You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
New York Slimes Makes Marriage Official
2004-10-17
John Kerry for President
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen.
He's wooden. He looks like Lurch. He has no personality. He makes Al Gore look witty. And he has multiple opinions on every issue.
He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.
Since he's been grooming himself to run for president since he was a tad, you'd think he'd have more qualities than he does.
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change.
They mean every time the wind changes. We're doing the "Bush is stubborn" thing here...
Do we get a promise to keep the two-minute light on Kerry from here on out?
Posted by:Capt America

#23  OMG, Old Spook, pleasepleaseplease not Taft! Guiliani and Condi Rice by preference, maybe with backing by Rumsfeld as SecState, but Taft is not the man we to fill the gaping need at that point.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-10-18 12:31:49 AM  

#22  Makes sense - they've been endorsing him in all their 'news' stories for the past six months.
Posted by: A Jackson   2004-10-17 9:17:03 PM  

#21  Marriage official? Sorry, NYT, but Kerry "married up" and is no longer available. Besides, you've been screwing Bush daily for years -- you're no virgin. Best you can get is a civil union with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Posted by: Tom   2004-10-17 6:30:34 PM  

#20  OS -
RE your prediction for '08: You don't have a time machine there, do you?...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-10-17 5:46:46 PM  

#19  #10 Kalle (kafir forever) - Unfortunately, you're probably right.

Luckily we're the ones with the most guns.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-10-17 5:29:18 PM  

#18  "WHat happens if Kerry wins?"

The world will know that the American people have lost their nerve, that they are tired of fighting and tired of being disliked, and have succumbed to the need for a "group hug".

The inevitable consequences-- all of them violent beyond our wildest nightmares-- will quickly ensue all around the world.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-10-17 2:18:36 PM  

#17  It will be a 4 year self sentence for the nation, OldSpook. And we will have alot of casualties and some semi-infinite catching up to do.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-10-17 2:07:20 PM  

#16  WHat happens if Kerry wins?

If it happens it will be by the narrowest of margins.

The Congress stays Republican.

Kerry has the economy collapse when he vetos tax cut extensions.

The situation in Iraq produces terror attacks when he prematurely pulls US troops out and the government there collapses.

The military starts losing toops - retention becomes a nightmare under Kerry.

The left pulls a takeover of the party - based on thier belief that thier left manipualtions liek MoveON were what won the election. They produce the most left-wing slate of legislators ever.

The Congress becomes even MORE Republicn in 2 years - as a backlash against the mistake of putting someone like Kerry in office.

In 4 years Kerry is run out of office on a rail, with Hillary Clinton's hopes for the presidency smashed forever by the landslide victory by President Taft (of Ohio) and Vice President Bill Owens (of Colorado).


And the Mainstream Media becomes more and more irrelevant and partisan - opening even more room for upstarts like Fox to usurp the influence these old-guard conglomerations have abandoned in their surge into partisanship.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-10-17 12:30:45 PM  

#15  another fragrant belch from the Olde Gray Whore.
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-17 11:12:16 AM  

#14  Belay that. Just saw tipper's post about Salinger's croaking.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-10-17 10:56:26 AM  

#13  Pierre Salinger is dead???? When????

I never miss an opportunity to celebrate. NEVER. Where did I go wrong?
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-10-17 10:52:48 AM  

#12  Well, Pierre Salinger would've been more moved, more touched, and far more convinced by a Rent-a-Cong than a CMOH recipient, too. Glad the old multicultiphrogdicksmoker is finally fucking dead... And in the South of France no less - not Southern France, heh, where else?
Posted by: .com   2004-10-17 10:46:34 AM  

#11  I should add that I have been predicting a radical turn to violence by the Left since the early 90s (note the Marxist-Leninist doctrine that a *violent* revolution should take place; I've met people in Europe who hope it will start tomorrow, nope ok tomorrow then, nope ok tomorrow then...). Only eco-fascists have gone down that path so far (Gore's support for their ideology was a major marker).

My frustration is that I can't figure out how to neutralize them before they engage in widespread violence. I know how to defend myself and my loved ones, but I'd rather we didn't have to deal with either Islamofascist murderers or a mogrified Old New Left. That is, not in the homeland.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-10-17 10:42:37 AM  

#10  Bill, what needs to be explained very clearly to all Americans is that ABC News, along with the Old Media, would rather propagate the words of communists than interview American war heroes and respected members of their community (which is what the SwiftVetsandPOWforTruth are).

Think about it. The word of a communist foreigner is worth more to the Old Media than the word of a decent American. Do you remember the Cold War?

Whether Bush or Kerry wins, this will turn into a civil war within 10-20 years. The extreme left and its supporters will go the way of the Islamofascists and their supporters. Both groups are witnessing the slow defeat of their evil ideology at the hands of political liberty and free-markets. It won't be pretty.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-10-17 10:35:15 AM  

#9  "He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent."

These people are either stupid, or ignorant, or just plain evil-- or, more likely, all three.

Even if I were the Democrat I was 25 years ago, I would still be utterly flummoxed at the notion of my party nominating this obscure, unaccomplished nobody for the office of President. A "great" chief executive?? Please, that makes my head hurt: John Kerry would be the most timid, ineffectual, incompetent and indecisive President since Jimmy Carter-- and would very likely make Carter, in comparison, seem resolute, purposeful and dynamic.

God help us all-- Democrats and Republicans alike-- if this bozo wins.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-10-17 10:16:01 AM  

#8  "[Kerry] strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core."

I really do appreciate the NYT injecting a little levity into the proceedings.
Posted by: Matt   2004-10-17 10:02:56 AM  

#7  You mean *sniff* they're not going to endorse Bush? I thought they'd *sniff* be so much more fair... *sob sob sob*
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2004-10-17 9:47:07 AM  

#6  That is fine if the NYT wishes to endorse a candidate. What is not fine is the way the Times has portrayed their news stories by supressing the real news and following an agenda which has not done the public any service at all. All the News that is fit to print has become all the news that favors their agenda. Time will tell the result of their actions (not to be confused with Time magazine either, another MSM disinformation source).
It actually has already started. Their siblings in the MSM CBS already have lost their credibility.
What is telling is how the latest ABC Nightline report has been received by the public. That interview was conducted with one purpose and that was to prop up Kerry for the electorate. Rather (that name is synonmous with bad reporting) than interview Vets who were there , ABC went to extraordinary lengths to go to Vietnam and interview Vietcong operatives. The public hasn't bought that story either. Their credibility is disappearing.
The self destruction of the MSM is in progress as we speak.
Posted by: Bill Nelson   2004-10-17 8:47:25 AM  

#5  I am so not suprised
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-10-17 3:42:55 AM  

#4  An endorsement from the New York Times is like a French kiss from your grandmother. I am sure Kerry will wear this bib with his own unique sense of honor.
Posted by: badanov   2004-10-17 3:34:31 AM  

#3  Perfect example of "preaching to the choir."

When Bush wins decisively Nov. 2, the NYT readers will sit there stunned wondering how it happened, since no one they know voted for Bush.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-10-17 1:10:41 AM  

#2  I am utterly shocked by this turn of events. Utterly.
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American   2004-10-17 1:03:35 AM  

#1  Why the former "America's paper of record" is now just another tabloid.
Posted by: RWV   2004-10-17 12:18:08 AM  

00:00