John Kerry
OK, I’m not big into discussing politics, and I don’t want to blanket the entire Democratic party, but here’s what I just saw/heard.
Last night, President Bush said, in his State of the Union address, “Americans are addicted to oil.”
This morning, on the Today show, my favorite anchor (sarcasm), Katie Couric, was interviewing John Kerry to get his response on the president’s comments. When asked about Mr. Bush’s pronouncement above, Mr. Kerry said, and I quote as best I can remember it, “Americans aren’t addicted to oil, this ADMINISTRATION is!” He then moved on w/o clarifying that statement at all.
Ummm… isn’t this EXACTLY what President Bush meant when later in his speech he said, “Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.”
Mr. Kerry might just as well have said “Nanny nanny boo boo!” Or, “I know you are, but what am I?!?!”
Prominent Democrats need to stand for something, not just contradict everything the president says. This would be better for them as a party, and better for US as a country to actually have productive debate on issues that matter. As was put forth in the following example:
Palin: I came here for a good argument.
Cleese: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
Palin: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
Cleese: It can be.
Palin: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Cleese: No it isn’t.
Palin: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
Cleese: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Palin: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
Cleese: Yes it is!
Palin: No it isn’t!
Cleese: Yes it is!
Palin: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Cleese: No it isn’t.
3 comments February 01 2006 8:29 am | Pepperguy | Grant
Amen! It’s really discouraging to see that Kerry, Clinton, Kenedy, Reid and Dean are all basicly dragging down our democracy and turning it into a futile display of partisan politics.
It almost seems like no matter what Bush does they complain. He could cure cancer and say the pill tastes bad! He could cure world hunger and they’d say it’s not the recipe they would use (but never say what they’d do different!)
They are really showing what their (I emphasize THEIR) party is about, because they don’t represent the views of any well-informed voter I know.
We need a grass-roots “no incumbent” stance at the next polls to get these life-long politicians like those named above out of office! Remind them they don’t just deserve their job, they need to earn it.
I loved the “hindsight/second guessing” line too. That’s W’s latest way of saying “questioning anything I do is unpatriotic.” The worst part is, he’s gotten away with it for 6 years now. My favoritie Couric line was when she dismissed Howard Dean’s correction of the long-left-unquestioned media statement that Dems took money from Abramoff. It was never true but our “liberal media” never questioned it. In fact, after repeating the sentiment and letting it float for weeks, it still hasn’t been addressed by this “liberal press.” When Dean pointed out to Couric it wasn’t true, she added a “well, we’ll have to check our facts on that,” clearly not believing him and clearly unwilling to admit she might be wrong. The fact remains that Abramoff was a staunch Republican who took great pains to put that money into Republican hands. While both parties have always taken lobby money, this particular round has only attracted so much attention because the players so blatantly flouted the law. Those players are Republicans. The media still hasn’t clarified that little mistake. Hence, I couldn’t agree more with the “no incumbent” sentiment. BUT it’s a little too overreaching for my taste. Akin to term-limits. What happens when we stumble across that one politician who does the right thing? Replace him because he’s an incumbent? Kick her out because she’s served two terms? That’s silly.
(pause)
No it isn’t.