McCain Rides to Kerry's Rescue: "John Kerry is Not Weak on Defense" (Today Show alert)

The Today Show

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Just when the Bush campaign had wrestled John Kerry to to the mat on his weak and waffling record on national security and defense, who leaps over the ropes and into the ring to revive him? Why, none other than the egomaniacal, sore-losing Senator from Arizona, John McCain.

In a just-concluded interview, the Today Show's Matt Lauer posed the question in the clearest possible terms: "is John Kerry weak on defense?"

On the first go-round, rather than answering the question at all, holier-than-thou McCain chose to decry the "negativism" of the campaign. He fretted that all the mean stuff will turn off young voters, and admonished the candidates to start talking about Social Security, health care and overspending (i.e., issues less favorable to Pres. Bush).

But Lauer would not be put off, and repeated his question squarely: "Is John Kerry weak on defense?"

Now, consider McCain's options in answering. He could of course told the truth: "of COURSE John Kerry is weak on defense!"

If he wanted to show some comity toward a fellow Senator, he could have gone for the middle ground: "however you want to characterize Kerry, it's clear that President Bush is much stronger on defense."

But instead, McCain chose option three - ignoring the truth and flatly defending Kerry. His answer "No, I don't think Kerry is weak on defense." He "nuanced" the rest of his answer "well, of course every Senator has to defend his votes, and I disagree with him on some things." But the headline quote remains - "McCain: Kerry not Weak on Defense."

Lauer then raised the question of whether McCain would accept an offer from Kerry to run as VP. He gave a classic Washington non-denial denial. He "wasn't running for VP." Yeah, not yet, you haven't been asked. He stopped far short of saying he wouldn't accept Kerry's invitation. "Have you had serious discussions with the Kerry campaign? "Not serious ones." Not serious? Has McCain had un-serious discussions with the Kerry people?

McCain went on to describe his GOP affiliation in this most curious way. "I'm a member of the party of Lincoln, of the party of Teddy Roosevelt." It seemed that he was about to add someone else. The obvious name would have been Ronald Reagan. But no, the most recent Republican with whom McCain was willing to associate himself was in office 100 years ago.

Thanks for nothin', John.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Reminds me of the old recipe for tripe:

Place in a large pot and boil.
After 12 hours, throw away the tripe and eat the pot.

[Consort]

Eh. You go ahead and make excuses for the McCain's of the party.

If Republicans (or any voters) vote for RINOs, then that's the way it is. It's a numbers game...the party with the most members controls it all. Is that too complicated for you and your third party mentality?

Just don't be surprised or bitch when they become turncoats like Jeffords.

Jeffords illustrates my point: it's a numbers game and when he was an "R", the GOP controlled the Senate.

The rest of us will use what's called "critical thinking" when it comes to our votes.

Critical condition may be more like it.

Principles, not blind loyalty.

A principled loser is still a loser and is just another loser among other losers.

[Consort]

McCain should be truned out of office.

Yes, but if the choice is between him and a Democrat, vote for him. Control of the Senate is at stake (e.g., one or more SCOTUS vacancies are on the horizon.

[KantianBurke]

[petercooper]

Go Toomey!

[Area51]

Your lickspittle is needed over on this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1100087/posts to spin for R-nold the "he is the only Republican that can win" candiddate.

The Broken Glass RINO stampede seems to have vharged over a West coast cliff and died now that the LIBERAL is in office and pushing a LIBERAL AGENDA and writting policy with DEMOCRATS.

They were told, but the blind could not see. Win at all cost is what they said, he is really a Moderate Conservative.

HA HA HA!

[Right Wing Puppy]

You know I almost hope McInsane accepts the VP offer. It will mean the end of his political career. The people of Arizona will reject him. He will have a hard time squaring himself with the DemoRat security position and will compromise himself beyond redemption.

So go ahead John-Boy run!

[Consort]

Ask any Conservative Senator who chairs a powerful (or any) committee (or Sub-Committee) what they think of your mind-set about voting. Ask them if they prefer that you vote for a RINO or Third Party or Democrat or not vote at all. Ask them...and show your picture of Clinton while you're at it.

[Area51]

Jeffords illustrates my point: it's a numbers game and when he was an "R", the GOP controlled the Senate.

The rest of us will use what's called "critical thinking" when it comes to our votes.

Critical condition may be more like it.

Principles, not blind loyalty.

A principled loser is still a loser and is just another loser among other losers.


102 posted on 03/18/2004 6:44:34 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Actually I think you are missing the point. Whiney assed RINOs like Jeffords demand attention at every minute. They have no principles.

So when they don't get their way they CHANGE PARTIES, not out of any deep seated principle but out of sheer GREED and need to be the center of attention.

And the R's never have held the majority in any meaningful fashion because With the likes of Jeffords, collins, snowe and McME The Leadership was and is always having to hold their hand, offer them some behind the scenes perks or they refuse to support a Majority of the Parties platform. So instead of decent legislation we get BS feel good watered down, means nothing actions for political gain and nothing more.

[Consort]

The contest was between Arnold and Cruz. Thats' it.

HA HA HA!

Laughing-Matter Conservatives are near the bottom of the heap.

[Area51]

offer them some behind the scenes perks or they refuse

---

Should have said: offer them some version of the bill that has been watered down to appease their liberal thinking or they refuse

[headodenton]

Hey Guy
The rule is, "know your enemy"! Ya gotta keep an eye on those squibs

[Area51]

110 posted on 03/18/2004 7:01:58 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Well, when you get a millasecond please be sure to list the REAL differences?

R-nold is writting legislation the LIBERALS want!

[man of Yosemite]

Perhaps the senator meant Kerry is not weak on his defense of France.

[Consort]

Actually I think you are missing the point.

It's a weak, unimportant, and meaningless point.

Whiney assed RINOs like Jeffords demand attention at every minute. They have no principles.

Many politicians on both sides are like that. It's a wash and it's not important.

So when they don't get their way they CHANGE PARTIES,...

How many "R"s cahnged parties compared to "D"s? It ain't even close.

And the R's never have held the majority in any meaningful fashion because With the likes of Jeffords, collins, snowe and McME The Leadership was and is always having to hold their hand, offer them some behind the scenes perks or they refuse to support a Majority of the Parties platform. So instead of decent legislation we get BS feel good watered down, means nothing actions for political gain and nothing more.

Simplistic and short-sighted. That argument has been shot down so many times here....how could you have missed it?

[krunkygirl]

Thanks for watching and reporting--since most of the rest of us can't stomach this show, it serves us all well to hear about stuff like this coming from "one of our own." (add a dollop of heavy sarcasm with that last bit)

[Puddleglum]

McCain's endless animosity toward Bush reminds me of Khan's attitude towards Kirk from "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan": I have hurt him, and I want to go on... hurting him! Bwahahahahaha!" Oh course, Khan was a campy stage villain maniac and McCain is a distinguished senator...

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Perhaps the senator meant Kerry is not weak on his defense of France.

LOL!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks, KG, my pleasure. Let me know if you'd like to be added to my ping list for semi-regular reports on liberal bias at The Today Show.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

McCain's endless animosity toward Bush.

Of course you're right - so much of this is about McCain's bitterness and hatred of Bush. But he's never called on it by the media.