Sen. John Kerry: Still Irrelevant, Out of Touch, Off-base and Fringe

July 7th, 2008 Billy Hallowell

Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that John Kerry — a man who the American people found, via the electoral system, unfit to lead — is engaging in pointless commentary, while waging baseless claims against Sen. John McCain?

Over the weekend, Kerry called McCain “unfit to lead.” Am I incorrect in my assertion that it was Kerry who approached McCain in 2004, asking him to join in the formation of a bi-partisan ticket? Here we are four years later and John “The Flapjack” Kerry is at it again, flipping and flopping faster than a speeding light (whatever that means). On CBS’ Face The Nation, Kerry said:

“John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting.”

Ironically, I am not surprised to find Kerry acting as childish and irreverent as ever. Kerry and Obama are totally fringe, but for some reason the Democrats continue to nominate their kind. They were and are two of the most liberal senators, as they stand firmly grounded on the left wing of the American political spectrum. Bipartisanship? Not from these guys. And during a time when we need nothing short of extreme collaboration and inter-party cohesiveness, the fact that the Democrats continue to nominate wing-nuts is extremely disconcerting.

In the interview, Kerry went on to bash McCain, citing the familiar “Bush’s third term” diatribe. I’m not sure if the Democrats realize this yet, but that statement is tired at best. Everyone knows that there are profound differences between McCain and Bush, so continuing to drive home an invalid point is useless. Kerry then proceeds to state the following:

“If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.”

Aside from the fact that McCain has an energy plan that greatly differs from George W. Bush’s (which is common knowledge), one wonders if Kerry has even glanced at Obama’s energy plan. Allow me to pull out a snippet for him:

“Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

Now, let’s explore ethanol in brief:

“… producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.”

And I’m not even going to touch healthcare. McCain does have a plan, but Kerry’s probably too bitter over his 2004 loss to take the time and read it. And then there’s Iraq. Kerry has plenty to say about McCain’s judgment on the war:

“Kerry criticized McCain’s continued support of the occupation, given the effect of a continuing presence of U.S. troops on the situation in Iraq and the region at large. He pointed to remarks by leaders in the Middle East who told him during a recent visit, “You, America, have served up to Iran Iraq on a platter.”

And this is where Kerry loses me. The surge has worked and that’s something that Obama is going to have to contend with come November. Continuing to lament the war, while demanding that the troops come home immediately is nonsensical. When success is so close, why would we exit the region? Doing so would mean a total disservice to the Iraqi people. Leaving Iraq would surely “serve up to Iran Iraq on a platter.” Is this not common sense?

I suppose that writing this piece has given Kerry credence he simply doesn’t deserve. In the end, he’s proven himself painfully irrelevant. Not much has changed since 2004.

Tags: Sen. John Kerry, Senator, Iraq, CBS, Face the Nation, healthcare, John McCain, unfit to lead

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!


Comment by Stix
July 7th, 2008 8:32 am MyAvatars 0.2

You do rememebr that John F'ing Kerry was in Vietnam though don't you??? And that in iteself made him the best candidate for Presidnet in 2004.

Comment by Reaper
July 7th, 2008 2:44 pm MyAvatars 0.2

If General Clark is to be believed, driving a boat does not qualify one for the presidency. I mean, it's a great deal easier than flying a plane.

But UC, I'll agree that their rhetoric is mind boggling. John Kerry is hardly the only one; a lot of people are towing the same line. It's obviously a campaign of misinformation in the hopes that people won't double check, but in this day and age where answers are at our fingertips...why not just argue substance?

Comment by simonesdad2008
July 8th, 2008 12:49 am MyAvatars 0.2

How dare anyone doubt anything John Kerry says! He wore the uniform man! He fought in a war man! Purple Heart man! Not captured but still he was there man! Nam, you know. He looked at those Viet Congs right in their slanty eyes and stood up to them. On that alone he should have been president. Who better to lead us in this time of war than someone who has been in a war before. Nothing else matters. When you question John Kerry, war veteran, hero, brave soldier, who put his life on the line for his country, you are questioning America. How dare you question America.

Comment by Reaper
July 8th, 2008 3:04 am MyAvatars 0.2

Exactly, simonesdad, and it is on those grounds that we MUST vote for McCain!

Comment by toe
July 8th, 2008 5:49 am MyAvatars 0.2

it's a waste of time to attempt sarcasm here, they don't understand such "elitist" thinking. the majority here are what remains of the dying school of thought of what now makes up the republican party. when found to have absolutely nothing the american people are buying they alter statements, create fictional photographs, and wrap themselves around the flag with not a clue as to that for which it stands. these folks don't want you into your wallet- but spend every waking hour salivating over what you are doing in your bedroom... they want to ban books and schools of thought,..yet cannot manage to read a book or think for themselves... they grumble that the roads are terrible, the bridges are in a state of disrepair, the public schools are a disaster, but want to eliminate taxes. they beat their chest and thump their bible railing at how secular humanists are destroying this country-finding it necessary to create laws that support only their "christian" views- but find nothing wrong with the hypocrites within their "christian" fold that hide behind bathroom walls, the internet, or their church to engage in illicit, illegal, or underage sexual activity. they want to parade about their military experience to show how patriotic and american they are- but will beat to a pulp any individual who dares speak against our government's policies. they want special dispensation to have special tax credits and vouchers to have their children attend "elitist" schools rather than support the public schools that are there for everyone. they want short term solutions which will create long term problems for generations to come.

Comment by Stix
July 8th, 2008 6:21 am MyAvatars 0.2

Nice one Toe. Goood sarcasm.

Nice cut and paste form the Democratic Underground.

You think you know conservatives, you haven't the first clue with your babbling.

Comment by Urban Conservative
July 8th, 2008 6:26 am MyAvatars 0.2

Wow Toe … you are so tolerant of others. I really enjoy the way you generalize Christians; kinda like way I generalize you pathetic liberals.

Comment by Stix
July 8th, 2008 6:42 am MyAvatars 0.2

He really is talking about Democrats. They want t tell you what light bulb to buy, what food to eat and what you can say and do. Quite the opposite with conservatives. And not all conservative are Bible Thumpers in case you want to know Toe. They are a small minority of Conservatives.

Comment by simonesdad2008
July 8th, 2008 7:30 am MyAvatars 0.2

Like you voted for Kerry, right Reap? See how absurd you sound.

Comment by toe
July 8th, 2008 10:41 am MyAvatars 0.2

wow, uc- it's nice to hear you admit how you have generalized heavily about liberals.

now, if you take every one of the statements that i made above- you will find at least one of your followers who have spouted this conservative crap complete with links to their wing-nut websites and steadfast babblings over internet lies.

phony patriots, bible thumpers and flag wavers. you slap a made-in-china flag pin on your phony self and strut like you are better than "them".

it's not about my lack of tolerance for other people's viewpoints- it's about the constant lies being told here...and the bunch of yup yup yuppers who think that being an american means to "love it or leave it". it's about deliberate misquotes to make your point. it's about deliberate photo altering by a self-proclaimed "news" group where the bulk of you get your "information". it's about your constant "us vs. THEM" mentality. the "them" being atheists, gays, single parents, liberals, teachers, any religion other than christian, the list is endless it seems. don't talk to me about tolerance- you don't have an understanding of this word.

Comment by Urban Conservative
July 8th, 2008 8:15 pm MyAvatars 0.2

well of course I generalize about liberals Toe. A logical conclusion of anyone with half a brain would understand that. The funny thing is Toe...everything I have ever written on this blog about ultra left libs; every post, generalization, assumption, rant and even joke ... seems to describe you perfectly. From the anti war protestors in Berkeley, Code Pink, Rosie O’Donnell, Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon … you are a reflection of each and every one of these vile personalities; which reflect a VERY SMALL portion of the US population. You my friend are in the minority. Deal with it.

Now, however demented your views of the world are Toe; you seem to have half a brain and I respect that. I even applaud your courage coming to a conservative blog and sharing your opinion. But you are completely blinded by the liberalism that has infiltrated your life since birth. The same liberalism that will one day destroy this country.

Comment by Reaper
July 9th, 2008 3:41 am MyAvatars 0.2

Toe...dude...what you're describing is politics, man. Whenever I read...anything with a political ambition behind it, I see everything you describe -- it isn't deliberate, either. It lines up with their beliefs so they don't fact-check it. As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen you make a civil post. What's it like being hate filled?

Simonesdad, I didn't vote for Kerry. How did you know?! Nor will I vote for McCain based on his military record. But to hear you try to rebuff me, it sounds like you voted for Kerry based solely on his military record...which makes you a bigoted hypocritical close-minded bigoted hypocrite for not voting for McCain. See, that's the thing about sarcasm: it implies that I don't actually mean what I'm saying.

Great, thanks guys. Now I'm getting hate filled.

Comment by Jonathon Nierengarten
July 9th, 2008 12:53 pm MyAvatars 0.2

"it's not about my lack of tolerance for other people's viewpoints- it's about the constant lies being told here...and the bunch of yup yup yuppers who think that being an american means to "love it or leave it". it's about deliberate misquotes to make your point. it's about deliberate photo altering by a self-proclaimed "news" group where the bulk of you get your "information". it's about your constant "us vs. THEM" mentality. the "them" being atheists, gays, single parents, liberals, teachers, any religion other than christian, the list is endless it seems. don't talk to me about tolerance- you don't have an understanding of this word."

I'm an atheist with gay roommates who is fine with single parents, and has many teachers in the family. And I live in San Francisco. Being conservative has nothing to do with being intolerant, Toe, it has to do with understanding how to moderate change into a gradual function, rather than jumping into it for its own sake. It has to do with being able to pick up a history book and understand that Clinton 1 was not liberal, he was a moderate. Jimmy Carter and Barry Hussein are the same person with the same plans that will ultimately lead to the same results. He's an inexperienced lawyer, who is an example of Chicago politiks. We all know what will happen if he is elected and we neither fear him for his middle name nor fear him for the irrelevant keywords "hope" and "change". We fear him because, unlike the current regime, he will ACTUALLY destroy the middle class and cause our standard of living to sink through the floor. I hate facts as much as any liberal, but here are some for you:

UC, email me back dude.

Comment by Heathenhater
July 10th, 2008 4:44 am MyAvatars 0.2

Jonathon - that is an interesting website, and overall, I agree, Bush has done a good job with the economy. I agree with the free market approach he is leaning toward.

But I feel some of those facts are misrepresented. What that does not show is the median income, which I believe has gone down, although I am not sure. Sure people are finding jobs, but they are jobs at home depot and target, hardly enough to help raise a family. If we were to truly help out our country with some social program, unemployment benefits would not help.

I believe providing benefits to those who are working, but cant make enough money to support their families would be much more productive. We do have food stamps and that jazz I agree, but maybe, an incentive to find a job rather than an incentive to live on welfare.

What do you think?

Comment by Jonathon Nierengarten
July 10th, 2008 11:35 am MyAvatars 0.2


Thanks for taking the time to check that link. This is a doozy (22 pages long), but I believe if you read it you'll have a wonderful understanding of wealth distribution and incomes in the U.S. Sorry that it's dated only to 2005, but it was the most recent and relevant article I could find.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1367hiaas/EXP=1215811445/**http%3a//

Here's one of the more valuable tidbits:

The third measure examines absolute income mobility, that is, the extent to which taxpayers’ incomes rose or fell over time. Table 3 shows that median taxpayer income rose by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. 19 20 Real income increased for two-thirds (67.5 percent = 17.7 +14.3 +15.8 +19.7) of taxpayers between 1996 and 2005. Percentage increases in real income were the largest for taxpayers with the lowest incomes in 1996. Among those taxpayers in the lowest income quintile in 1996, median income increased by 90 percent by 2005. Real incomes increased over the period for 82 percent (81.7 = 8.6 + 8.7 + 15.0 +49.4) of these low-income taxpayers and at least doubled for nearly half of this group (49.4 percent). Among taxpayers in the highest income quintile in 1996, real income increased for over half (54.7 percent = 19.5 +14.0 +12.7+8.5) and doubled for only 8.5 percent. The median real income of taxpayers in the top quintile in 1996 rose by 10 percent, while the median income of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 declined by 25.8 percent. While this study does not examine these results in detail, the likely causes include the typical life cycle of income and “mean reversion” in which the incomes of taxpayers whose incomes were temporarily high in 1996 revert to a level closer to their long-run average. 21

So, you see, the laissez faire attitudes of the past two administrations (hell, 4) has actually, contrary to media - led - belief, massively increased the prosperity of this great nation. It's impossible to find Bush to be an amazing president with all of his fumbles, cronies, and idiotic speeches, but I believe history will treat many of his policies as in the nation's best interests. That farm bill has done more destruction to this country than MOST of the things George has done. Our economy is hurting right now, but it's going to be fine so long as hare-brained schemes by whomever the next president is are not enacted.

Also, I agree that safety nets are necessary; however systemic abuse of them is so rampant it sickens the hardworking taxpayers. Government graft (George has done NOTHING to stamp this out) will decrease with McCain, I believe, whereas I see it rising to sickening levels under Barry.

Also, taxes still need to go down. I live in San Francisco, make a VERY MODEST living, and pay 44 and change percent in taxes. I rent, obviously, and have a savings account the same size as when I was 16. This, I blame, on many different liberal policies, but it really disgusts me that if Barry is elected, he would like to raise the tax rate. For what? More government handouts to farmers?

We have some serious issues to tackle; inflation, oil prices, and massive deficit spending. I don't think Barry is capable of it by any stretch of the imagination. McCain may be no better. Time will tell, but I know that handouts and McCain, at least, are mortal enemies.

And that makes me hope he is elected.

What do you think? Join the conversation...