LA_MERC_Dirge
May 7th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Hmm Well this is from the slate. It seems Kerry is blaming his speechwriters for what he says, but wait, read on and you'll see that the anlysis of the argument revelas major problems! Anyway, you have to wonder if you believe or trust ANYTHING this guy says. Say what you will about Bush, but at least he stays committed to what he says...
Enjoy:
from: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2099881
Wednesday, May 5, 2004
Today's 'Uh-oh, We've Nominated a Turkey' Moment: From Lawrence Kaplan's TNR account of Kerry's Israel flip-flop comes Kerry's increasingly convoluted explanation for why he mentioned Jimmy Carter and James Baker as potential Mideast envoys, something that upset mainstream Jewish organizations. Turns out it was those overzealous speechwriters again! But there's a peculiar twist at the end:
[O]ne of the first things Kerry did at the meeting [with Jewish leaders] was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech--a claim that several participants double-checked as soon as they walked out the door. The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed. The problem is, in the speech itself, Kerry said, "There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter. ... And, I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this." Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter even confirmed to The Boston Globe in December that he had spoken with Carter. Today, the campaign offers this explanation: The candidate eventually did speak with Carter--but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter. [Emph. added]
Er ... is that how the Kerry presidency will work? I always thought speechwriters had power!**... But wait a minute: If Kerry instructed his aides to remove Carter's name as a possible envoy from the speech, then why did he go ahead and meet with Carter just because the to-be-corrected draft of the speech said he'd met with him? ... That's where his story falls completely to the ground!
**--What's the reductio ad absurdum of this? Kerry reveals he went to Vietnam after reading a draft of his autobiography that said he went to Vietnam? ... Hmmm. [Don't go there--ed.]
P.S.: It's always an underling's fault with Kerry, isn't it? He doesn't fall! The Secret Service guy got in the way. He doesn't engage in 'Benedict Arnold' demagoguery! It was those wacky speechwriters. He didn't want Carter or Baker as envoys. That was an aide's mistake. Do we think that if Kerry were president he'd take any blame for the Abu Ghraib abuses? ... P.P.S.: And does Bob Shrum think Kerry will be loyal to him if his big new TV ad buy doesn't 'move the needle'? ... [But how is Kerry going to wriggle out of promises he personally made to the Jewish leaders?--ed. It turns out they were actually meeting with Kerry's overzealous body-double! You can hardly hold Kerry himself responsible for his stand-in's constant screw-ups.] 4:35 P.M.
Enjoy:
from: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2099881
Wednesday, May 5, 2004
Today's 'Uh-oh, We've Nominated a Turkey' Moment: From Lawrence Kaplan's TNR account of Kerry's Israel flip-flop comes Kerry's increasingly convoluted explanation for why he mentioned Jimmy Carter and James Baker as potential Mideast envoys, something that upset mainstream Jewish organizations. Turns out it was those overzealous speechwriters again! But there's a peculiar twist at the end:
[O]ne of the first things Kerry did at the meeting [with Jewish leaders] was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech--a claim that several participants double-checked as soon as they walked out the door. The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed. The problem is, in the speech itself, Kerry said, "There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter. ... And, I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this." Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter even confirmed to The Boston Globe in December that he had spoken with Carter. Today, the campaign offers this explanation: The candidate eventually did speak with Carter--but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter. [Emph. added]
Er ... is that how the Kerry presidency will work? I always thought speechwriters had power!**... But wait a minute: If Kerry instructed his aides to remove Carter's name as a possible envoy from the speech, then why did he go ahead and meet with Carter just because the to-be-corrected draft of the speech said he'd met with him? ... That's where his story falls completely to the ground!
**--What's the reductio ad absurdum of this? Kerry reveals he went to Vietnam after reading a draft of his autobiography that said he went to Vietnam? ... Hmmm. [Don't go there--ed.]
P.S.: It's always an underling's fault with Kerry, isn't it? He doesn't fall! The Secret Service guy got in the way. He doesn't engage in 'Benedict Arnold' demagoguery! It was those wacky speechwriters. He didn't want Carter or Baker as envoys. That was an aide's mistake. Do we think that if Kerry were president he'd take any blame for the Abu Ghraib abuses? ... P.P.S.: And does Bob Shrum think Kerry will be loyal to him if his big new TV ad buy doesn't 'move the needle'? ... [But how is Kerry going to wriggle out of promises he personally made to the Jewish leaders?--ed. It turns out they were actually meeting with Kerry's overzealous body-double! You can hardly hold Kerry himself responsible for his stand-in's constant screw-ups.] 4:35 P.M.