Posted on 09/22/2005 1:25:56 PM PDT by neverdem
John Kerry and John Edwards ran for office together and they lost together, and they both gave major speeches about Katrina this week, but there the similarity ends. The two men might as well live in different worlds. Kerry began his speech by making the point that Bush and his crew are rotten. He then went on to make the point that Bush and his crew are loathsome. In the third section of the speech, Kerry left the impression Bush and his crew are evil.
Now we all know people so consumed by hatred for George Bush that they haven't had an unpredictable thought in five years, but in Kerry's speech one sees this anger in almost clinical form.
In the first place, not even Karl Rove's worldview is so obsessively Bush-centric as John Kerry's. There are many interesting issues raised by Katrina, but for Senator Ahab it all goes back to the great white monster, Bush. Bush and his crew should have known the levees were weak. Bush and his crew should have known thousands in New Orleans would be trapped. (Did I miss Kerry's own warnings on these subjects?)
All reality flows back to Bush. All begins with Bush, ends with Bush, is explained by Bush and is polluted by Bush, cursed be thy name.
And as the speech stretches on, a second thought occurs: Doesn't this guy ever get bored? If Kerry ever makes an anti-Bush jab, he makes it again. The old DeLay jibes, he makes them again. The Wolfowitz attacks, he makes them again. Porn movies have less repetition than this, and yet the "Mission Accomplished" carrier deck scene gets hauled out again, for one feels this is not a normal speech designed to persuade or inform, but a primitive rite designed to channel group...
(Excerpt) Read more at timesunion.com ...
You're thinking of David Brock. David Brooks used to write for the Weekly Standard, that purveyor of evil neo-Con thought (probably financed by Halliburton), before he became the token conservative for the NY Times.
Sure, even the liberals make fun of Kerry up here in Massachusetts, but they are so full of hatred and intolerance anything they say about Republicans all boils down to name calling.
And the video of Edwards combing his hair for 15 minutes was unbelievable. Talk about coup de gras, the compact was over the top! :D
Double posting-- sorry for the error.
I bet the average Indian-American family has more than $80,000 in assets, and their skin is just as dark as most blacks. The difference is that their families are strong and they value education.
Ahhh! The Road Apple Boys strike again. What horse sh!t!
Communists for Kerry...
http://www.communistsforkerry.com/
...I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.
I am suspect of stats spouted without sources.
I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.
In the Kennedy/Johnson era the two parties were bigger tents. The Democrats then had the conservative southern wing, and the Republicans were much stronger in what are now called the "blue states." The post-Vietnam era has seen a divorce between the South and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is now the media party and the city party; the Republican Party is now the party of the middle class and the suburbs/exurbs.The money in the Democratic Party is now "celebrity" money interested only in radical media perspective. This country isn't big enough for two John F. Kennedy parties and that - with allowances for the fact that Bush is a more competent manager, on the one hand, and far less attractive to journalism, on the other - is what the Bush presidency is. The Bush presidency is "polarizing" because it a splitting mall blow to the fault line in the Democratic Party. It threatens to split off a crucial fraction of the Black Democratic base - just enough of it to throw the Democrats into secular political decline.
I think the Edwards "less polarized" position is doomed. A "center" which cannot hold.
Prediction: when the history of the 2004 campaign is written, the "shocking" revelation will be that John Kerry and John Edwards despised each other.
Second prediction: Edwards will be the Democratic nominee in 2008. I'm no fan of his, but he is going to beat Hilary in the heartland. The moonbats don't really trust Hilary anyway, so he may cut into her base with his "two America's" stuff. And among the more moderate Democrats, all he has to do is convince them he's more electable than Hilary.
With a few appearances on "Oprah", he should be able to pull it off.
You must be paying for TimesSelect if you're reading Bob Herbert, no, or are you taking the 14 day free trial?
I've never read a Herbert column that was good for anything except mocking.
Let me know if you see John Tierney syndicated somewhere besides the Dallas Morning News, Neshoba Democrat and the Tallahassee Democrat. I'm don't know if any of them run Tierney regularly.
Except the occasional Friedman or Kristof column, the rest of them good riddance.
Neither man made a lick of sense in their tirade.
Do you feel Kohnned by Irish Johnnie?"
The early documentation of his actual ancestry is only that supplied by his grandfather to a Catholic church long ago.
He and his family lied for at least three (3) generations - Why should it change now?
According to Kohn - he did not know of his non-Irish Catholic ancestry until recently - and neither did his own daughters.
3.2 billion dollars finally told him he is a distant cousin of President GW Bush (so am I - big deal) and an ancestor of Charlemange (most Europeans are)
He never discovered he had the same Mayflower ancestor (25% of all Americans have Mayflower roots) as GW (thru both parents), TR, FDR, and Eleanor - But he bragged of his Frenchie roots - What a maroon!
Kohn man also seems to have missed his distant relation to the Brit royal family.
(Barbara Bush has Spencer [Di] blood and Mayflower roots also - making GW related to both parents of the Brit royal Princes)
I guess that Google is very difficult to master.
My guess is that Grampa Kohn and his family (who committed suicide) were not who and what they claimed to be - but a criminals on the run in Europe who created there own history over and over and over.
And then there is Terersa - of "Portugese" ancestry - raised in Africa after WWII.......
Hmmmmmm........
I don't remember Bob Dole constantly harping on Clinton after he was defeated in the '96 election. Isn't there some unwritten political code that if you are the loser in a presidential race, its poor taste to bash the man who beat you post-election?
The dems lost the facade of honorable behavior with Clintion. That's when the Moveon.org morons got started. They could have had a president, who was most likely a rapist, convicted and removed, replaced by Vice President Gore. They took the dishonorable choice.
I only WISH they lived in two diferent worlds!!
Bush can't be a polarizer if his friends are genuinely cuckoo.
Bourbon, do you still thinks Brooks is losing it?
Bourbon is my friend...off this forum.
Doesn't matter whether he's right ot not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.