« The Paul Begala myth | Main | Stem cell initiatives: good politics, bad policy »

August 04, 2005


I think people do not have a favorable opinion of John Kerry is...... look at the guy, listen to the guy, think about the guy. To me as my political mind works, people in America have a "who would you hang out with complex" obviously people would rather hang out with GWB over Kerry because John Kerry comes off very boring and too intellectual for the common American, while GWB is a simple guy who people would like to have over for the Sunday diner and want to go golfing with.

I could never understand what anyone sees in Kerry. He's pompous, bloviating, has a tin ear for the people, and iis uncertain of his own feelings toward the WOT.

He's had his 15 minutes of fame. It just takes a while for a guy like him to accept that. There is no possible comeback for him now.

Give me a break. Mr Kerry is most certainly not an intellectual (having an even lower GPA than W and no advanced degrees of any sort - not even in such a low brow pursuit as journalism).

As for his "intellectual" talk, it's obvious that Mr K C has never really read nor heard real intellectuals. Just because someone can confuse you with speech could mean smart ...or not smart. Try reading some of Einstein's writings to the masses - they are plain and quite clear. Now, the math is another thing - but Mr Kerry couldn't even add two numbers, so let's forget about tensors, eh? So, moonbat, please get off the superiority plank...it's getting pretty rotton.

I don't see it as a "who would you like to hang out with complex," as much as a "who do you trust would take you all the way complex."

Think back to the days when farmers, herders, and villagers chose who would be their king. They want their king to be protective and strong, willing to fight and WIN for them.

Hillary fits the bill.

Giuliani is tough and can beat her.
McCain is not king material.
Romney is not king material.
Allen I never heard of.
Rice is not interested.
Gingrich is not king material.

The GOP had better figure out that Americans want a tough leader.

But... but... but... He's from Massachusetts! He's a War Hero! He went to Yale! He has nice hair! His initials are "JFK"! He has to be President! Has to! It's the Second Coming!!!!

The donks couldn't live with a second coming. The Original JFK had politics that are clones of what President Bush is espousing today. As a matter of fact, if I wanted to be unkind, I could point out that JFK was the original Neo-Con.
Kerry is NOT a war hero. He manipulated the system to make hisself Look like a war hero. If he had be an enlisted man, he would have been court-martialed for his conduct. Officers are given more slack because they are supposed to be gentlemen and have honor. Note that Kerry STILL hasn't released his paperwork (form 180) for the general public. Why? What is in there that he wants to hide? Conduct unbecoming?

John Kerry was an intellectual in the same way Jack Nicholson was a Commander in the US Marines. He looked the part, he dressed the part, but that's as far as it went. But all thru the election, the main reason people gave me for their Kerry vote was his superior intelligence. Losing to Bush 'outed' Kerry as a dummy.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but both political parties try to find a way to do the same trick, which is to win elections. Sometimes the electorate gets lucky and the people running for office both have things like ethics, morals, and principles hanging about in their systems as well as a good working knowledge of how things work. But, let's face it, 90% of all politicans give the rest a bad name. And that's not counting how high it would be if we counted international politicos.
Remember "Vote for the crook, it's important?" Ick.

Umm. The comment that was responding to disappeared. Either that or I'm losing my mind, which isn't entirely unlikely right now.

You're not losing your mind -- I deleted an inappropriate comment.

What is it about Massachusetts that is causing this sorry string of politicians to issue forth like pus from a wound? Even JFK for all the gilding that has gone on was shaping up as just another mediocre Oval Office tenant until he was assassinated. Since then, a heap more of Kennedys, Dukakis, Kerry, Barney Frank, etc. etc. What a pity states can be put on probation like NCAA athletic programs.

"and no advanced degrees of any sort"

Er, Kerry has a law degree.

Oh, goody. A lawyer. We sure need more of those in charge.

Let's see a chef electet prez... I'm sure that Bobby Flay would conduct a dandy War on Terror.

Why would you call JFK a neocon, is it because of his foreign policy towards Vietnam and communism? Neocons are more conservative on social issues than JFK, i mean they are not so conservative on social issues as paleo-cons but they are no liberals on the socail front.

Neocons tend to be libertarian on social issues, so on things like gun control they register as conservative, whilst on issues such as gay marriage they scan as liberal.

As a neoconservative, i am anti-gay marriage, so am I a "liberal"?

Brendan: Another way to deal with trollish posts is "disemvowelling." You search and replace away all the vowels, leaving a pst tht cn stll b ndrstd f y try, bt sly skppd. t's ls mbrrssng fr th trll.

No, the "liberal" view of gay marriage is that it should be allowed. Your anti- stance is conservative.

I would even go so far as to say that if you're not "liberal" on at least a few social issues you're not really a neoconservative -- depending on your economic beliefs you would either be populist (leftist / command economy) or conservative (right-wing / free market economy).

"Neoconservative" is fundamentally an override of the presumed pacifism of libertarians and liberals. As populists and conservatives are presumed hawks they don't really need overrides applied to connote hawkishness.

In fact, for populists and conservatives the overrides work in the opposite way, such as "isolationist" and "realist" applied to pacifist conservatives.

i am for a free market, and for free trade. I agree with the Project for a New American Century plan for the middle east. I believe the best way is to spread democracy in the middle east, then we will have the best business interest.

I think you could fairly comfortably call yourself "conservative", then, although I'm not the political label guru.

I have noticed many "classic" conservatives like to throw in the "neo" prefix to reinforce their belief that foreign policy issues take top priority in a time of war. I couldn't possibly argue with that rationale.

Here's a thought experiment for you along those lines, a "neoconservative litmus test": given the choice of pro-war Hillary and anti-war Buchanan in 2008, would you choose Hillary?

The comments to this entry are closed.