Kerry on 60 Minutes: What a Wimp

benfranklin · #1 07-11-2004, 08:51 PM

Kerry and Edwards and their wives were interviewed on 60 Minutes today. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him a tie for third (with Mrs. Edwards) for strength and leadership in the group. Edwards kept talking over Kerry, answering the interview questions. Kerry's wife kept talking about her previous husband (granted the spot was highly edited by CBS). It's obvious who wears the pants in that family. Kerry's assertion that he is a better campaigner than Edwards sounded like even he didn't believe it. Kerry makes Dubya look charismatic and inspiring by comparison.

Well, I'm off to the Libertarian web page to look for a real candidate.

astroglide · #2 07-11-2004, 09:52 PM

really unelectable? really helping the republican party?

MMMMMM · #3 07-11-2004, 11:21 PM

If you are not in a swing state I see no reason to limit your vote to the two main parties, or not to vote for your candidate or party of choice. Maybe it will help that party or candidate become more of a real alternative in the future.

jokerswild · #4 07-12-2004, 12:15 AM

Who's the wimp??

benfranklin · #5 07-12-2004, 01:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Who's the wimp??

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that Kerry came across as a total wimp on 60 Minutes. (Actually , I was being polite. Kerry comes across as pussy-whipped.) I did not say that Dubya was not also a wimp.

References to Dubya as a deserter are hyperbole. Desertion implies either a moral judgement or cowardice. Dubya was a slacker, incapable of the former, and not in a relevent situation for the latter. The guy was a f*ck-up, no different than most everyone else in the same time and place. Anyone who could, did the same thing at the time. All he is guilty of is mediocrity. You have to be a lot better or a lot worse than that to be a deserter. He took the path of least resistance through the Viet Nam period. It ain't pretty, but it ain't evil. You had to have been there. I was there then, and I would draw no moral distiction between Bush and Clinton and Gore as far as service to their nation.

And I'm still looking for someone to vote for.

paland · #6 07-12-2004, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Desertion implies either a moral judgement or cowardice.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, Desertion is a legal term in the military. It does not imply anything. Any AWOL turns into desertion after 30 days. Or at least it did back in 1970. And not everyone slacked back then. You just did a good job of insuling every Vietnam vet. ARe you with Al-Quida by any chance?

paland · #7 07-12-2004, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Viet Nam period. It ain't pretty, but it ain't evil. You had to have been there. I was there then, and I would draw no moral distiction between Bush and Clinton and Gore as far as service to their nation.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say you were there back then, did you mean in Minnesota? Because any vet would know that it is Vietnam, not Viet Nam.

nothumb · #8 07-12-2004, 02:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Desertion implies either a moral judgement or cowardice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. All it implies is tuckin' your tail and runnin'. You can do it for whatever reason you like.

Including to work on some rich dude's Senate campaign. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

NT

benfranklin · #9 07-12-2004, 03:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Viet Nam period. It ain't pretty, but it ain't evil. You had to have been there. I was there then, and I would draw no moral distiction between Bush and Clinton and Gore as far as service to their nation.

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say you were there back then, did you mean in Minnesota? Because any vet would know that it is Vietnam, not Viet Nam.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't high school. Viet Nam is an alternative spelling that is generally accepted. I'm sure you will dispute that. So what?

Any vet would would know it simply as Nam, or the Nam, period. I was not a vet of that era, but lived through that era and knew many vets. At that time, I was quite happy to be a slacker, and not to have gone over there. Times and perspectives change. If you are a vet of that era, or a male of draft age then, I would be happy to continue the discussion. If not, you know not of what you speak.

benfranklin · #10 07-12-2004, 04:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No, Desertion is a legal term in the military. It does not imply anything. Any AWOL turns into desertion after 30 days. Or at least it did back in 1970. And not everyone slacked back then. You just did a good job of insuling every Vietnam vet. ARe you with Al-Quida by any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sorry for insuling Vietnam vets. I'll never do it again, if I can figure out what that is. Does that have something to do with insulin?

Sorry, I am not a member of Al-Quida. Close, but no cigar. I might be a member of Al Qaeda, but if I told you, I'd have to kill you.

All this good fun aside, the issue is whether Dubya did something in flagrant violation of civil or military law. I do not dispute that he is in technical violation of such, and that he is a slacker and a jerk-off.

My point is that:

A. Bush was young and stupid at the time, and what he did was the same as what thousands of his contempories did without legal recrimination. Stupidity has never been grounds for disqualification from public office.

B. Desertion as a legal charge has never been brought or proved.

C. Desertion as a moral issue is highly subjective, and in my opinion, Bush is guilty of a lot of things (see "stupidity" above), but desertion is not one of them.

D. I have no desire to either defend or prosecute Bush's "desertion", but Kerry's position of moral superiority about war crimes that he took part in is much more disgusting than being a f*ck-off in the Air Guard.