Their utter contempt for the military.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
- John F. Kerry

Capt. Ed wants to know what other Democrats think of this quote:

Wow. Just wow. It's worth recalling that Kerry at one time aspired to command these same men and women from the White House, and claims to still want to lead them. How would these people react to taking orders from a Commander-in-Chief who believes them to be uneducated, lazy losers?

We'll see if Kerry's peers in the Democratic Party support Kerry's description of our fighting men and women. If Democrats that have had John Kerry campaign on their behalf refuse to address Kerry's remarks or openly supports their characterization, it will expose the hypocrisy and the contempt that the Left has for the military. All of the talk of "supporting the troops" will be revealed as lip service.

UPDATE:
The Llamas swing back at John Effin' Kerry.

UPDATE DEUX:
Senator John McCain - a real war hero - issues a statement calling for Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq.

Posted by: Gary at 08:45 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

1 They all agree in their hearts, but will not say so publicly. Neither will they publicly rebuke Kerry, but stay silent. That's how they deal with the embarrassments in their party.

Posted by: Pam at October 31, 2006 11:00 AM (E1H09)

2 Hanoi JOhn won't apologize because it's all Bush's fault. BDS added to the loser image (actually loser is a fact) has put Hanoi over the edge. He is now officially insane and an embar'ass'ment to the country.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 31, 2006 01:48 PM (YadGF)

3 So this is where the swift boat types hang out when they can't show their faces in public anymore... lol The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas. Why not do something constructive and worry about the real problem of getting rid of the people that made the disastrous decisions that have broken the military? Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers need and won't enlist themselves. Get rid of the Neocons and the GOP that supports their incompetence. The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me...

Posted by: Connecticut Man1 at October 31, 2006 05:25 PM (39DNf)

4 And you ungrateful schmucks still wonder why you keep losing.

Posted by: Gary at October 31, 2006 09:00 PM (Z0vta)

5 And much like bush... Bush supporters are too stupid to realize when Kerry calls bush stupid. Not the servicemen. And mark this down there you republican fraud: I am an unaffilliated. I don't support any party so "I never lose!" But you will on november 7th... I am also a Veteran. I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car, all the while denying the soldiers the "beans and bullets and armor and adequate manpower" they really need. Stick a fork in yourself... You are done.

Posted by: Connecticut Man1 at October 31, 2006 11:18 PM (39DNf)

6 The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas. What do you mean by "broken"? The Dept of Defense employs 1.4 million active duty. 1.28 million Ready and Stand-by Reserves as of September 2000 Total armed forces: 2,685,713 Active Troops: 1,426,713 Total troops: 2,685,713 By branch: Army - 500,203 *I think this is from the number of soldiers who were put on active duty from the Reserves and ARNG) * USMC - 180,000 Navy - 375, 521 Air Force - 358, 612 Coast Guard - 40,151 Army components: 494, 291 Active Duty, 342,918 in the ARNG and 204,134 in the USAR There are more soldiers on U.S. soil than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Only a small minority of Marines are actually in Iraq. Re-enlistments have been at a record high; and since 9/11, the desertion rate has plummeted. Around .24%. Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers need Ask him some of the past spin and won't enlist themselves. I just may. And why didn't you go be a human shield, as skye might say. The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me... Chickendoves in the Jackass Party disgust me... One does not need to serve on the frontlines to support the war. But let's say we're all cowards who believe in this war, but are too afraid to fight "the bad guys". So what? It's all the more reason to be supportive of our troops and appreciative to the depths of our souls, for all the sacrifices that they and their families are making on behalf of the rest of us. Whereas people like John Frakkin' Kerry look upon them with his Ivy League pomposity and contempt, as poor, uneducated victims. There are many ways to serve your country; and many of the milblogs I've frequented who have addressed the chickenhawk argument, say just that. I believe it was CJ at One Soldier's Perspective who might have said the chickenhawk argument is a bogus argument that is only designed to shut down debate. Even within the military, not everyone can serve on the frontlines of combat; the majority of soldiers never even get to fire an M-16 at any of the enemy during their entire service. Going by the chickenhawk line of reasoning, where only those who serve have the authority to comment and talk about war, does that mean the combat soldier's opinion somehow outweighs the opinion of the soldier who serves as a mechanic? Maybe we should have our generals take point and lead the charge? Starting with George Bush? How does that make any kind of logical sense? Do you believe that crime must be fought? That criminals must be stopped from victimizing our society? It's dangerous work. Because I support crime-fighting, does that mean I have to join the police force, since they are placing themselves in danger, and I am not? I think being a firefighter is a necessary and honorable profession. I am very grateful to firefighters. Again, I am on the sidelines, when the 911 call comes through and the firetruck sounds its siren; I'm the one pulling off to the side of the road. Should I feel guilty, because those brave souls are fighting a fire in MY neighborhood, and I am not? If I am not satisfied with some policymaking involving the police dept or the fire dept, am I not allowed to have an opinion because I never served in either of the two? Then perhaps we should not criticize our Congressional leaders since most of us have never held a Senate or House seat, let alone been in the President's cabinet. After all, we don't have their perspective and their unique experience; therefore, we should just shut up. That's what you're saying. Now, there is some merit in that; but taken in the manner in which the anti-war Left wants it to be taken in, can you see why it is not an argument that deserves serious attention?

Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:06 AM (nrGCx)

7 I am also a Veteran. And a jackass. Telling Gary to "stick a fork in it"? A real class act you are. So you're a veteran of what, exactly? Spewing bullshit? Or are you a Kerry "anti-war movement" veteran or a Murtha "cut-and-run" veteran? If you are a vet, thanks for your service, all the same; but it doesn't give you immunity from being daft in the head. You can't hide behind that aegis and demand respect, when you haven't given any. I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car, Like the "chickenhawks" in the GOP? Republicans with military service: 15.6% Democrats with military service: 9.6% Independants with military service: 0.2%

Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:21 AM (nrGCx)

8 Connecticut Man1, your comments do more to convince readers not to vote for Democrats than anything I could ever write. Anger? Check. Incoherence? Check. Statements you can't back-up? Check. Typos? Check. Moonbat speak (chickenhawks, neocons, et. al.)? Check. All indicative of your standard, garden-variety sociopath. Thanks for your help.

Posted by: Gary at November 01, 2006 11:17 AM (QoxB+)

9 I am so sorry you were slighted by one of us. As you know, Kerry is retarded and most real Democrats would lift the ban on assault weapons if you could get off a good enough shot. Today's real Democrats are so much more like Reagan Democrats than Reagan ever was, sir, that I believe a quick inventory of your beliefs and your adopted party is in order. As for his poorly timed quote, I am a firm believer that he is even worse with words than President George "Food on your family" Bush. As I said on my site, Kerry forgot to say "Us," which wouldn't be the first time a politician forgot about "Us." God Bless You and I pray the healing can begin.

Posted by: Lunatic1 at November 09, 2006 12:39 AM (RjZEG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As explained by David Frum:

Democrats may say what they please and do as they please - Republican speech must be carefully scrutinized for any hint of inappropriateness - and all Republicans be immediately called on to disavow anything anywhere done with less than perfect gentlemanliness & elegance.

Democrats may strike in any way they like - and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.

And it works, because after all: in this game, the ref wears their jersey.

Honestly, what a bunch of pussies.

Posted by: Gary at 02:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

If you ever needed confirmation that the DSCC has completely abandoned Ned Lamont - their chosen candidate - in his Senate bid, you need only look to how the Greenwich millionaire finances his campaign. For all intents and purposes, it's a self-funded effort. The party apparatus that is tasked with supporting the election efforts of its designated Senate candidates has clearly "cut and run" from CT.

The Hartford Courant reports the tally:

Ned Lamont donated another $2 million Monday to his U.S. Senate campaign, bringing his personal investment to $4.5 million this month.

His personal total for the campaign is now nearly $11 million.

His main rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, had raised nearly $15 million as of Sept. 30, the close of the last reporting period.

Joe Lieberman, a man without a party, can raise $15 million but Ned Lamont - like a panicky buyer on eBay who keeps clicking the "bid now" button as the clock ticks down - keeps tapping into his bank account to keep his campaign afloat.

Calling Chuck Schumer...Schumer? Sen. Schumer?

Posted by: Gary at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

So now that Mark Foley has resigned, the replacement candidate has been picked. That candidate, Joe Negron, has requested that a sign be put up in polling places explaining that any votes for Foley will go to Negron. Florida election rules prohibit the removal of Foley's name from the ballot.

The proposed sign would read:

“Due to a withdrawal of a candidate after the Primary Election which resulted in the substitution of a new candidate by the respective party: In the race for Representative In Congress, District 16, any vote cast for Mark Foley (REP) shall be counted as a vote for Joe Negron (REP).”

But you just knew what the Democrats' reaction would be. The folks who scream "voter suppression" every single election are howling over this.

The Democrats, whose candidate for FoleyÂ’s district is Tim Mahoney, sent a letter to state elections Director Dawn Roberts on Wednesday saying such a notice would violate a law banning supervisors from favoring a particular party.

They asked Roberts to immediately send a letter instructing supervisors not to post any notices or include them in mailings with absentee ballots.

Seriously though. It won't matter. I have no way of knowing which way that race will ultimately go, but the fact is that Florida Republicans just aren't as stupid as Florida Democrats - who proved back in 2000 that they couldn't even figure out a simple ballot.

I recall voters in Missouri having no problems understanding in 2000 that by voting for a dead guy as their Senator, his wife was actually going to get the votes.

In any case, the GOP will spend plenty of time and money in their GOTV effort to ensure that it's well understood that Foley's votes will go to Negron.

But talk about blatant hypocrisy. Six years ago, Democrats were doing everything they could to manufacture votes and charging Republicans with disenfranchising the simpletons of Palm Beach County. Now they're against a simple clarification that could potentially disenfranchise Republican voters. With them it's always "count every vote", unless it's a vote for the GOP.

What a load of crap.

Posted by: Gary at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

The Corner at NRO highlights this FEC report of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's expenditures in September:

The FEC will eventually key in the DSCC September independent expenditure data sometime after the DSCC files its regular monthly report on October 20th. From past experience, the data will be electronically available after the election. Included in the data will be the over $5 million in independent expenditures made in September that PoliticalMoneyLine has spotted already. For example, the $999,137.90 media buy on 9/1 for the Sherrod Brown v. Mike DeWine race in Ohio; the $900,000 media buy on 9/26 for the Cardin v. Steele race in Maryland; and the $618,616 media buy on 9/26 for the Sherrod Brown v. Mike DeWine race. DSCC independent expenditures in September totaled over $410,000 in Montana, over $265,000 in Tennessee, over $1.9 million in Ohio, over $1.3 million in Missouri, over $190,000 in Rhode Island, and over $900,000 in Maryland.

No Connecticut, huh? Guess Neddy's gonna have to keep writing himself checks to campaign with.

Heh.

UPDATE:
Rasmussen mirrors Quinnipiac poll. Lieberman by 10. That giant sucking sound you hear is the wind emptying out of the nutroots sails in CT.

Posted by: Gary at 03:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

That was my first thought when I saw: this headline.

Thankfully, it turns out that the article isn't referring to Howard Dean. Whew. That's a relief. We need this guy right where he is.

Posted by: Gary at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

According to a story in The Hill, Joe Lieberman says he's received assurances from the Senate Democrat Leadership that - should he win - he will keep his seniority and committee assignments.

"So, how's it going on the campaign trail, Liebs, old pal? Looking forward to keeping that seniority are we? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more?"

The nutroots, of course, sees this as a betrayal. And I don't blame them.

Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that supports Lamont, said Lieberman may be spreading false information to make himself a more attractive candidate.

“This is a Lieberman campaign tactic,” he said. “Democratic leaders are supporting Ned Lamont.”

Bill Grad, who sits on the Democratic Town Council of Greenwich, Conn., LamontÂ’s home town, said Lieberman has very actively distanced himself from the Democratic Party, and that it was wrong of leaders to promise anything.

“Why should Reid tell the guy in advance that he’ll have his seniority. If it comes to that, that’s fine. But it’s disappointing, it’s greatly disappointing that he would be given assurances.”

It'll be interesting to read the Lefty blogs in the coming days.

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.