|
Featured BlogadUser loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsUpcoming events
Other KnoxViews blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 10 users and 271 guests online.
|
John Kerry's Hypocrisy and IncompetenceSubmitted by Les Jones on Sun, 2007/01/28 - 9:57pm.
John Kerry was in Davos, Switzerland last week speaking to an international audience, and took the opportunity to fire a few shots at Bush.
Captain Ed counters:
Not only is Kerry hypocritical here, he's frankly incompetent. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Bush. He has eroded civil liberties even beyond what might be considered necessary in wartime. He used gay marriage and the promise of a marriage amendment to the Constitution to win votes (and then dropped the amendment once the election was over). His habit of picking political cronies for appointments gave us the incompetent Michael Brown at FEMA during one of the worst civil disasters in history. He fumbled badly in nominating the unqualified but sycophantic Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Even conservatives have legitimate beefs with Bush. He has no comprehensive immigration policy. Millions of people can walk across our border unannounced, yet INS stonewalls and quota limits doctors, engineers, scientists, and programmers who want to immigrate here. He hasn't prosecuted the war as effectively as he could have, and has taken a long time in addressing Iran's role in turning Iraq into a proxy U.S.-Iran war. He's also been the opposite of a small-government conservative - increasing the size of the Federal budget and creating a new Medicare prescription drug plan that creates a new intergenerational liability without raising Federal revenues a cent to fund it. Of course, bumbling Kerry couldn't field any of those legitimate complaints. He had to pick two issues where Bush was either no worse than his predecessor or was significantly better, and on Kyoto Kerry himself voted against U.S. ratification before Bush ever stepped into office. One thing you can say about a second Bush administration is that it's no worse than a first Kerry administration would have been. ( categories: )
|
SearchFree ClassifiedsLocal websites:
State websites:
Regional websites:
National websites:
Government websites:
Media websites: |
No, that's one thing you can say.
____________________________
Recursive blogwhore.
I won't disagree with the bumbler label, but I think there's some rewriting of history going on here.
Clinton didn't submit the treaty because Republicans promised to kill it. And once again typical parliamentary maneuvering is turned into "flip flopping." This was Kerry's position:
Clinton didn't submit it because Senators Republican and Democrat were against it. Kerry and every other Democrat either voted for Byrd-Hagel or abstained. Was he for it or against it? According to his vote he was for Byrd-Hagel and against Kyoto as it stood and stands.
Democrats aren't proud of Byrd-Hagel, but it's a fact that not one Senate Democrat voted against it.
That's why I say people concerned with global warming don't have a party, people who are for gay marriage don't have a party, and people who want smaller government don't have a party.
www.lesjones.com
it's a fact that not one Senate Democrat voted against it.
I don't know if you're being coy or just thick. Yes, there were and are Democrats opposed to Kyoto, just as there are a few Republicans opposed to reckless tax cuts and wars.
Kerry and other Democrats, who would have otherwise voted for Kyoto as it stood, voted for the resolution in hopes of gaining the supermajority needed for ratification of a re-negotatiated treaty. That doesn't mean they were opposed to Kyoto. It means they were being realistic and trying to make the best of it; they understood that if a vote went forward, the treaty was done for good.
Even the NRDC doesn't hold it against him.
Um, why waste time kicking this particular horse? Isn't John Kerry dead enough for you?
"Um, why waste time kicking this particular horse?"
Good question. Sometimes I think Kerry is my white whale.
www.lesjones.com
Oh, Jeebus:
I might actually respect some Machiavellian machinations on the Bushies' part. That's just F-ing pathetic.
That's why I say people concerned with global warming don't have a party, people who are for gay marriage don't have a party, and people who want smaller government don't have a party.
I thought you said you weren't concerned with the problems the GOP faces going into the new millennium, Les...
Les, thanks for the honest accounting of Bush's failings. I've been stewing recently over how unrepentent many Republicans seem in the wake of the 2006 elections, so it was especially refreshing to read this post. With various Republican Senators rediscovering their honesty and independence, perhaps we can look forward to more civil conversations soon, without the cheap "hate America" dismissals and polarizations.
The notion of interest groups without a party also resonates with me. I think the most serious bias in our nation's press and politics is the bias of omission. Think of all the aspects of American statesmanship and leadership omitted from the 2004 Presidential election. Of course, the media is working hard to bring us another soulless popularity contest in 2008 as well.
Post new comment