Tagged: Sen. John Kerry Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • nosheepleshere 3:58 AM on 09/26/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, Sen. John Kerry, VVAW   

    Please Excuse Us For Being So Dumb Senator Kerry 

    Not all of us are bright enough to be C students at Yale nor are we smart enough to marry a deceased colleague’s billionaire widow. Please excuse us for being so dumb Sen. Kerry.

    Blogger-in-Arms, Professor William Jacobson, proprietor of Legal Insurrection, jumped in with both feet when he learned that Sen. John “Waffles” Kerry blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.

    “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters at the Boston Herald after touring the Boston Medical Center.

    In 2006, the former presidential candidate had to apologize for a statement he made at a California college that U.S. students who did not study hard and stay in school would end up “stuck in Iraq.”

    This is the same man who attended an anti-war rally with “Hanoi Jane” Fonda. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

    This is the same man who, on the same day led members of Vietnam Veterans Against The War in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Kerry later admitted the medals he threw were not his. To this day they hang on the wall of his office.

    As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain.

    Under Kerry’s leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.

    Kerry believes we should be mad at stonewalling Republicans and “big money” in politics, referring to a bill blocked by Republicans Thursday that would reveal corporate and union leaders who fund big-bucks political ads

    It takes some real hubris to complain about “big money” in politics, when you’re John Kerry, husband to the heiress of the Heinz family fortune, and when the biggest political splash you’ve made this year is that you were caught docking your yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying your home state’s luxury tax. 

    This is your modern Democratic party, ladies and gentleman.  Hubris and entitlement. Our “betters” are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a more extreme and irrelevant ideological pit, becoming shriller and angrier as they realize “We the People” are no longer listening, but mocking them and finding our voices.

    Oh, we get it John.  We get it.  That, I promise.

    Read more at No Sheeples Here.

     
  • nosheepleshere 2:45 PM on 09/17/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Peggy Noonan, Sen. John Kerry,   

    Tea Party Taking Out The Trash? 

    From The Boston Herald we learn that Senator John Kerry (D-MA) sent out an email stating that, “The news from Delaware is crystal clear: It’s Sarah Palin’s party now,” Kerry wrote in a fund-raising e-mail titled “Delawow!”  He went on to say, “We have to fight back. Click here to contribute right now to make sure we defeat the Tea Party extremists.”

    Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds merrily noted, “I think the Tea Party couldn’t ask for any better publicity than to be denounced by a millionaire who dodges paying taxes on his yacht.”

    The Tea Party is taking out the trash and Peggy Noonan opines on why it’s time for the Tea Party:

    “…at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.”

    [snip]

    ”So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is ‘the reason we even have the Tea Party movement,’ shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that ‘ran up deficits’ and gave us ‘open borders’ and ‘Medicare Part D and busted budgets.’”

    America is still a democratic republic, not an aristocracy.  “We The People” are concerned with restoring the United States Constitution to its rightful place in our government.  The Tea Party is only interested in preserving the country this regime is hell-bent to “fundamentally transform.”

    Noonan’s exit question is, “Will the center join arms and work with the tea party?” 

    They’d better or the career freeloaders with be tossed out with the trash.

    Read more at No Sheeples Here.

     
    • fuzislippers 12:45 AM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      The GOP either doesn’t understand the Tea Party or understands it very well. My guess is the latter. The GOP elite honestly believe, just as BO and his loons believe, they know best, that they are sent to Washington to represent Washington to us and not vice versa. Wrong.

      Conservative candidates will do well, I think, in the next few cycles, but purging that mentality from Washington (on both sides of the aisle) will take ongoing effort from us. We must pledge not to become complacent ever again, to watch them all like hawks, and to make our voices heard on pork, entitlements, spending, etc. The current GOP leadership would be thrilled to be back in power and will say anything to get there, but once there, I firmly believe it’s back to the same big-spending big-government nonsense that lost them that power in 2006 and 2008. They haven’t learned. That’s why they shun the Tea Party, they don’t want to change, and that’s why conservatives need to win and win big and win often all across this nation. The GOP itself needs to be purged of all the RINOs and progressives. That will take time, but in the meantime, I’m okay with them running things simply because they won’t screw things up as badly and as quickly as the dems have and would continue to do if allowed. This election is about stopping BO and his insane agenda, the next few will be about sending people to Washington who actually get it. Happily, we’ve got a few now and will get more in November, but that’s only a start.

      • Yukio Ngaby 1:35 AM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Excellent point, Fuzzy. The GOP has staggered us with pork, political payoff, and nonsense in the very recent past. They need to be watched as well.

        However, “purging” the Republican party of all “RINOs” and progressives (and you know you said to this slowly) is a sure way to commit political suicide. The American Right is made up of various political ideologies and factions, none of which are particularly dominant. When you say purge the progressives are you talking about New Conservatives, classical liberals, liberatrians, neo-cons? Anybody who’s not an Old Conservative?

        Remember there are currently more registered Democrats then registered Republicans in this country, and making the Republican Party more exclusive isn’t going to help.

        I think what needs to be looked at is the career politicians within the Republican Party, not the common ideologies within it.

        • Yukio Ngaby 1:37 AM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Dang it. I meant to say: (and I know you said to do this slowly).

          Sorry.

          • fuzislippers 5:17 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Heh, no worries, I got it. The point I am trying to make is that the political elites, those who set themselves above and apart from the American people need to go. On both sides of the aisle. Remember how Reagan talked to and about Americans? He was one of us, not “better than” us. This is what we need. There is nothing in this statement, though, that suggests that anyone other than big-spending, big government, entitlement and pork supporting pols need to go. That’s the litmus test, the ultimate deciding factor: are they go! go! go! spending and entitlements and expanding federal power? Buh-bye. It’s not complex, and our drive to make it so is really self-defeating. Can I support a conservative who . . . isn’t conservative? Um, no.

            All this babble about litmus tests (not that you are babbling or even talking about litmus tests, I’m off and running again ;)) and about small tents is just so much crap. The fact is that you can’t be a conservative and support expanding government and massive entitlement spending, that’s not a wild-eyed wing-nut requirement, that’s basic nuts and bolts conservatism.

            Is there room for libertarians? Of course there is. But you won’t find them saying “let’s grow government and give them more of our money and more control over our lives.” Is there room for social liberals (like myself)? Well, there better be, but at the end of the day, I’d cast a vote for someone who supported repeal of Roe v. Wade (even though I don’t) over someone who supported socialized medicine.

            Btw and as a point of interest (possibly?), I’m a registered Democrat. So, yeah, there are more of those, but what does that really mean? I vote Republican almost always, but I live in MA, and if I want any say at all in local and state politics, I have to register Dem to vote in primaries (that’s why I was able to vote for Hillary in the 2008 primary, over BO, as did this entire Commonwealth–BO did not win MA in the primary, that mattered when Brown ran for Senate). Of course I voted for McCain in the general, but I didn’t want to, he’s just as progressive, if less ideological, than BO. These facts matter because I’m not alone. A LOT of conservatives are registered democrats because they live in blue areas where they want to vote for the least leftest person when no red will win. This is another reason that the Indies matter so much. There are more Indies registered in MA than either dems or reps, and when you add in the registered dems like me who are actually conservative . . . .

            • fuzislippers 5:25 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

              One note to tie in with your post (quite wonderful post) about labels: Democrat and Republican aren’t nearly as important as liberal, leftist, progressive, conservative, and libertarian (insert quotation marks around each term, I’m too lazy). There are liberal Republicans, progressive Republicans, conservative and even libertarian Democrats, but there are no (God forbid) conservative progressives or progressive conservatives (that’s like saying I’m a capitalist Marxist, um, no). The party isn’t the heart of the matter, as few people support either party (as evidenced in poll after poll). Most people with an iota of civics knowledge register to meet the constraints of their local and state political makeup and not on ideology. In this, I think that the two-party system works best.

              • Yukio Ngaby 5:34 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                Thanks, but that post was mostly me quoting Thomas Sowell– which I did plainly mark as his quotes.

                I disagree with progressive conservative being a mislabel. Conservatism is made of lots of different political ideologies, prominently featuring classical liberals which were pretty much expunged from the Dems in the 1960s, and not simply a desire to return to the goold old days when children worked in factories.

                It all depends on how you define the term progressive. Leftists are trying to re-label themselves as progressive, should that deception succed, progressive will mean progressing toward a specifically Marxist future– but that is not what the progressive Theodore Roosevelt thought.

                • fuzislippers 5:56 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                  Yes, I read the post, but it’s worth commenting on, and maybe as an academic, I find it particularly ponder-worthy. ;)

                  Here’s the deal, “progressive” means only one thing, describes only one ideology (that of Wilson, FDR, BO, et al.), at least when I use it. The progressives of today may not seem to be your progressives of Wilson’s racist, eugenics ilk, but they are, at rock bottom (and actually not even scratching the surface–they are ready to “eliminate” anyone who stands in their way or who cannot be “reeducated” into their way of thinking). At the end of the day, when the rubber meets the road, (blah blah cliche), they all want the same thing.

                  Leftists are indeed trying to rebrand “progressive,” but it’s not going to work (as evidenced by it not working to date). The worst thing Hillary Clinton ever said? That she’s a “New Progressive.” “Progressive” actually means, as you imply here, regressive, regressing to failed Marxist models that do nothing but enrich and empower the political class to the detriment (and functional servitude) of the unwashed masses. This isn’t rocket science. Thank God. Name games I can manage, but rocket science? Ugh!

                  Btw, Teddy Roosevelt absolutely did envision a Marxist future, not the reality that Marxism ensures, but the ideal that Marxism promises. Teddy Roosevelt supported and worked for socialized medicine and massive government control over everything from income (he’s the fun guy who decided we should pay income tax, remember? What’s more progressive than that?) to entitlements for the elderly, et al. Progressive, spread-the-wealth Marxism. Writ large. What makes you think otherwise?

                  The only triumph the progs have so far is that they have us tying ourselves in knots. Back to basics. We’re creating shades of gray where only black and white exist (oooh, you’re going to HATE that. heh).

                  • Yukio Ngaby 6:39 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    Not all wealth redistribution is Marxist. Was MacArthur a Marxist when dealing with Post WWII Japan? Is the feudal idea of largesse Marxist?

                    When dealing with economic oligarchies, a certain amount of redistribution has to take place. This does not necessarily make it Marxist. Free enterprise can be throttled by trusts and monopolies. Breaking up such doth not a Marxist make. Nor does does collecting taxes or overseeing food production.

                    Marxism must be based around Marx’s ideas of a political struggle being inextricably based in class and economics, the devaluation of the individual in favor of the class/group, and Hegel’s concept of historically progressive binary synthesis (I can’t remember what it’s called off the top of my head)– among other things.

                    • fuzislippers 7:23 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                      Yes, all wealth redistribution is foundationally Marxist. Of course it is. Wrapping it up in a new shiny package or calling it something else does not change what it is at rock bottom. There is nothing, nothing I say! :), that this government does that is not based in class, power (an important element of Marxism that is oft-ignored), and politics. I honestly don’t see the distinction you are trying to draw here. Give me an example, just one, of wealth-redistribution that is not Marxist by definition.

                      Hegel’s concept of the dialectic (to which I think you refer) was indeed admired by Marx, but was ultimately dismissed by both Marx and Engels (both of whom, notably, dismissed and rejected communism as a faulty and impossible to achieve dream) as nonconclusive. Simply acknowledging other viewpoints (the basis of Hegel when boiled right down to the base elements) does nothing more than that, acknowledge the difference, celebrate the similarity . . . and stall. Noting patterns is not the same thing as political, social, or economic movement. Hegel and Marx’s attempt to work with Hegel are intellectually unsatisfactory for they note only that A.) people have differing views, B.) those views have a commonality, even if that is in direct opposition (uh-huh), and C.) combining commonality with opposition presents a “new” (synthesized) view. Um, no. That’s just about the most pedestrian crap ever. Hegel is among the singularly least impressive philosophers ever to think a thought. That Marx, early Marx who was still a Marxist, latched on is pretty illuminating.

                      • Yukio Ngaby 8:03 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink

                        How can something that predates Marx be Marxist? Do you believe Marx was correct in his historical economic analysis?

                        The feudal concept of largesse (which I mentioned before) is wealth redistribution, moving wealth from a higher title to a lower title. Ancient China’s Imperial bureaucracies redistributed wealth from one province to another.

                        In more modern times, breaking up of monopolies and trusts so that the free markets can flourish is not Marxist.

                        Logically, all fire engines are red. But if I have a red car, it doesn’t make it a fire engine.

                        And yes, it was the term dialectic I was blanking on. Thanks. :)

                        The fact that Marx disavowed his Hegellian roots, doesn’t mean that Marxism did. Marxism is based on Marx’s (and otherss) writings, not on Marx himself. And Marxism is very definitely based very deeply in Hegel. Marxist history is absolutely based around Hegel’s dialectic theory of history substituting Marxist economic theory for God’s plan.

                        Don’t dismiss Hegel. The major forms of Leftism in America– Marxism, socialism, and fascism are all based very deeply upon his ideas.

                  • Yukio Ngaby 6:42 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                    And I know you read the post. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t taking credit for Sowell’s ideas. :)

        • fuzislippers 6:11 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

          “I think what needs to be looked at is the career politicians within the Republican Party, not the common ideologies within it”

          This is key. I’ve often thought about term limits and mostly dismissed the idea on some vague notion based in voter voice and some blah blah blah that makes no sense under any scrutiny, so of late, I think that we do need term limits on members of congress just as we have them on the executive branch. The progressive loons may want to sell FDR as a great man and wonderful president, but the fact is that the nation couldn’t wait to impose presidential term limits after his disastrous reign. We must ask why.

          • Yukio Ngaby 6:57 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

            Yeah, I thought about term-limits too. I suppose they could help some, but I don’t know…

            There is something to be said for career politicians. They know how to win elections, and they know how to deal with other career politicians from foreign countries. I mean Obama’s amateurism, lack of experience and blundering has made the world a substantially unsafer place. Yes, a fair amount of it is due to his ideology, but he’s still a neophyte making ludicrously stupid mistakes (like pulling out of the promised missile defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic for a hollow promise from Russia– which they promptly ignored. You do not give up something substantial for something insubstantial and later. VERY BASIC.).

            Secondly, I think the career politicians would just move into unelected positions within the Parties– Karl Rove, Obama’s Czars, etc. What ultimately is gained except more collusion?

            I know it sounds pithy, but I think the answer really just lies in voters paying more attention. Perhaps the internet will help with that. We’ll see.

            • fuzislippers 7:54 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

              In the beginning of his campaign, BO was pretty impressive on the surface, and the only reason back in 2006 that I didn’t fall for the BO magic was his lack of executive experience. This was early days, before Joe the Plumber. As an academic, I was twitchy about the lack of substance in his speeches, and I felt that he was slippery, presenting a persona for the people. Rather like that “but I always get A’s” student who thinks that enthusiastic use of the thesaurus will garner them an A, BO struck me as someone who could talk endlessly . . . and say nothing.

              But the main issue for me, early on, was his utter lack of any executive experience. He’d never run anything (Harvard Law Review didn’t count, having worked for an academic journal published by a UP, I knew he didn’t need to do anything there), and he’d been in the Senate only briefly (and been the most leftist voter there when he wasn’t busy voting “present”). But then, congressional experience doesn’t equate executive experience (hell, I thought Dan Quayle was too inexperienced to be VICE president, why would I think BO was better qualified for the top spot with even less congressional experience?).

              The main thing that term limits would do is discourage career politicians, why give up a lucrative law practice for four years in the House or twelve in the senate. Well, actually, that latter wouldn’t really discourage, but there would be a welcome relief from the “entitlement” and “anointed” political class. “Service” should mean service to the people and the country, not to one’s own career, and term limits would be a step in that direction.

              Btw, Karl Rove is not and never was a politician. Hillary, sure, she got Sec. of State for her career politicking, but even BO’s czars are not politicians, not by a long socialist-communist shot. They’re academics and lunatic fringe weirdos for the most part. Nothing at all to do with political careers or term limits. They’re gone when he is, thank God.

              • Yukio Ngaby 8:14 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                “Karl Rove is not and never was a politician.”

                I was talking about politicians in terms of the industry of politics. This would encompass both elected and non-elected people. The head of the DNC and RNC and the people who work within the committees, are politicians in the sense that they work within politics and specifically within a system that directly makes political decisions.

                My point with the czars is that these non-elected “politicians” could work within a revolving door of elected officials– and in the case of the czars, hardly be held up to public scrutiny. This would circumvent the intentions of term limits.

    • fuzislippers 8:19 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I dismiss Hegel not because I don’t recognize his impact on modern political ideology but because I reject the basis of his ideas (and thus the political ideologies born of them). There is nothing wrong with this, I also reject Marx’s ideology and Mao’s and every other ideology that is based in centralizing power in the hands of the political class and subjugating the people. Marx himself realizing that his own philosophy was faulty is of course of import. How could it not be? I thought this thing that I thought was great but now I reject it because it’s faulty . . .but, hey, ignore that part, just listen to the first part? Huh? That leftists of every ilk have ignored his conversion, his acknowledgment that his ideals were crap, does not make the ideals themselves less crappy. I’m not saying that communism doesn’t exist, that Marxism doesn’t exist, I’m simply saying that they are faulty, impossible ideologies that even their own creators rejected. That should be a clue that they’re . . . um, faulty. That they’ve been contorted, renamed, rebranded, revamped doesn’t change what they are at rock bottom, and it doesn’t change the fact that they do not work, have never worked, and will never work. That people cling to an idea does not make it “worthy,” particularly if the idea itself is unworthy. Do we need to wade through Hegel? Sure. But should we see the glaring flaws and inadequacies of his argument? Um, yeah, it’s probably a good idea not to gobble up something that we know to be untenable and false.

      And faulty syllogisms are great fun, but you know that I’m not floundering in those here.

      • Yukio Ngaby 9:37 PM on 09/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

        The syllogism was referencing the “all wealth redistribution is foundationally Marxist.” idea you put out. Not anything that you address in your comment here.

        Now you know I’m not defending Marx or Marxism. I’m identifying the enemy. Marxism is not a static thing. It’s developed. The fact that the development is based on basic errors that even Karl and Friedrich themselves acknowledged their error, doesn’t mean much when you’re dealing with the current incarnation and believers of Marxism. The bedrock is faulty– yes. The two founders realized this– yes. Marxism and socialism are not self-sustaining– yes. But that doesn’t stop people from trying to pursue the same “contorted, renamed, rebranded, revamped” (as you well put it) crap. And telling people that Marx changed his mind simply opens up the defense that Marx was wrong the second time. How many books are written and movies get made about Leftists feelling guilty about selling out in the past?

        I was not suggesting you gobble up Hegel’s philosophy. Uck. Never. Never… I’m saying don’t dismiss it. It wields a great deal of power in this world and people such as Gentile have run with it.

        By the way I like that “I felt that he was slippery, presenting a persona for the people. Rather like that ‘but I always get A’s’ student who thinks that enthusiastic use of the thesaurus will garner them an A.” Obama selectively sucks up. Did you ever read Shelby Steele’s bio on Obama? I don’t agree with everything (obviously), but bargaining and challenging… that part’s almost dead on.

        • fuzislippers 12:58 AM on 09/22/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Yeah, I know, but I couldn’t hit the “reply” link under the correct comment because we’ve been babbling away (yay!) and it was all jammed up and overlaid with “permalink” so I just posted here instead. Sorry for the confusion. Should have explained that.

          Recognizing and understanding Hegel’s influence (as incomprehensible as it might seem to thinking people) is certainly worthwhile, you’re right, and I’m not trying to argue otherwise. However, exposing the rather glaring errors in his (along with Marx’s) theories seems a reasonable step toward educating people about the lack of viability of anything built on such shaky foundations. But now we’re just agreeing with each other and that’s no fun. :p

          And no, I haven’t read Steele’s bio on BO yet. I do love Steele, though, so will definitely check it out. You know, some day. BO’s wiliness and slipperiness and plotting and manipulation are pretty obvious, though, and anyone who’s taught has run into that before. Often. Usually, though, we’re smarter than they are … no idea how BO slipped through the cracks, makes zero sense to me.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel