12 at 01:02 PM • permalinkI am very psyched for Kerry to run again. If he does I will personally buy him a beer.
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 05 12 at 03:06 PM • permalinkI’m visiting the People’s Republic of Massachusetts for my niece’s high school graduation and I’m already war-gaming the guest speaker.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 05 12 at 04:08 PM • permalink28
Kerry wouldn’t be compelling were he wearing a naked Jessica Alba.
Maybe not, but I’d have a hard time ignoring him.
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 12 at 04:19 PM • permalink23 Moe
I don’t regard the Dems as a solution to the GOP.
Maybe not, but they’ve got a sure cure for those sagging numbers of his. It’s called “impeachment.” Anybody here remember what that stupidity did for W.J.Clinton’s once-sagging poll numbers? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 12 at 04:22 PM • permalinkIf Hart is a Renaissance man, can I call him out for a meeting with rapiers? I’m just askin’...
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 12 at 07:07 PM • permalinkKerry wouldn’t be compelling were he wearing a naked Jessica Alba.
“Hey, it’s Jessica Alba with an unsightly growth on her ass!”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 12 at 11:35 PM • permalinkClarity — So Kerry is back into EST?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 13 at 01:08 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I can just picture the consultants doing The Dance of Seven Veils in front of Kerry and seducing him to appear as a addled moron on national TV night after night. Oh, how seductive they are cajoling and wheedling the poor dear boy into mouthing focus group platitudes that cost him the election. If only Mr. Kerry hadn’t fallen for those Gucci loafered enchanters that denied him his rightful place on the throne of the Kingdom of Pennsylvania Ave.