Sen. Kerry in a recent interview with Rolling Stone said the following

The statement drew criticism from both sides of the aisle. Andy Card, the White House Chief of Staff, criticized it on sunday and so did Stephen Hess of The Brookings Institution. who said he "can't recall another candidate attacking a president with X-rated language in a public interview."

I do agree it was not necessary and a sad attempt for Kerry to seem more "with it". But Hess is being stupid when he calls it "X rated" language. as anyone with half a social life knows, The word "f**k" uttered once, isn't even close to an X-rating. a PG13 or an R at the most.

In other news related to criticism of the White House...
former republican Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich said that the W.Bush administration had gone "off a cliff" in postwar Iraq and that "the White House has to get a grip on this."

after 7 months, have we found those weapons of mass destruction yet?

Have we found the responsible party for those forged documents and the forged claims of Iraqi nuclear weapons yet?

How is that White House investigation going on who leaked the name of a CIA agent to punish Joe Wilson?

Why is The Cato Institute criticizing the spending habits and policies of the W.Bush White House in editorials around the country? (btw, the Cato is a leading conservative think-tank)

[ December 08, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

It's stuff like this that shows how out of touch Kerry is with the electorate. I understand the desire to try to one up his Democratic rivals with how much he HATES Bush, but this faux butch crap is a little obnoxious. Politics can be an arena of passion, but wreckless statements like this are going to make him look like he's trying too hard to appear like an ueber-mensch. But this has been the problem with Kerry's campaign from the beginning. He, like Gore in 2000, spends WAY too much time working to make his image "presidential" instead of actually BEING presidential.

That kind of language is inexcusable. Kerry owes an apology.

The idea of Kerry using "f**k" in general conversation is almost laughable, and this really does seem like a sad excuse to sound like he isn't as stuffy as he is (John, embrace your stuffiness). This is the equivalent of Michael Dukakis riding around in that damn tank.

That being said, I don't think he owes the WHouse an apology - if he had said "screwed it up" there would be absolutely no grounds for an apology, yet he would have basically been saying the same thing.

I think it's his wife's influence. She did an interview in Vanity Fair and every other word was something similar. She prefers to think of herself as a "loose cannon."

Kerry needs to drop out and endorse Dean and save himself the embarassment.

there is a big difference between saying "f**ked up" and other ways to say a mistake has been made. You can't say the two are the same.

If your mother makes a mistake, do you say "mom. You f**ked up." or do you say "mom. You're wrong"? see the diff?

He doesn't need to apologize until everyone else in this race apologizes for being nasty and backhanded in other ways. He said f**k, people, but he didn't lie. That makes a significant difference to me. I just think he did it to show how "of the people" he is.

And for the record, if I were right, my mother would probably see past my crassness and accept "Mom, you f**ked up."

Allow me to play the "Well, Dubya did XXX so it's OK" game.

It might be an urban myth, but when asked what he and his brothers talked to Pappy about, Dubya was succint. "Pussy".

Kerry saying "f**k" is like Dean claiming to be a metrosexual. CPT is right, it seems like it's an attempt to appear "cool" or "edgy" when he's neither.

As regulars here know, I have a potty mouth and so I don't have any problem with Kerry's use of the most versatile word in the English language. The Puritinism of this country nearly drives me insane sometimes.

Ah, Australia, where an MP can call PM Michael Howard an arselicker for his pro-Iraqi war stance and not have his career ruined.

[ December 08, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Message to John Kerry: "f**k you, you f**king f**k."

Excuse me, but wasn't W caught on camera calling Adam Clymer of The New York Times an "ass****"? YES. Did he apologize? I don't think so.

The general tenor of political discussion among POLITICIANS is so vulgar and crude nowadays (cf. anything coming out of the mouth of Tom DeLay, House Obergauleiter, or the hateful comments of the likes of Dick Armey ["Barney Fag," etc.], the reams of extremely hateful vitriol about former President Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc.) that Kerry's use of this word really is not a big deal in my book.

Except, as some have pointed out, that it's out of character for him, and a blatant attempt to appear as a regular guy. I think he should stick with the Forbes patrician thing, though he's already screwed himself--f**ked up?--too many times trying to be different things to the wrong people.

And as for Dukakis in that tank, he SERVED IN THE FREAKING MILITARY! So get off the man's back! He wasn't fauxing it and AWOL'ing like Silver-Spoon-up-his-Arse W, who can't get enough of parading around in military gear like Chicago or Boston or Washington Eagle patron!

(Also, I watched the Prime Minister's Question session last night on C-SPAN, and let me tell you, the commentary from the British PMs is pretty harsh and sarcastic, verging on vulgar, quite often. Plus, in Australia, didn't the head of the Demo party there have to step down for attacking a fellow parliamentarian and calling her a "f*cking b*tch," before getting into a fight with her?)

[ December 08, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Oh, I wish we had a version of "Prime Minister's Questions" here. That would really sort people out and not allow them to rely on press releases and staged "press conferences" where all the questions are known in advance. Make 'em think on their feet.

Wow. Lots of folks here getting into a tizzy over something I just consider inappropriate. I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't think the White House should be demanding an apology. They're making a big deal out of something that's simply inappropriate.

I wonder, however, if this, preceded by his motorcycle run onto Leno's stage, is part of his macho image.

Big freakin' deal! Kerry has been outed as a potty mouth. WHO CARES? You think Dumbya doesn't say it? Oh, yes, he says it. It's just in secret and behind closed doors just like everything else he does. Yesterday on Crossfire, Al Sharpton was asked about the issue and he said, "I don't condone profanity, but it is what Bush did to the economy, isn't it?" Also, the White House demanding an apology is just more free-speech-control. I guess Kerry will now be prosecuted under the Patriot Act for questioning the decisions of this "f**ked up" administration.

[ December 09, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I agree with you on both counts MIB.

Ah, thats the spirit of the season.

Merry Christmas William!!

In some ways, I agree. But I fear, Jim, that you pine for a system that even in England is more set piece theater than real give and take. For starters, PM's have for years been limiting the amount of time devoted to Questions. Blair has chopped it from twice a week to once. Second, the questions are known in advance, and the answers are somewhat scripted.

What makes it a sterner test than a Presidential press conference is that (1) the "questions" are put by the Opposition, with the clear intent of putting the PM on the spot, and the questions tend to be mini-speeches; and (2) the Opposition, not the PM, gets to select the questioners.

While the GMGs, MIBs and 1865s of the world would no doubt like to consider the White House Press Corps as the Opposition to their Beloved Moron, it just ain't so. And of course the President picks the questioners, which has an obvious chilling effect on the questions that get asked. Historically, Presidents have wielded that cudgel very softly indeed. It's been well documented, however, that Ari Fleischer is a free-swinger.

Of all the people on the board to express this sentiment ...

Skiguy, sure, the deck is stacked for the PM in that situation. But what I was getting at is the somewhat spontaneous nature of it, that it goes off on tangents and other directions that no US President's press conference would.

[ December 09, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Kerry's talkin' tough again: "If I were an impolite person, I'd tell you where you can take your polls ..." -- when asked what Dean has done right so far to be leading the race.

Rippin' Dean a new one.

I saw part of the debate. Kerry never did asnwer this question.

I didn't watch the debate--I already know who I'm voting for--but apparently Dennis K. ripped in to the abysmal Ted Koppel for asking a bunch of "Beltway Insider" questions (The Gore endorsement, fundraising) without asking about stuff that matters.

Did anyone see it?

I watched it. I'm sick of Koppel and all the other Big Media types who are so enamored of process and their insider knowledge they can't look at or talk clearly about policy. The New Hampshire reporter on the stage with him was a flamer!

In this debate, almost none of them impressed me, and if I hear Gephardt's or Edwards' or Lieberman's whiny voices again, I'm going to scream. Please, sad little trio that no one cares about, take a cue from the other trio that no one is going to vote for but finds amusing (Sharpton/Kucinich/Braun), and STOP WHINING!

Clark, however, appeared to have gotten himself together a bit more, and is just really smart; Kerry was good at times, and can articulate his thoughts powerfully when he's on point; and Dean also was good sometimes but at others.... I just don't know about him. I just see him barrelling away from his podium after hearing one more lie, mistatement or blandishment and punching the fako W all about the head and chest!

As a caller from somewhere in the South said after the debate, though, I'll vote for any of them. Well, except for Sharpton.

Someone else mentioned Bill Richardson as VP. That would be great. Smart, liberal, a governor with federal experience. And isn't he half-Mexican American?
As the song goes, "Wrap it up, I'll take it...."

Things aren't looking good for Mr. Kerry -- now he's mortgaging his home on Beacon Hill to help finance his campaign. I guess it beats begging his wife for dinero.

I saw Kerry standing outside the Starbucks on Capitol Hill this morning asking people for spare change as they came out. My how the mighty have fallen.

He's mortgaging his home on Beacon hill....

Big deal!

He rarely is in Boston. Mostly spending his time in DC around Georgetown where I ran into him on a regular basis. The Boston address is just so he can qualify to be a mass senator.

and it's not like he's gonna be homeless if they repo his home. His wife has enough homes to keep them happy for many lifetimes. Let her buy him a new home in Cambridge with the millions she got from her republican senator ex-husband.

anyway, I saw him this afternoon standing outside the Starbucks at Dupont Circle. No one gave him any change but the gay dudes kept telling him, "Girl! You need a makeover!"

[quote]Skiguy:
[QUOTE] In some ways, I agree. But I fear, Jim, that you pine for a system that even in England is more set piece theater than real give and take. For starters, PM's have for years been limiting the amount of time devoted to Questions. Blair has chopped it from twice a week to once. Second, the questions are known in advance, and the answers are somewhat scripted.

What makes it a sterner test than a Presidential press conference is that (1) the \"questions\" are put by the Opposition, with the clear intent of putting the PM on the spot, and the questions tend to be mini-speeches; and (2) the Opposition, not the PM, gets to select the questioners.

[/quote]Blair didn't actually chop question time -- he just changed it from two fifteen minute sessions to one thirty minute session. But yes, I have enjoyed the idea that the chief executor is required to answer to his legislative body on a weekly basis. Actually, John Major's absences from Question Time (he had his second fill in) got him in a bit of trouble with his own party. They don't take to skipping it very well at all.

Looks like he got back up.

On Chuck Rose last night, they were saying how Kerry and Edwards "rose above" and that's why they were 1 and 2 - one of the commentators literally said, "nice beats naughty almost every time." I felt obliged, then, to bump this thread up...

I guess the "almost" explains how the most ruthless party successfully stole the presidency in 2000, right? Crap worthy of the "Chuck" show, indeed.

I thought the flap over the F-bomb was so overdone. Everyone said Kerry was flagging in the polls and was desperate to appear hip and down with the young crowd.

The reality is that he, like most people, probably talks this way behind closed doors. And what's so bad about having a politician who drops an F-bomb now and then? Besides, Rolling Stone is one of the few magazines that will print the F word whether it's a direct quote or part of the editorial content. Time or Newsweek might paraphrase it as "Kerry expressed frustration with how poorly the president has handled post-war Iraq."

Can we really think of a better word to describe what the Bush Administration has done in Post War Iraq?