When the questioning turned to taxes, Kerry pandered with a liberal’s absurd promise not to sign legislation raising taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 a year, neglecting only to say,”Read my lips.”
Kerry also blundered with a weird attack on an $84 item in the Bushes’ federal income tax return, supposedly from a timber business. “I own a timber company? That’s news to me,” said Bush, adding engagingly in what was the most natural moment in the debate, “Need some wood?” It turns out that Kerry relied on an Annenberg Web site that later admitted it had been confused, which left the Democratic candidate out on a hardwood limb. Bush was too much the gentleman to point out, now that their income taxes were in dispute, that Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid only 11 percent in 2003 on her $5 million income, while the Bushes paid 28 percent.
(Although every Bush slip gets delighted examination – he called Kerry “Kennedy” and he said, “Internets”; can you imagine? – Kerry’s minor gaffes attract little notice. When citing his overseas travel in the first debate, Kerry talked of visiting the old K.G.B. headquarters “in Treblinka square.” He meant Lubyanka Square; Treblinka was the Nazi death camp. We all make mistakes.) …
In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: “He was given a chance to vote and he voted no. . . . It’s clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can’t hide.”
Like, totally.
Read Eliot Weinberger’s Republicans: A Prose Poem, it’s on the web.
Republicans are America’s BJP, dude.
Kerry tried at least to verify what he said, as opposed to Bush and Cheney, who, when the facts are inconvenient, just makes up shit.
That’s why Paul Krugman is, as usual, spot on when he says:
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that’s the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush’s statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry’s choice of words are betraying their readers.
Absolutely right, old friend. BJP India’s Repubs.
Great new book just out on India: Maximum City by Suketu Mehta. Must read.
Also, dig yourself up a copy of Eliot Weinberger’s Karmic Traces & read his essay The Falls.
P.S. Did you find Republicans : A Prose Poem (?)
P.S. Is there a venue where I can ask you a couple of private questions? Personal e-mail?
Kim
I read that piece by Mr. Weinberger and didn’t find it all that impressive. The Reeps pander to their base, and so do the Dems, but I find the values of the Reep base less reprehensible than those of the Dems, who are all about bashing men, destroying families, and generally whining too much.
It’s time for people in this country to act like grownups again; since 9/11, the Vietnam Era has been officially over.
Krugman says that when Kerry lies it’s not important, no matter how serious the issue, but when Bush lies the sky’s falling, even when it’s not.
Krugman is an idiot.
Of course you’re right Dems (assumning Weinberger is a Dem) pander to thier “base” as do Repubs. Natural. What you said about Repub values appealing to you more than Dem values is much to the point. That’s something I can understand. Would like of course to hear elaboration on how/what Republican values appeal most to you. Of course knowing you for so long (yester year), how well read you are, good head etc.–I would like to hear about your transformation. Of course, you know me, so I got to add–is that all there is to “Democrat” values: men bashing & destroying families?
Later
K.
I would say that bashing men is not a Democratic value; neither is destroying families.
“Destroying families to save them” seems to be a Repub value to me.
Creating a business environment where both businesses and people benefit is a Democratic value (unlike the faux “pro business policies of Repubs). And the proof is in the pudding: under Democrats econmies have generally done better (with the exception of Teddy R. and the Calvin Coolidge).
BTW, Richard I agree with this comment:
It?s time for people in this country to act like grownups again; since 9/11, the Vietnam Era has been officially over.
Part of acting like grownups is to learn from one’s mistakes.
The idea that you fight a war (which has no other real justification other than the enrichment of a few industries) in the name of stopping terrorism is worse than juvenile, actually; it borders on treasonous.
Another tired old Halliburton dig. What genius!
Well, give us a credible justification. Just one.
Maybe you could pick one of Bush’s excuses at random.
Keeping WMDs out of the hands of terrorists is what it’s all about, John. Spreading Democracy is cool too, but it’s secondary. Yeah, I know Saddam was between WMDs at the time of the invasion, but he would have had them again so the timing was just right.
Now take off your tin-foil hat and deal with reality for a moment. Was containment working? No. Was the embargo unraveling? Yes. Is it acceptable to have two lawless regions in Iraq thanks to the no-fly zones? No. Do we want to be in a reactive posture on the terra stuff? No. Do we have to pass the “Global Test” before defending ourselves? No we don’t.
John Kerry voted against the Gulf War, and thereby lost all right to criticize this president, as did all the people – like you – who opposed the Afghanistan War.