As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points.Typical.
Thank you John. Great article as always.
L
Please ping this out, as you deem appropriate.
John / Billybob
I'm surprised we don't hear more about the parallel to the famous Gary Hart "Follow me around" challenge. Isn't that exactly what we hear John Edwards saying at the opening of the ad? "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him." Well, why aren't reporters asking?
Does anyone know If John Kerry (a confessed war criminal) would sign on the the International criminal court treaty?
Thanks
Thanks!
Much of the news yesterday had to do with threats of lawsuits over the SwiftVets claims.
Here's an excerpt from a great article today:
"John Edwards said that all we have to do is ask anyone who served with John Kerry about his honor, and then we do, and then they get sued. Normally I might agree that taking an issue from over three decades ago and using it against a candidate today is a pretty lame smear. Like if three days before an election a twenty plus year-old DUI suddenly “appeared” in a little dusty box from a small rusty courthouse. But it is equally lame when you take an issue from over thirty years ago, wrap yourself around it, and run up and down Iowa like it is the only thing you have going for you." This is from http://www.dustinmhawkins.com
The threats of lawsuits are just another indication of the mentality of these two clowns who are presenting themselves as capable of defending America from the haters of freedom worldwide.
Highlands bump.
As I recall, Kerry preferred to be the first (or second) debater, so he could boldly state his points.Typical.
Thank you John. Great article as always.
Which is why the "international community" wants him there: A Kerry presidency would make it easier to loot America and the world.
I vote for arrogance.
Also he was totally enclosed in the "Boston" culture, who think like he does (in their isolated enclave of wacky elitism). Talking only to "yes" men can lead to unreal views of the world (another reason he should not be commander-in-chief).
Also the poodle liberal press does him a disservice by letting him think that he can walk on water and get away with it.
And finally the Bush campaign is so very good at letting the opposition go way out on a branch and then cutting it off.
Good piece!
Bookmark for later read.
Another great post, Congressman. Thanks for giving us a clear overview of what is going on with the swift boat business.
John,
Another one hit "outta the park." Thanks again for your efforts. Be encouraged; we're out here reading and enjoying your work.
-R
Thanks again,John !
I think this subject is of huge interest to Freepers and you have outlined it well.
I don't know if you saw, but last night Tony Snow was in for Bill O'Reilly and had a dem guest (I believe his name was Matt Baer--I made notes at the time), and in studio was Monica Crowley.
While some Freepers were unhappy with Snow's amiable host demeanor, I noted that he got Baer to concede that George W. Bush had released all of his Guard records and that Kerry should release all of his own records, too. Baer explicitly agreed not once, but twice.
Crowley was probably the strongest on an issue as I have ever seen her. She made your (and Freepers') point that Kerry had chosen to make his Vietnam service the central plank of his qualifications for office.
Crowley also opined that she did think that "30 year old" service was at the very least tangentially relevant to review when evaluating a candidate for office. She said she thought it was fair that Bush's records had been reviewed and they seem to be in order and he served well and honorably.
As to Kerry, again he has made it a huge issue and these men have stepped forward to offer a different point of view. These men deserve to have their voices heard, Crowley firmly stated.
Hannity and Colmes was fascinating and there are a couple threads on it. The guest, Chris Horner, identified on screen as a "Republican lawyer" was excellent. Just excellent. Susan Estrich was in for Colmes and Horner's demeanor, points and language was so spot on it was fantastic to behold. The dem guest kept a big "what, me worry?" smile plastered on his face as he said things like "I hope they do keep running this ad as it will only hurt the Republicans". Horner asked if that was why the DNC had lawyers send threatening letters to the media trying to squash this ad.
Well, I hope we see more of Chris Horner.
BTW, I was on my high school debate team and enjoyed reading your review above of how a debate is structured.
THEY brought up his swift boat days, and the vets shot it down.
THEY brought up that none of his detractors were on his boat, and now someone from his boat has come forward and shot that down.
THEY brought up the seven minute delay, and surprise, surprise, out comes an interview transcript in which Kerry stated he couldn't even think and did nothing for thirty-five minutes after the second tower was hit.
He would be wise to not bring anything else up. He has nothing to run on - every lie comes back to bite him.
I'm really enjoying this election - the most important in my lifetime. Of course 2008 will be more important, on which Hillary is already hard at work.
The republicans need to say this everytime this story come up.
Thanks, Congressman Billybob. Good essay today.Says the Wuss: Ma, He’s Touching Me
Excerpt:
Here’s how a team of two would prepare for a debate. You would discuss and decide with your partner three points: 1) What are the main issues we want to make? 2) What are the main issues the other side it likely to make? And 3) What counterattacks can we expect from the other side, and how do we counter those? It is the last point which is most difficult to prepare for.
It’s also the point at which even veteran debaters can lose the whole contest. John Kerry may have just made just that fatal mistake on the subject of Vietnam, and it may be the final nail in the coffin of his campaign for President.
I have a number of friends who were “in country” when John Kerry was. A couple were in the Swift Boat service. Before Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, I already knew the kind of charges of dishonesty that were possible. They were already being made, but well below the radar of national media. No one in the broader audience was listening.
Then Kerry decided, and it was obviously a deliberate and calculated decision, to promote his four months of service in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign. And as I watched him do that, I knew he’d made a serious mistake right from our old Political Union days. Out of either arrogance or ignorance, Kerry did not anticipate the reaction that his Vietnam-centric speech would generate. As of this week, the proof is in that Kerry was not prepared to respond to what he should have known was coming, the truth squad of many more Swift Boat veterans than the dozen he featured on the stage in Boston.
The letter of 5 August is written by the “counsel for the Democratic Committee and for John Kerry.” It accuses Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as running a “dishonest” ad by fake crewmates and a “doctor.” Well the doctor is a real doctor, and none of the men on screen claimed that they were in his boat, only that they saw what happened. (The Kerry lawyers knock down a straw man by saying that they weren’t “in Kerry’s boat,” and blithely ignore that Swift Boats usually operate in flotillas of three or more boats.) And the letter implicitly threatens the station managers with lawsuits if they don’t back off.
Marc Elian, General Counsel, Kerry-Edwards ‘04, and Joseph Sandler, General Counsel, DNC, were the signers of this 2 1/2-page attack on the Swift Boat Veterans.
The tactics of Kerry’s (and the DNC’s) lawyers amount to this: They unfortunately paint Kerry as a small child in the backseat of a car with his siblings, headed for the beach. It’s been a long ride; the kids are getting fractious. And suddenly one of them whines to the mother, “Ma, he’s touching me.” That wussy tactic may work in the back seat of a Buick, but it won’t work in a presidential campaign. A man who cannot stand up to a vigorous debate conducted in English can hardly be expected to stand up to foreign enemies who are willing to kill Americans at any time and who speak the language of explosives.
My thanks to Traumer, Arrowhead1952 and Conspiracy Guy for the concept of this pic
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Interesting info on the job surveys.
