While it is approximately 50% anti-Bush, it takes some hard swings at Kerry, perhaps unwittingly. On balance, I wish everyone would read it.
I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who are going to read the NYT article, as opposed to the number of people are are going to learn by other means that Kerry once thought terrorism was a nuisance like gambling or prostitution. Incidentally, that's exactly what the NYT article says as well, regardless of how the Kerry people attempt to spin it and -- like the proverbial kid with his hand caught in the globe-shaped cookie jar once again -- whine about "being taken out of context."
I'm not so sure of that, however I had similar criticsm with a different take on it.
The message to destroy Keery is in the quote, the full quote. It's how it is used that matters.
The Bush campaign has used it poorly, and as I said, by not focusing it, they may lose it as an issue. It may already be too late.
The substance of it is that Kerry want to "get back to" a September 10th mentality. His use of "nuisance" dovetails nicely with Bush's description of Clinton's approach to terrorism, which was "swatting at flies."
If they get on this, they can get a lot out of it. But the ad they are running is overly parsed when parsing is not needed. The more of the entire quote they use, the more damaging it is to Kerry, so long as they frame it in the September 10th "swatting at flies" mentality, and the idea that terrorism is something we will just have to get used to living with.
To say I'm suspicious of your motives would be an understatement.
Been here posting for less than a month, and already posting critical of 'our' side. Here to demoralise us? Not going to happen.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
What a load of crap.
Kerry gained in the polls because Bush had a terrible debate and the media spun the loss even more. End of story.
Kerry's own damning words and record does help him and the GOP should continue to use them both against him.
Your joking right? Nothing was taken out of context. Yet Bush is constantly twisted and lied about. No gloves here.
"Out of context," my deep blue eyes. Here, Kerry's remarks with all the context you could possibly want. What he said demonstrates clearly and convincingly that this man must not be Commander-in-Chief, and I want as many people as possible to read his words.
Wow, who's 'we,' newbie?
The Bush campaign may find itself winning the war of the election and losing the peace. By campaigning so strongly against consulting with allies and so strongly for pre-emptive strikes, the president is effectively undoing his own diplomacy over the last year or more. If he wins re-election, Bush may well find himself rediscovering the laws of physics. For every action on the campaign trail, there’s an equal and opposite reaction in the outside world.
Bush is willing to put America first. Bush has a coalition of the willing.
The author's world view which considers the rest of the world to include France and Germany exclusively is a view neither Bush nor any of us should subscribe to.
You're going to give credence to someone who "believes" the poll numbers from those two right after the debates? We all know the dems hijacked all the polls with their spin.
I disagree with you. I have seen several DemocRats turn on Kerry over this quote. Obviously the Bush team thought it was good enough to use in a commercial.
It is DEVESTATING that Kerry actually compared the war on terror to victimless crimes like prostitution and gambling. This kind of thing does NOT play in Peoria.
And yes--I read the whole article. The only people upset about this quote being used are the DemonRats who are seeing their loser candidate getting flushed down the toilet.
In the tank. Its a standing order at Newsweek. You spin for the Dems until its clearly too late and then you blame them for not being 'real' demorats.
* were it not for Kerry having a campaign that is totally out of context of everything he has done as a politician he wouldn't have a campaign
Oh, really?
What is your source for this?
"we really shouldn't have jumped on that out-of-context quoting thing so hard"
Out of context quoting??? Kindly put it in context for me then...
Kinda new to be a screw... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
I think Pres. Bush is doing it right. I'd like to see him turn it upa notch....to make Kerry define "nuisance" terroism.
Is it The Bombing of the Cole ?
Is it the 1st World Trade Center ?
or is "nuisance" kept off-shore:
Is it the Khobar Towers ?
Is it US Embassy in Beruit ?
Is it The Lockerbie Pan-Am explosion ?
"A nuisance? . . . Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
"But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.
"But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we [were] losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we've learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don't want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nightmares are their dreams.
"We have to get back to the place we were.
"No. We have to go the place where they are."
-- James Lileks, as quoted by BEST OF THE WEB TODAY (yesterday)