Abandon Ship!
First, it was Maureen Dowd. Today, William Raspberry. Who will be the next Big Media pundit to distance themselves from John Kerry?
Click on the Comments and make your prediction.
NOTE: There are probably some Big Media pundits I’ve missed, other than Dowd and Raspberry. If there are, please let me know. And don’t you think Andrew Sullivan is starting to feel awfully lonely about now?
UPDATE
James Joyner notes that Don Imus has moved from being mildly pro-Kerry to “open minded.” Two other commenters say that on Fox, Susan Estrich isn’t exactly singing Kerry’s praises.
Estrich is a partisan Democrat, sure, but she’s also been a fair-minded analyst for Fox. She calls’em like she sees’em. Good for her — but because of that, I don’t know if she counts. And I can’t count Imus because, well, he’s Imus.
Saw somewhere on the net this am that Don Imus has stepped away from Kerry…
I think the Washington Post will be next. They’ve a reputation as Insiders to protect, and can’t afford to let Kerry make them look like fools.
Unlike my local paper, The St. Petersburg Times, which has been going out of its way for decades to look like fools in a monopolistic environment.
Sullivan’s lost his marbles. Did you read his garbage when he got back? Inexcusable!
Palooka
It appears a month long vacation at the Cape only makes one more foolish.
Matt Lauer – Matt got a full dose of the Bush Charm offensive. By the end of the week Matt will be disagreeing wtih Katie Couric’s snide asides on air.
They won’t find the Matt-Pod until after the Convention.
I heard Imus this morning. He’s now officially “open minded” about the election. Of course, it has nothing to do with the campaign but that he’s still miffed that the Kerry train didn’t stop when it passed through that damned ranch Imus won’t shut up about.
Bush or Bush Not–There is No Kerry
Stephen Green notes that Maureen Dowd, who calls Kerry “lame”on the Letterman show, is the latest of a growing line of Democratic pundits lament the fact that they’re stuck with John Kerry as the only alternative to George W. Bush. William Raspber…
A little repetition for the sake of emphasis: Andrew Sullivan is an idiot.
Poor Andrew. I’m afraid the little head
has gotten in the way of the big head.
No, Sullivan is not an idiot. He’s an intellectual who is refusing to admit that his strongest convictions are grounded in emotion rather than reason.
Which makes him sound like an idiot, because practically everyone else can see what he can’t or won’t.
Wow, and I thought this wouldn’t start until late September (when it looked like Bush’s convention bounce was sticking).
I guess the media needs to lay the groundwork for giving themselves an out though. They can’t just up and abandon Kerry on October 1 without a little setup, and planting a few seeds of doubt with lower-tier pundits is a pretty safe start.
The media is nothing if not predictable.
Andrew Sullivan has demonstrated over recent months that he has about as few hard and fast core beliefs as John Kerry. The only core belief that appears to hold firm, and indeed, the one that appears to guide virtually all of his beliefs and values, is his sexuality.
I’ve dropped him from my bookmarks and I suspect many others have as well.
If Kerry is to fall (i.e. lose in a Dukakis-like manner), the MSM needs to make it look like they gave him the shove. Otherwise, new media was the decisive factor.
If you think Democrats hate spending four years under a President “selected by the Supreme Court,” imagine how the MSM would like spending four years with a President “selected by new media.”
You’re right, AS has lost it, totally off the deep end. It makes me feel kind of seduced and abandoned. I gave that man *money* once!
If you examine Kerry’s purple heart injuries they all seem seem to deal with Kerry’s use of grenades which he tends to set off while he remains within their burst radius. The most famous of these is what has become known as the “brown rice” incident, in which Kerry became wounded in the buttocks by grenade-propelled rice grains as he ran away from an explosive charge he set off in a VC rice bin.
Kerry has a similar problem with the PR grenades he has set off in his political campaign. He thinks he is safely outside their burst radius, however, he continually finds himself fragged by his own explosives. This is understandable as Kerry has also demonstrated an inability to judge distance, such thinking he was 5 miles into Cambodia on Christmas when he, instead,was 50 miles away.
Given a continued demonstration of this lack of prowess, many of the media, as well as other friends of Kerry, who have stood too close to him have found themselves fragged as well so they are now moving to a safe place. What place is safe? Someplace where Kerry is not. I suggest Cambodia.
I think you guys are being way premature. Sensing a fundamental change in the MSM outlook because of a couple of editorials is like predicting sunny weather in the eye of a hurricane. Though some may hedge their bets a little, I fully expect that negative stories about Kerry will continue to be met with suspicion by the MSM, while negative stories about Bush are welcomed with open arms and doe-like acceptance of the truths of the matters asserted.
After all, none of this is a suprise, is it? I have yet to see a single “Kerry supporter” who could articulate a reason to vote for Kerry excpet that he’s “not Bush.” All Dowd and Raspberry are doing is reflecting today’s CW: “Kerry is lame, always was, but at least he’s not Bush.”
Susan Estridge, commenting on Fox last night, made a statement that raised my antennae immediately. She said that if Bush were to win because of the issues raised by the Swifties, that it wouldn’t be a “legitimate win.” Sounds like she’s starting to lay the groundwork for explaining why the Boston fog machine lost already.
The metaphor ‘rats off of a sinking
ship’ seems strangely appropriate.
Susan Estrich. Last night on Fox news with Brit Hume she was singing a very different tune. Sounded defeated and pointing out mistakes made by Kerry.
She was having flashbacks to her Dukakis campaign.
RE: Andrew Sullivan – I see others are awake to his single, unswerving overriding agenda. What a waste, he’s quite good. As for the “press” dumping Kerry, a vacuum is developing, which is scary.
No, Andrew Sullivan isn’t an idiot. Still, it’s hard to reconcile his views of a few months or a year ago with his view of today. My guess is that something in his personal life has changed.
Still, he’s just too … rudderless. I also dropped him from my bookmarks. I hope he gets it together and makes a comeback, but I’m not holding my breath.
Scaramonga,
I caught that as well. And I about jumped out of my skin when she spoke of the rage a veteran like Kerry must be feeling, having had his record challenged in the way it has been by the Swift Vets. Hello, Susan! Why do you think the Swift Vets are engaged in this campaign?
Wow, glad to see I’m not alone in losing patience with AS. I too have donated to him, and he used to be the best. I feel jilted, but as others have pointed out, he has become essentially a single issue advocate. I have loved him for years, but he’s lost all perspective now.
The way the MSM has treated the Swift Vet story told me a week ago that they are already setting up the reasoning behind Kerry’s impending loss (also explains why they haven’t fully investigated the charges):
The MSM believes Bush played dirty. That’s going to be the cry. It’s been the talking point for nearly a month now – Bush played dirty with McCain, played dirty with Cleland, and did it again with Kerry.
That will be the MSM reasoning for the loss.
Sullivan doesn’t understand – one enemy at a time. He doesn’t understand that he has more to fear from Osama than Bush. Too smart by half I’d say.
Osama/Kerry – then Bush (on domestic policy).
By supporting Bush I have a seat at the table and a voice. Sullivan gets what? Satisfaction and a loss? Kewl. So 1960s. You go Andrew.
Sullivan has been submitted weekly pro Democrat pieces for The Sunday Times in August. He likes to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous ol’ Sully – I’m tempted to think he is now a paid hack.
It’s very important for the left that their ideas can not, and must not, lose on their merits. Their candidate can lose because the other guy stole the election, or engaged in smear tactics, or because their own guy was incompetent, but *never* because a majority of the voters rejected the left’s ideas.
I’ve long thought that this is why the Dems are so much harder on their losing candidates than the Republicans.
I defy anybody to watch Susan Estridge and not think ‘Carol Channing’
Go on …. I dare you.
~/ Hello, Dolly. Well, hellooooooo/~
I also watched Susan Estridge, commenting on Fox last night, “illegitimate” claim… Right after she tried to claim the Swift Vets were completely dishonest? Seemed deep with denial and frustration.
Very strange, if the protesters are any indication, seeing the scene walking around NYC, there is no real support for Kerry… a real problem for the DNC. Dishonest snob is not very attractive.
I see the emotional dive of the Dem pundits growing fast… even before the debates… excuses being created right before our eyes.
The world is starting to see what some of us in massachusetts have known for a long time. Kerry is a fraud. The dixie chicks are embarrassed?? try living in massachusetts and be represented by Teddy and Kerry, what a duo.
Bush will have “brought down Kerry with LIES” (SwiftConspiracy), which “worked despite the MSM” because “the American people after four years of Bush have all gone stupid”. I think I’ll decline arguing, this time–what’s the point?–and simply agree with ‘em. After all, GWB is a lame duck, and why not buy a little peace and quiet?
It’s funny, I am sure Sullivan’s traffic is going to be decent, but what he may not realize is people are looking for the next idiotic rant, and not thoughtful commentary. He’s become a curiousity, a freak show.
Well now I don’t feel so bad about taking AS off my bookmarks. It’s amusing when MSN pundits start to hedge their bets, ’cause they don’t seem to realize that NM pundits will observe and comment on it, quite often predicting it. They are just to slow, lazy, and biased. Can’t get it through their heads that things have changed.
I’m puzzled about Sullivan’s comment today.
>> P.S.: I loved Bush’s comment yesterday about the smear-ad: “I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn’t so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now.” “Us”?? I thought Bush had nothing to do with it
I would assume Bush is talking about his own campaign when he says ‘us’. But AS seems to be taking it to mean ‘us’ as Bush and the Swiftvets (or 527s).
AS seems to reading into this what he WANTS to.
Martin,
Made that IDENTICAL comment on my blog. Check it out.
Palooka
Jim Cramer did, and even Chris Matthews kind of distanced themselves from Kerry yesterday on Matthews’ Sunday show. I posted the hilarious Cramer comment on the blog above. Thanks, Jack
I used to read Sullivan daily, but I haven’t read anything of his in at least seven months. I usually just skipped over his homosexual post; not because of homophobia it’s simply an issue that does not interest me, but then neither do heterosexual issues unless they include some kind of gratuitous female nudity. It used to be about one out of five posts then it became one out of three and when the gay marriage debate got hot his brain musta boiled and it became every other post. Sullivan has become a one-dimension blogger and it’s all about him, his sexual preference, and the demand that the US government give its official blessing on his lifestyle choice. Bleh, efuckingnough already! I don’t read Sullivan anymore and I say good riddance.
Bush hatred doesn’t require a Kerry win. So as the polls show Kerry losing ground, the hate Bushies (inside and outside the MSM) will become less likely to invest any more effort in Kerry. It will serve thir egos just as well to spend another 4 years complaining that Bush stole another election by orchestrating the SBVFT “smear”; or that the Bush win is further proof of the crushing of dissent. This will be especially true if the voter turn-out is low.
When is the Left is going to wake up and realize that they can let Kerry lose in 2004, keep their Bush-hatred, and clear the decks for Hillary in 2008?
Who’s this Andrew Sullivan guy you keep talking about?
hehehe
I suspect the MSM will turn on Kerry, maybe even to feeding-frenzy levels, if the Republican Convention provides any sort of perceptible “bounce” for Bush whatsoever.
The key, I think, is that the MSM doesn’t have qualms about covering up a story when it helps advance their allies to victory. But once that victory becomes implausible, I think other motivations come in – the desire not to be obviously “wrong,” not to miss a big story. Really a self-defense mechanism in a lot of ways. They’re partisan enough to support their candidate through their coverage, but *not* partisan enough to “take the fall” for him. And if maintaining the MSM’s claim to continued relevance requires honest reporting on Kerry, they’ll bit the bullet and do it.
Didn’t the note back off from “It’s Kerry’s to Lose?” to “And he is!”?
As for AS, I wrote him off when there was the whole “I haven’t made up my mind” on his blog compared to some Advocate article (pointed out by NRO) that essentially said “Vote Kerry.” When clled on it, pulled some Clintonian parsing, that essentially siad, I was writing to the audience. Bah.
Besides, his Derbyshire award is getting really old…
Hell hath no fury like a queen scorned. Back in the days of their love, GWB could do no wrong, as far as Andrew Sullivan was concerned. Everything Bush did was proof of his political and military genius. (Remember the immortal “Flypaper: A Strategy Unfolds?”)
Then the president jilted him at the altar of gay marriage in favor of the social conservatives.
Ever since, Bush can do no *right* in Sullivan’s eyes. Everything he does is proof of his perfidy. In fact, his whole *family* is vile:
“…when the Bush family finds itself in difficult political waters, they have a long-established, sure-fire tactic. They find a way to detect their opponent’s strongest card and discredit it. They do so using surrogates to keep their patrician hands clean, and they are absolutely not above the vilest of smears.”
Funny, but this never seemed to bother AS before. (And never mind that the Swift Boat Vets got started because they felt that Kerry and his hagiographer Douglas Brinkley had smeared *them*.)
As it happens, I agree with Sullivan on some of his criticisms of the president: the lack of fiscal restraint, for example. I even agree with him about gay marriage.
But he has lost all sense of proportion here. His current disillusionment is as over the top as his one-time infatuation.
It’s as if the MSM has been waiting with bated breath for the “real” John Kerry to emerge, shining, from his chrysalis and they are only now realizing it’s not going to happen. The “real” Kerry has been before them all along, they just couldn’t believe that what they saw was what they were going to get. I’m markedly left of center politically, but have never considered voting for him. It’s a crying shame that the Democrats could not muster a candidate of the stature that these perilous times require. That they chose Kerry as their representative shows me that they are not serious about confronting the threats that face us. This is the reason I started the year a Democrat, but will end it as an “unaffiliated” voter. I suspect I’m not alone in this.
Re: Sullivan, I too have stopped reading him. He is a fine and passionate writer, but has caved to the cheap and easy satisfactions of identity politics. Too bad.
“Sullivan has become a one-dimension blogger…”
Hey Now! Be Nice! Even we one-dimensional bloggers have de-linked him!
Andrew’s revolting smear of the swift boat veterans as Rovian stooges is disgusting. How dare he tell the men who fought and died in Vietnam after Kerry zipped out on his “3 scratch” technicality and smeared them as babykillers to shut up?
I have completely lost all respect for him as of this morning.
For years, I’ve thought that AS was good enough to read, except when discussing the issue of homosexuality, at which point he became – well, tiresome.
But for the past several months, that’s the issue that has overwhelmed him and his blog. And my day is way too short to make it a practice of reading tiresome blogs.
So he’s gone. Sad, really; a talented writer, he could have been a valued voice.
I, too, read AS regularly. Then I started skipping the gay threads, then the gay threads pretty much became the only thread, then I just gave up. Still got him bookmarked, just never go there. Maybe I’ll go take one last look at a train wreck.
I read him for his insight. I could scarcely give an RA about his lifestyle choices (if he wants to go “bareback” with willing partners, who am I to object), but I really don’t need to read about them constantly.
I visit Vodkapundit off and on to read Stephen’s insights. I don’t want to hear about his lifestyle choices very much either. I check out the recipes sometimes, sometimes I skip them. Same with remodeling. But it’s not being shoved up my anything, so I don’t mind. If this blog becomes all StephenLifeStyleChoice all the time, I’m outahere.
Don’t count the MSM out yet; they will get to frame and ask the questions for the “debates” and you can count on plenty of anti-Bush bias on that score. Which questions…how they are asked…the “follow-up” Qs and the post-debate “analysis” (who won) will all be stacked against the President.
Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson, Bob Schieffer, Gwen Ifill as moderators…do you honestly think that any one of these has not already decided to vote for Kerry, and will do what they can to see that he is elected?
Vinteuil has it right about Sullivan. He is acting like he was scorned, scorned.
More interesting to me is the uncanny silence this morning about the silver star mystery. This thingy with Lehman could put Kerry in the brig. Not a single story about it today. Feels like the “eye” of a hurricane. When will the storm hit?
The sheer irony of Sullivan’s apparent defection is that in terms of “gay rights”, the conservative movement needs more gays who openly come down on conversative issues (WoT, economy et al) despite the unfriendly welcome they’re sure to get from the FAR right (note: typically, the far right- ie, very straight laced evangelical christians). Not only would doing so evidence perseverence but people like the Sullivan of old would show many conservatives that homosexuals can be a part of the republican party without making THEIR agenda # 1. Unfortunately, my experience with the gay community is they refuse to take things in stages- its always “we’re being oppressed, we have a right to marry” etc rather than “we’ll work with others for gradual acceptance of our lifestyle”. Is it the drama queen in so many gays that refuses this tact ?
Anyway, Sullivan’s missed a golden opportunity to use his pulpit to preach tolerance of gays and their needs to conservatives- its was absolutely ludicrous for him to completely change gears based on a proposed amendment that was not expected to pass anyway and was used to mollify the conservative base.
Sullivan’s swerve dates back to immediately following his then near-constant mention of his then new boyfriend. Pansy-whipped I say. It happens.
Well, Kerry’s going to need all the help he can get during the debates. Simply seeing the two of them in the same room is going to be tough on him. One, a relaxed, easy-going, everyman, the other a stiff, botoxed freak.
Not a big fan of Sullivan, but I don’t want to wade into all that.
As for the next MSM pundit to drop Kerry, my only prediction is: Not Jim Boyd (of anti-Power Line fame).
Kerry Fallout
Kerry: There is a disturbance in the liberal force
Strong criticism of Kerry from an anti-Bush pundit
William Raspberry writes in today’s Washington Post: But if Bush is frightening — in part because he so dogmatically believes what he believes — Kerry is frustrating and infuriating because he seems not to believe much of anything worth risking
No, really. I just started reading blogs. Who is Andrew Sullivan exactly?
No, really. I just started reading blogs. Who is Andrew Sullivan exactly?
It must be a really odd position for the Kerry campaign to be hoping for a disaster, natural or man-made, to help them bring down Bush. It seems Charlie didn’t do in Bush-43, the way Andrew did in Bush-41.
Speaking of a disaster named Andrew, I always liked the links the Sullivan had, but over time the pickins got slim as I had to sift through all the gay marriage obsessed stuff. I still can’t believe he just signed-off for so long .. it made him easy to forget.
The MSM is just playing their cards the way JF’nK does: Surround all sides of an issue so you later claim you were fer or agin it as needed!
As for AS: ME, TOO! Still bookmarked but never read anymore. Why bother? He’s lapsed into the screaming queen catagory where all that matters is his sexual preference. I got my preferences, too, but I ain’t shakin’ them in AS’s face!
Personally I think the media is distancing itself from Kerry because there is now only a little time for them to assist the dems in playing the Torricelli option. I have said from the start that Kerry would not be on the November ballot, and I still believe it.
Again, I haven’t heard of Andrew Sullivan. Can someone post a link?
I am amazed at the number of negative comments about Sullivan’s blog this morning. I wrote Andrew about 2 months ago complaining that his considerable talent was being needlessly spent entirely on the gay issue. He wrote back with a list of the many other problems he had with Bush-style Republicanism, almost all of which were legitimate. Still, comparing his Republican heroes with the demons (Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, McCain vs. Santorum, Dobson, DeLay) one sees the only defining difference between them is the gay issue. And, more and more, it appears to be the only reason he “can’t vote for Bush” as he has stated in the Sept. issue of Esquire. I still read Andrew’s blog because he still has occasional moments of lucidity, and I continue to hope he will once again address a broader range of issues. But it’s getting more difficult, and his first blog back from vacation makes it look less and less hopeful.
I unlinked Sullivan some time ago. I’m not a homophobe, but the problem with homosexuals very frequently is that everything in life revolves around their sexual orientation. If the same were true of heterosexuals, we’d be in a worse mess than we are.
Sullivan is disingenuous in a lot of ways. I don’t read him anymore. He’s a gay marriage issue guy and nothing else. I find it silly that he acts like gay marriage is the panacea for gay men. It’s not. Gay men screw like bunny rabbits. If we had gay marriage, we’d have divorce courts booked up for years. [Not opposed to it, just don't care.]
Sullivan is also not a “native-born” American and his “ear to the ground” will never quite be accurate because of that.
Pounding Vietnam day after day is going to be the end of Kerry. He is losing the old and the young.
Us old vets remember Kerry from ’71 and from ’92 when he was chairman of the senate POW/MIA committee. The Swift boat guys are just the tip of the iceberg (or spear!).
The young don’t care about Vietnam at all. Kerry’s daughters got booed at the MTV awards because all Vietnam all the time has turned the kids off of Kerry.
Count me as another who read AS religiously and de-bookmarked him early this year. His loathing and intolerance drove me away, and the narcissism is breathtaking. BTW, Irv, are you able to use Google? You can search for Andrew Sullivan, can’t you?
On the Swifties issue, did anyone hear Roger Hedgecock (filling in for Rush this past Thursday) interview the Swifty who was on Kerry’s boat for over 2 months, Steve Gardner?? He was DEVASTATING. He’s like John O’Neill on steroids and he was there with Kerry during the pertinent time in question. I have always believed Kerry is phony as a $3 bill and if O’Neill’s book hadn’t proven it to me, Gardner would have.
My husband is a Vietnam vet (AF, ’68 – ’69) and loathing doesn’t begin to describe his attitude toward Kerry, and my f-i-l is a WWII vet (Battle of the Bulge, Nuremberg guard) who can’t fathom any American vet of any age voting for him.
And looking towards 2008, my question is, what makes any thinking individual believe HRC could be Commander in Chief of the armed forces? What makes anyone think the American people could think so? My believe is there will be more terror. It is unfathomable that she could command our military and lead us through it. Just think about it, hard.
I’ve dropped him from my bookmarks and I suspect many others have as well.
*raises hand*
I’ve also noticed a certain amount of exhaustion in some of the centrist blogs I read, where the host professes to be a more-or-less reluctant supporter of W.
Bush is definitely hitting his stride, no doubt about that. But I wonder whethere it’s really going to make much of a difference. I think most people have made up their mind already.
As for Sullivan, at least he puts some thought into what he writes, unlike alot of the right-leaning bloggers.
Never mind Dowd. What do Woody Harrelson & Sheryl Crow have to say?
Any man who can invent a fable
and then later describe it as the defining moment of his life is a
fantasist and a liar and unfit to
be president. He must be directly
confronted with this lie. Till then:
Captain Fraud
I am Captain Fraud
And I am, by gawd,
Captain of Cambodia.
With my lucky hat,
From a spy, at that,
I stormed into Cambodia.
Jingling three purple hearts,
Three bandaids apart,
I spent Christmas in Cambodia.
With camera and gall
I reenacted all
My exploits in Cambodia.
My fantasy, “seared” in memory,
Will end with me in the presidency,
President of Cambodia.
For I’m Captain Fraud
And remain, by gawd,
The Liar of ambodia.
Gene Neary
Captain,
USS Fantasy
I, like many of you, have dropped Andrew Sullivan from my links. But today I had to look to see what you were all talking about. While searching, I inadvertantly clicked on a past blog from Sullivan (September 2003). As I was reading, I finally realized my mistake. I also realized the extent to which this guy has completely flipped. How the hell does he expect anyone to ever take him seriously again? I think it’s all a secret research project that he’s doing in order to really know how it feels to be John Kerry.
Estridge, fair minded ???!!!
I heard her drawing a distinction between the Swift Boat Veterans and all the Left 527s, claiming that the former were smears and the latter (including “Bush was AWOL!”) are legitimate criticism.
It was the most in-your-face, naked “true believer” shilling for Kerry I’ve seen all year.
Add me to the list of people who used to read One-Note-Andy’s blog, but haven’t been there since he lost it on the homosexual “marriage” issue.
And as for the “mainstream” [spit] media, some of them are already emulating rats off a sinking ship, but I suspect most will go down with the “SS Jean Kerrie” no matter how absurd they look in short skirts and pom-poms.
Susan Estrich? Didn’t she run the Dukakis compaign? Obviously, she’s a smart woman, but she’s such a media whore she’ll say anything to get attention.
Who bothers listening to her?
It’s Susan Estrich, Estrich, Estrich!!!
Love her, hate her, be indifferent to here (I like her, though on the opposite politically), but for pity’s sake spell her name right.
http://lawweb.usc.edu/faculty/sestrich.htm
Actually, I too like, or liked, Estrich’s analysis for a while. As soon as the Dem primary season began, she went completely into viscious-partisan mode.
Bush is just now hitting his stride, and we still have the convention and 9/11 anniversary to go.
And just wait until the next ad-buy shows up, highlighting Kerry’s 1970′s book with it’s original cover. It’s a despicable mockery of the Raising of the Flag in Iwo Jima.
Kerry is in deep doo-doo, and the media is just figuring it out.
Only real question to ask Andrew is why he didn’t get married this summer on the Cape with all that wonderful light and beautiful scenery. The answer to that question would be very illuminating.
From an email I sent him this morning: Spending the month of August surrounded by the loony left has completed your meltdown. You are sounding more and more like Maureen Dowd. All the vets of the Swift boats came forward because Karl Rowe ordered them to???? These are adult men who served their country and then returned home to make lives for themselves and their families.
Right after I sent that I read Drudge’s post about Kerry’s daughters getting booed. I emailed Andrew again, asking him if he thought that Karl Rove even controls the teeny bopper crowd?
Another hand raised on dumping AS.
He had a long run of asking provacative questions and giving interesting thoughts on issues but its been ages since his take on anything else has been worth considering (if you could find anything other than the gay marriage thing).
Too bad but I think he is so wrapped up in the “boy friend” thing that he simply can’t look at anything but through that perspective.
I keep reading Andrew and keep supporting him financially – but begin to wonder why.
He does not grasp that when the Vice President of the US supports his gay daughter openly, he is making a far more stunning statement about Republicans than fussing over whether this one wants an amendment (which he knows, thank God, he’ll never get) and that one wants the states to decide. He is a bore on the issues of gays even to gays.
When Kerry jangles his medals as the Mark Spitz of Viet Nam, AS thinks we shouldn’t look to see what those medals are made of. Think of it…five medals in four months!
Kerry swears he was defending us – but against an enemy he says wasn’t attacking us. What does that mean? And he evaporates after four months over a technicality without any disability any ever noticed. What kind of defender is that?
I’ll continue to support Andrew but will hope he’ll start re-loading some of his intellectual ballast.
“It’s Susan Estrich, Estrich, Estrich!!!”
One of my few character failings is that I have a mental block with learning to spell (or even remember) the name of people that I care little about.
She “managed” the Dukakis fiasco and is now carrying Kerry’s water. She seems drawn to clear losers. And that God-awful ear-to-ear smirk when she gets that mental flash “oh dear, wasn’t I so clever, there?” Carol Channing was never that obnoxious.
All you have to know about Susan Estrich is that she said-saw and heard her say it-is that Clinton could not have been guilty of rape because he looked her in the eye and told her so.
Rape? Clinton was never accused of rape!
Puh leeze!
Well, she’s a Democrat, but not as obnoxious as many. Clinton fooled a lot of people.
Spelling mistakes in names are not a character flaw, but they lead to potential confusion which I find esthetically annoying. I.e, is there an “Estridge” out there somewhere that one should know about?
(Another example now being encountered elsewhere: John Kerry vs. Bob Kerrey, both Democratic US Senators who were in the Navy, were wounded and got medals in Vietnam. Caused confusion for years until I finally had to focus on who they were, though after this year I hope both will be “retired” from Presidential politics and it won’t be a problem anymore).
Even the mainstream media are deserting him
Vodkapundit asked “Who will be the next Big Media pundit to distance themselves from John Kerry?” I don’t know, but the standard news feed seem to be a little better about calling him on some things, and just now I…