Kerry Remark on Foreign Leaders Faulted

NY Times ^ | 3/15/04 | Jodi Wilgoren

[Outraged]

Mr. Kerry disputed the wording of his comment, and tried to change the subject from individual leaders' specific support of his efforts to oust President Bush to a broader deterioration of the United States' international reputation.

I wish somebody would do the research that links Democrat politicians and propagandist news that attacks America and GW Bush, to show the relationship between leftist anti-American rhetoric and the resultant international antagonism...My point is that the DNC mouth-pieces have manufactured world and national dissent and then use their byproduct to tear at the United States and the Republican party.

[hobson]

DU'ers were discussing his health and physical energy problem and apparently it's a REAL PROBLEM. Imagine how tired he will be by November. No telling what kind of whoppers he'll come up with by then. This could be a very entertaining year.

[hobson]

Like, you know?

[Cosmo]

before election day, yes, but also after the convention.

[McGavin999]

Now we have private citizens doing the job that journalists are supposed to be doing. I wonder if the people at the Times have enough sense to be embarassed about that.

That's the second time a private citizen has had to ask a question the press was supposed to ask. But then, when people are too incompetent to do their jobs, there's always a good American to step in and do it for him.

[Mo1]

You know if Mr Brown had gotten Kerry just a bit more ticked off, we might have heard him say "Now sit down and shut up!"

Well it sounds like Kerry came pretty close demanding that Mr. Brown answer his question

It's not a smart way to win over voters ...

[Krodg]

"Are you a Democrat or a Republican — what are you?" he asked. "You answer the question."

What about American Mr. Kerry?

He should have said...'I'm an American citizen who will not be voting for you unless you release your military records, give proof of your whereabouts during traitorous meetings of an organization you once led and submit names & dates to back up ridiculous claims you have been making. Until that happens, consider me a vote for President Bush'.

[Main Street]

[SkyPilot]

"Are you a Democrat or a Republican — what are you?" he asked. "You answer the question."

After Mr. Brown said he voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, Mr. Kerry added: "See?

Sheesh! If the media is going to make Kerry "more likable" they are going to have to stop publishing his direct quotes.

[bayourod]

He means that he will punish any one who supports Bush.

Democracy works both ways; you have a right to vote for whomever you want, and I have the right to punish whomever I want.

It's an incredibly immature threat by an arrogant megalomaniac and a certifiably stupid thing for a presidential candidate to say.

[FRgal4u]

Next time, whenever a questioner is being questioned on his/her party ID, the proper answer is -

Yes, I vote for Bush in 2000, but I come here to listen to you, and I think you would like to get some Republicans voting for you this fall, wouldn't you Senator? So, your turn, I answer your questions, how about my questions!

[Texasforever]

Dean did this same thing to a citizen just before Iowa and it helped tank him. Kerry has shown how thin his skin is and we should be taking full advantage of it.

[Boundless]

> QUIT WITH THE IDIOTIC CLINTON CONSPIRACY STORIES!!!

That would take all the fun out of it.

Two weeks ago, JfK threatened to remove Terry McAuliffe.
Last week, he did a 180 on that. The Clintons are still
in control, and clearly wish to remain in control.

> Kerry has the MAJORITY OF DELEGATES!! HE WILL BE
> THE NOMINEE!!

Kerry has the nom sewn up, if the Dems follow their rules.

Lautenberg.

Since when do Dems even follow the rule of law, much less
their own rules?

Eagleton.

They don't actually have to arrange a revolt at the
convention, they just need to "persuade" Kerry to step
aside for, umm, ah, "medical" reasons. His cancer, you know.

We don't even have to consider a Shot In The Park scenario.

> HILLARY IS WAITING FOR 2008!

If it is seen by the DNC that a Democrat could actually win
in 2004, I fully expect, by hook or by crook, that Hillary
will be the nominee - drafted at the convention, after the
unfortunate [fill in the blank] of Senator Kerry.

And if Kerry is allowed to be the Designated Loser, then he
must lose. The Clintons will assure it.

And I could be entirely mistaken, on all counts.

But look to the New York Times.
If/when the the Clintons decide to take Kerry down/out,
the first hints will appear in the NYT.

[bayourod]

"The NYT ran the story. Normally, they'd just spike a story like this - "not newsworthy". If they ran it, they had a reason to run it..."

The Washington Post, Boston Globe, and L.A. Times have also started running gratuitous negative stories.

Maybe they were so focused on preventing Dean from getting the nomination that they failed to vet Kerry (he is a war hero don't you know?).They now realize that Kerry is even more loony and are in denial that he is their final answer to Bush.

[fish hawk]

"Are you a Democrat or a Replublican?"

Mr. Brown should have said, sir, you answer my question then I will answer yours.

[Genyous]

Might want to see this Kerry booed.

[FranklinsTower]

DU'ers were discussing his health and physical energy problem and apparently it's a REAL PROBLEM.

It's either the problem is real or that somebody is laying the groundwork for Kerry to drop out due to "health" reasons. There is something about this I find strange. For the last month there have been photo ops of Kerry playing hockey, football and orange bowling. Based on that, it doesn't appear Kerry has an energy problem...

[Boundless]

> Maybe they were so focused on preventing Dean from
> getting the nomination that they failed to vet Kerry
> (he is a war hero don't you know?). They now realize
> that Kerry is even more loony and are in denial that
> he is their final answer to Bush.

For me, the real question is: Do the Clintons want a Dem
to win in 2004, who is not Hillary? Is there a scenario
for that?

If so, then they need to get rid of Kerry, and put in a
Clinton stooge (who Dean was not).

If not, then Kerry is as suitable a Designated Loser as
anyone, and there's little need to do anything about him,
except insure that he loses - and it's way too early to be
taking steps on that front.

My read on the LeftLib Press turning on Kerry now is that
"someone" has decided he needs to be replaced. It's too
early to be sealing his loss in the general election.

The question would then be - what sort of replacement?

- a potential 2004 winner who could be counted on to step aside
for Hillary in 2008?

- a different Designated Loser, for some reason?

- Hillary?

Would the Dems have a big internal problem (Clinton revolt)
if the Designated Loser theory is true, and the rank & file
finally figure it out?

[gorebegone]

"...that Hillary will be the nominee - drafted at the convention, after the unfortunate [fill in the blank] of Senator Kerry. " How about Marfans Syndrome?

[des]

very nice point.