Senator John Kerry had one of those moments the other night.
For reasons best known to themselves, the Democrats have decided to hold their presidential nominating convention in Boston, Massachusetts. Two findings have emerged from this decision. First, that Americans outside the North-East are being reminded that the Democrats have a liberal New England candidate, with limited appeal outside his backyard. Second, that the traffic chaos caused by the Convention is very unpopular with the inhabitants of that town.
Conspiracy theorists claim that the Republican Governor of Massachusetts has deliberately botched up the arrangements.
So in front of thousands of baseball fans, Sen. John Kerry was introduced to throw the first pitch of the match between the Boston Red Socks against the New York Yankees on Sunday.
First, the fact that the Democratic Convention was happening in Boston was booed by virtually the entire 36,000 crowd. Then most of the crowd booed again (although there were cheers) when Kerry was introduced. Then the macho-man threw the ball short, and the catcher missed. Cue mirth, giggles and fun on the George W Bush blog.
Memo to politicians and actors: never work with babies, animals or baseball fans.
Never try to look macho at the Space Center, either; a Dorky-Dukakis-Moment for Kerry, for sure. Wonderful comparison about that at the RNC site.
Boston Red Socks?
Did you hear how Clinton said that Massachusetts was great because it had produced 3 democratic John’s? Including Kerry.
It was practically the only good thing about him he managed to say. :p
GIve him credit, though: His interview during the game with the NESN sports commentators was far and away the best interview he’s given — human, decisive, nearly charismatic at times. Admittedly it didn’t touch on a single matter of actual significance for the election, but as there are no significant matters up for debate in the election, that’s hardly a criticism.
Expect to see mainstream interviewers desperately trying to emulate sports commentators in the future in hopes of simulating the thrill of asking direct questions and getting direct answers.
–G
I love the fact people are saying he throws “like a girl”.
It’s not much of a secret that Billy Clinton wants Kerry to lose, so wifey can run in 2008 free and clear. The fact that wifey is unelectable to the office seems irrelevant to the “saying it makes it true” crowd.
If I were the designated Republican attack dog I’d replace every ad I currently had in rotation with a looped shot of Kerry’s pansy throw. The chortles and snorts I’ve heard around the office (even from some Dems!) haven’t been pretty.
Not sure how this is viewed in Britain and Europe, but I know that most American men grow up with a pathological fear of being seen in public throwing like a girl. Except for being seen in a lace teddy there really isn’t anything more emasculating over here.
All Bush’s shortcomings aside, this is one area where he’s got Kerry beat hands down; he can actually throw a strike.
Hank – yep, it was viewed with great hilarity and guffaws in my little bit of England. In fact a feminist, socialist, labour-supporting friend of mine (I know, I know, but I humour her and usually in a most patronising way) even found it funny for the same reason!
Hank – yep, it was viewed with great hilarity and guffaws in my little bit of England. In fact even a feminist, socialist, labour-supporting friend of mine (I know, I know, but I humour her and usually in a most patronising, smug, so satisfying way) even found it funny for the same reason.
“If I were the designated Republican attack dog I’d replace every ad I currently had in rotation with a looped shot of Kerry’s pansy throw. The chortles and snorts I’ve heard around the office (even from some Dems!) haven’t been pretty.”
So, not “throwing like a girl” is now a criterion for election? Jesus.
Actually, Kerry is probably closer to a libertarian fiscal conservative/socially liberal position than Bush has been so far.
[quote]Actually, Kerry is probably closer to a libertarian fiscal conservative/socially liberal position than Bush has been so far.[/quote]
Hence my “for all of Bush’s shortcomings” remark. I’m under no illusions that GWB is some great president. However, he “gets” the most important problem we face; the war. Kerry doesn’t, and he’s proven it time and again.
I only have one criteria when voting for president; the candidate must be American. Unfortunately Kerry just doesn’t meet that criteria by his affectations, attitude, and overall demeanor.
H, what have you been smoking? Bush isn’t great, but JoKe looks worse; can anyone name a single issue he has been consistent on?
“Actually, Kerry is probably closer to a libertarian fiscal conservative/socially liberal position than Bush has been so far.”
Yeah, I heard Murray Rothbard came back from the grave to endorse his health care proposal!
Actually, Kerry is probably closer to a libertarian fiscal conservative/socially liberal position than Bush has been so far
Yeah, except for the part about increasing taxes, raising spending even faster than Bush, not even talking about privatizing anything, and gun control.
Other than being in favor of allowing partial birth abortion, is there a single issue where Kerry is consistently on record as being less of a statist than Bush?
Kerry claims that he will balance the budget but thats an easy claim to make. Beyond that one issue it strikes me as absurd to say that he is more libertarian than Bush.
The fact is that we (Americans that is) only have a choice between two statists, one a big government conservative, the other a big government democratic socialist.
I’ll take the conservative over the socialist any day.
Bush has his faults for sure, but he gets the war, he cares more about American soveriegnty and, unlike Kerry, wont sell us out to the UN and France, and hes a known quantity.
Kerry on the other hand is nothing more than a media/Democratic party creation. I dont believe a word he says when he tries to sell himself to Jacksonian middle America, and I strongly suspect that once in power he will do everything he can to turm the US into France.
Wtf!??
Kerry is obviously FAR more of a statist than GWB will ever be.
Given his voting record and election promises, Kerry is quite possibly the MOST LEFTIST, MOST STATIST presidential candidate since McGovern in 72.
And he throws a girls…
And he made a absolute ass of himself at NASA…
The list goes on and on…
Kerry is a leftwing ideologue, one of the most rabid leftists in the US Senate.
To claim that Kerry is even close to being Libertarian, is plain and utter lunacy.
Most liberatians will vote for Bush this year. Given the choice between someone who gets the war on terror and lowers my taxes and someone who want to tax me to death while selling out to ultras-statist in the UN, the choice is easy.
Hmmm.
“fiscal conservative”?
Did he state that he wanted to create a nationalized healthcare system? Isn’t that still one of the major planks of his election? Won’t that cost about $1 trillion dollars?
Ok. So he’s going to cut the deficit AND spend $1 trillion a year on nationalized healthcare? Ok. So where does the money come from?
“Most liberatians will vote for Bush this year. Given the choice between someone who gets the war on terror and lowers my taxes and someone who want to tax me to death while selling out to ultras-statist in the UN, the choice is easy. ”
I’m not so sure… that noted rabid left-wing collectivist Andrew Sullivan seems to be leaning pretty heavily towards Kerry. Bush may have lowered your taxes, but in doing so has created such a huge budget deficit that it’s certain your kids will be making up the difference. And I’m simply not convinced that Bush “gets the war” more than Kerry. He’s managed post-war Iraq disastrously, and in such a way that will inevitably backfire on the U.S. I’m a fan of neither Bush nor Kerry, but looking past their rhetoric and objectively what they might do about the war and the economy, Kerry is increasingly looking like the least worst candidate, if only by the slimmest of margins. And I really couldn’t give a flying whatever if he “throws like a girl”: what is this, a school playground? Does it mean women and gays can never be presidents? I think I prefer throwing like a girl to empty macho posturing anyway.
I’m not so sure… that noted rabid left-wing collectivist Andrew Sullivan seems to be leaning pretty heavily towards Kerry.
Ah, you mean noted professional gay person Andrew Sullivan, who was singing right along in the Repoublican hymnal until the gay marriage issue got his knickers in a twist?
Last time I looked, Kerry wasn’t in favor of gay marriage either. If Sullivan does go for Kerry, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s backed a Democrat candidate. Sullivan is roughly-speaking a libertarian, i.e. a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Bush scores pretty poorly both fiscally and socially.
Bush scores pretty poorly both fiscally and socially.
But not as poorly as Kerry. Honestly, we can do this all day.
Poster A: Bush scores pretty poorly both fiscally and socially.
Poster B: But not as poorly as Kerry. Honestly, we can do this all day.
********************
True enough, but what’s the point? Clearly libertarians of good will can differ in their definitions and interpretations of the term “libertarian.”
My understanding of the term, and my knowledge of politics and government in the U.S., draw my attention away from whatever demogogic tweaks either candidate might make in speeches about the economy, war plans, blahblahblah. Instead I focus tightly on judicial appointments. Dubya’s past choices and what they say about his likely future choices, give this libertarian screaming nightmares.
I disagree that the margins of difference between Bush and Kerry are slim.
First lets be clear, Kerry is NOT a fiscal conservative. He has only SAID he will balance the budget. Saying that does not make him a fiscal conservative, it makes him a politician trying to get elected.
Kerry is a tranzi. He believes in the supreme authority of the UN, and will sign the US up to the ICC and Kyoto and any other insane treaty the Euro-socialists create.
Kerry will nominate people to the judiciary who think the Constitution is a blank slate into which socialist ideology can be poured.
Kerry’s record of defense is apalling. He has voted against every single item of pro defense spending since he got elected to the Senate. He’s an anti-war activist who lied about the conduct of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam in order to support the pro-communist left. This so-called veteran spat on freedom and on the American military to advance the cause of the communism.
Kerry will not fight the current war. He will slowly and quietly pull back until it becomes nothing more than a hunt only for Bin Laden. This will give the Islamist terrorists room to grow and plan further attacks upon the US. Can anyone seriously say that a man who has Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter and European Socialists standing behind him is going to defend the US and fight Islamism?
Yeah right.
As I said Bush has his faults. But he has aggressively defended the US and our soveriegnty. He has said no to the the Kyoto treaty. He has made it clear that the UN does not rule America. He has raised defense spending. His judicial nominees have all been conservatives who believe in the Constitution.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama bin Laden, Michael Moore and the European left.
Can libertarians vote for Kerry? Sure, if they hate their country enough, or like Sullivan, are so narrow minded and single issue obssesed that that they are willing to throw Americas freedom and security away for their own petty concerns.
Libertarians?
Maybe.
But not patriots.
As a libertarian, I am massively unimpressed by the notion of “patriotism,” particularly when it is packaged with the expectation I’ll support the lifetime appointment of nutcases like this (Link) and this http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp.
Dratted clumsy fingers. That second link should be (Link)
Those in this U.S. who pay attention already will know about this, but it may be amusing and instructive, if not downright terrifying, for others.
As a libertarian I understand that freedom and patriotism are essential to each other. A country without patriotism is a country that will not defend its freedom.