McCain Blasts Kerry Anew; CNN Reporters Express Hope That Story Goes Away Soon

I feared that McCain's condemnation was a trap -- he would condemn Kerry, but then would almost immediately forgive Kerry and accept his explanation, thus dismissing the story in the minds of most.

So far, he's not granting Straight Talk Dispensation on Kerry (read down).

Meanwhile, two CNN "reporters" indepedently express their desire that this story "fades" or "goes away soon."

Funny, I don't seem to recall CNN reporters expressing similar hopes about the Mark Foley story. They seemed to enjoy that one. I wonder what on earth could account for the difference?

Spinners claim that John Kerry would never, ever, ever express his belief that soldiers are largely dumb and uneducated -- it would be "political suicide," they say (one spinner did say that, talking to Mary Katherine Ham), ergo, he must not have meant it.

But the media claims to be objective, too, and statements that they hope stories damaging to Democrats go away "soon" are also statements against interest -- statements that criticially would their claims of nonpartisanship.

And yet: these statements were made.

Could it possibly be that if people speak long enough extemporaneously, without a carefully-vetted script, they may just blunder into revealing their true beliefs?

He Meant What He Said: I'm surprised at all the claims that Kerry didn't mean what he said -- especially when it comes from conservatives.

Guys, get real. It is an article of faith among liberal Democrats that soldiers only serve because they have no other options -- that is, that they join the armed forces out of economic desperation. They say this day in, day out -- "they didn't sign up for this," "they joined for the benefits," "Army commercials promise a college education, not fighting in Iraq," etc.

Charlie Rangel and many others claim again and again (incorrectly) that our fighting forces are made up disproportionately of minorities who only joined due to a lack of other careers or options.

So please don't tell me that such thoughts would be alien to Kerry's mind.

It should be noted, once again, that Kerry didn't choose of his own volition to serve in Vietnam, as John McCain did. Kerry "chose" to enlist as his draft number approached and his attempt to get additional deferrments was rejected.

That's not to say that draftees don't serve with honor. They do. Someone who satisfies a moral and legal obligation honorably should be praised.

Kerry served honorably. Just not truly voluntarily.

There's simply a difference between someone who serves honorably after being drafted (or enlists right before being drafted, to secure a preferable billet) and someone who seeks out military service purely of his own volition.

One obviously wants to be there more.

One seeks to serve; the other serves to satisfy the obligation of duty. It is hardly implausible that someone who served only to satisfy an obligation would have trouble imagining that many might serve truly voluntarily, even eagerly.

For John Kerry and most Democrats, service in the military is one of the least attractive careers. Yes, Kerry himself served; he also did so under the gun of the draft, and got out of the military as soon as legally possible.

It is therefore hardly difficult to believe that they largely think that those who serve do so for lack of any other better option -- they certainly wouldn't choose to join the Army were there any alternatives available; therefore everyone else must similarly only serve due to legal obligation or lack of any other alternatives.

Video & Updates... At Hot Air. You know you're in trouble when your most high profile supporter is... The Daily Kos.

John Kerry's website actually cites Kos and Josh "I Question the Timing" Marshall.

Rick Ellensburg is busily typing up his own post, so his blog can be read by two Senators on the Senate floor.

Has John Kerry... Ever condemned the various claims that "our boys didn't sign up for this" and "joined only for the benefits"?

If so, cite the condemnation.

I imagine a Lexis/Nexis search will disclose that not only has not condemned such statements, but that he's made them himself.

Ergo, claims that he would never, ever, nevereverevernever have suggested soldiers only serve because they couldn't get a decent job as an insurance rep seem rather hollow.

He and other Democrats say similar things all the time. They just usually avoid stating it this nakedly, or this insultingly.

But the gist? They say it all the time.

posted by Ace at 12:09 PM

| Access Comments