Ann Althouse’s account of John Kerry’s recent appearance on “Meet the Press” is devastating. I’m very glad Kerry didn’t win the election. I don’t agree with Bush on every issue but I almost always know where he stands, and I know that he is able to make big and difficult decisions in a timely way. Kerry, by contrast, equivocates on seemingly everything. Even now, with no election at stake, it’s impossible to pin him down on the war. (I know he’s against it but what would he do? He’s never made that clear.) That the Democratic leadership saw Kerry’s habitual equivocating as a clever tactic to triangulate votes, rather than as evidence of character flaws that should disqualify him from high executive office, does not inspire confidence either.
Kerry’s comments were not only disgraceful, but like Kennedy border on sedition in time of war.
Poltical differences are one thing and thank God we can discuss them, but the actions of these traitorous pigs in war time is disgusting.
God Bless America,
George M Weinert V
Strangely, given his habitual mangling of syntax, it is much easier to understand what Bush means than Kerry. If effective communication is the true mark of the articulate then Bush is far more functionally articulate than Kerry.
When Bush makes a gaffe every one in the audience knows immediately what he meant to say. (If they didn’t it wouldn’t be so funny). Kerry on the other often reminds me of one those programs that produces text that when read sounds like somebody is actually saying something but in reality is just phrases glued together in a meaningless pattern.
I remember reading some research wherein people where ask to rate the intelligence of writer of piece of text. People rated text created by a syntax generator that used long sentences and words as being the product of superior intellect even though the text communicated nothing. I think this effect is what makes many people believe that Kerry is such a bright bulb.
I’ve always been impressed by the vacuity of Kerry’s speech.
One can’t be entirely sure (because the politcally-slanted-correct nature of his vacuities are to some extent sop to garner favor from supporters) but we are very fortunate he was unsuccessful in his pres. bid. Indeed, it’s scary that such a boob could get as close as he did.
George, I agree Kennedy’s statements may not be tresonous but they sure are getting close it. How can it be that he doesn’t realize that he gives enemies intellectual “ammunition”? Well, one possible reason could be the boob factor coming into play.
What’re they putting in the water in Mass?