Kudos to John Kerry for having the balls to criticize the very people giving him money. Geez, if one didn't know better, one might think he has the broader interests of the country in mind.

Damn fool doesn't have the sense to stay bought!

And on trade, once again the false dichotomy of claiming that being against what is mistakenly being called "free trade" is the same as advocating no trade.

Come on, that one's worn out already - isn't it time for a rational presentation on why you think the current form of trade is great for America? ("Things will be great by and by" isn't it.)

On the UN thing, what do your suppose he meant by "I would intervene with the international community"?

Kudos to John Kerry for having the balls to criticize the very people giving him money. Geez, if one didn't know better, one might think he has the broader interests of the country in mind.

First of all, this is not courage, its hypocrisy. Everyone in Washington has special interest money in their coffers, bar none. BUT, to take all that money, in greater amounts than any other person in congress, THEN brag about how you will show special interests the door is both very humorous as well as complete hypocrisy.

The only door Kerry has ever shown the special interests is his FRONT door. Don't you think it would be better for Kerry just to say, honestly, "yes, I've taken special interest money, but so have we all and it does not mean an end to Democracy."

The only reason offers his hypocritical rhetoric is because Dean was scoring big points with voters on this issue. So Kerry changed his tune, borrowed Dean's rhetoric, and is now stuck with it.

And on the issue of Kerry's flip flop on unilateral action with Haiti, Hal; the WHOLE text of the quote is that, yes he would first seek to intervene with the international community. But then he goes on to say that "absent an international force, I'd do it unilaterally." So, Kerry, the guy who has hammered Bush for unilateralism is now expressing his willingness to be just like the President (not that Bush was unilateral with Iraq, just not multilateral enough to please angry libs)? Well, if thats the case, then all we have to do is reelect the President and we are fine then, right?

Finally, regarding free trade; the world community expects us to follow the same rules they are following, which is why they were angry when Bush imposed tariffs on steel. The tariff ultimately HURT the steel industry more than it helped and Bush, as he should have, is eliminating the tariff.

Now Kerry, who has campaigned heavily on his ability to go out and win back the hearts of our international partners, is angering the very partners he claims he will win back. And Kerry is not even the confirmed Democratic presidential candidate! Is that a good sign? I think not.

So, you might argue that Kerry is just trying to protect jobs in America. I'm arguing that, without even having become President, he's doing exactly the opposite of what he pledged he would do as President; win back our traditional allies!

By the way, are those allies not our allies any longer? Last I heard, French and American forces were going to work together in Haiti to help restore order and the German Chancellor was professing his desire to see his nation and the US work closely together over the coming years.

Nuff said.

David

David, re UN: You asked "did Kerry recommend that we go to the UN for a resolution and for a multilateral approach to this crisis?"

The answer is that he did exactly that.


Re: trade. 1) We do not have free trade, and never have had. 2) Kerry is not proposing no trade. 3) To repeat, the steel tariff was put in place by Bush.


Where and how is he alienating our traditional allies?


Aside: I don't think Kerry would (will?) make a great candidate, either, but laying false charges and raising innuendos about his positions isn't my idea of great political discourse.

Where and how is he alienating our traditional allies?

Hal,

I'm answering your questions here but you seem to be ignoring the answers. Let me again give you one of the arguments from Patricia Hewitt regarding her concerns over Kerry's rhetoric:

-------------------
I don't like to hear talk of 'Benedict Arnold CEO's' which is completely unfair. Nor do I like to hear people replacing the phrase 'free trade' with 'fair trade' and then going on to propose measures that are really about creating unfairness. If it wants a job-rich recovery, America too must resist the siren voices of protectionism.

Now the battleground had become "offshoring' - the movement of jobs to countries where labour costs were cheaper. Britain, she said, had rejected protectionism as the answer at every level - from government through to employers and unions. "But it's not the same in the United States. There, every night, television newsreaders vilify business leaders who are investing abroad.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=495142
----------------------

And, as before, I did ask if Kerry recommended that we first try working with the UN. If Kerry would have said a simple, "yes, that is what I would do," we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, Kerry vowed that lacking UN action, he would take unilateral action on his own, which is something he has consistently critisized President Bush for with Iraq.

Really, Hal, no matter what spin you attempt to apply to the facts, the average person knows better. You can't say, "I support only multilateral efforts," then say, "I would take unilateral action if necessary." You can't say, "I'm proud of my military service," and also say, "everyone in the military committed attrocities." You especially cannot say, "I'm going to get rid of all those special interest groups in Washington," and then take more money from those groups than anyone else and still hold on to your credibility.

Thanks.

David

"I'm answering your questions here but you seem to be ignoring the answers."

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Your latest response, for instance, quotes my question then, after the above mild slur, goes haring off tangentially without answering it. The question was, as you quoted:

Where and how is he alienating our traditional allies?

Do you have an answer?

Flanagan, I still believe you should tag your posts with 'George W. Bush's Boy at Blogcritics." Then, people would not have to scratch their heads wondering why you twist yourself into a pretzel logically in regard to just about everything you post. This latest dough is typical. You haven't established that Kerry is contrary. What you've done is take any evidence of growth or change in regard to an issue on his part and try to malign it. You wanna see 'contrary'? Consider a person with a shady military record, including possibly having gone AWOL from the National Guard, who declares himself a hawk after SCOTUS shoehorns him into the White House. Now, THAT is contrary.

MD, next thing you'll probably start telling us we live in a Democracy.

Do you have an answer?

Alright, I'll try this again. Kerry is starting to use rhetoric like "Fair Trade" rather than Free Trade, which our trading partners interpret as "fair for the US, not for you."

Kerry is labelling companies that take some of their jobs overseas as "Benedict Arnolds," which nations like the UK interpret as reactionary and short-sighted.

Finally, Kerry is talking about creating initiatives in the US which other nations, especially the EU would see as anti-competitive and would force a counter-response from trading partners. That is a road that leads, just as Patricia Hewitt points out, to economic recession for everyone.

Now, you can argue the points being made by the UK media, but the fact is that they PERCEIVE negatively at this point because of his stance on trade. In business, politics, and marriage, you better treat someone's perceptions, right or wrong, seriously.

Which is what I'm doing.

Thanks.

David

Mac,

I just love your non-answer answers. Really, to suggest that Kerry is showing examples of growth. :-D Spin, spin, spin, spin!!!!

If Kerry has grown, why has he changed his position on issues back and forth a couple of times? Did he grow, shrink, and grow again?

Let me give you an example:

First Kerry opposes the Gulf War, then he votes to authorize the use of force against Saddam, stating publicly that Saddam MUST be dealt with, then he votes against the money needed to rebuild Iraq, then he critisizes Bush for not having a plan to rebuild Iraq.

On top of all of that, over Kerry's years in congress, did he ever meet a defense initiative that he liked? He's voted against every major defense initiative, voted to cut funding to the military, voted to cut funding to our intelligence agencies, etc., etc.

But now, after compiling such an impressive record of anti-defense votes, Kerry proclaims himself to be a GIANT when it comes to national defense.

Beautiful!

David

Okay, so where would you rate that alienation by Kerry compared to the global alienation of this adminstration's invasion of Iraq?

As one data point, 75% of Indonesians rated America favorably before the invasion; 15% do so now.

Fatuous Flanagan says:

First Kerry opposes the Gulf War, then he votes to authorize the use of force against Saddam, stating publicly that Saddam MUST be dealt with, then he votes against the money needed to rebuild Iraq, then he critisizes Bush for not having a plan to rebuild Iraq.

Hello? Why should Kerry vote to support a plan to rebuild Iraq when he doesn't believe the Bush administration has a viable scheme to do that rebuilding? It isn't Kerry's behavior that is contrary; it is your interpretation of it that makes no sense. Kerry will, apparently, support a rebuilding scheme that is about reconstructing Iraq, but not one that is about putting more money in Haliburton's greedy hands.

And, no, you aren't going to get away with shifting the spotlight from your beloved George W. Bush. The sheer peversity of his hawkishness now and his previous conduct is a heck of lot more clear than anything you can say about Kerry, who, though you will never bring yourself to acknowledge it, is a war hero. Go ahead. Call him contrary for both going to Vietnam and then questioning the war. Call it 'contrary,' as you do other examples of growth . . . something Shrub appears to be incapable of.

Reader's Digest "Increase Your Word Power" presents today's word:

- FATUOUS -

1. Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish

2. Delusive; unreal


Today's Bonus word:

Alliteration - The repetition of the same sounds or of the same kinds of sounds at the beginning of words or in stressed syllables.

as in. "Fatuous, when coupled with Flanagan, is a poetic device known as alliteration."

Tune in for tomorrow's word.

And please visit the gift shop as you exit.

Thanks ---- The Management