Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The Kerry Controversy

The Kerry Controversy
Originally uploaded by katzeye.
Just wondering about a couple of things. First of all, I am not a big fan of George W. Bush. However, I AM a big fan of seeking unbiased truth wherever I can.

Kerry said, to students at PCC (one of the places where my dad taught psychology, by the way), that if they study hard, do their homework, and be smart, that they will do well in life, etc. And he said that if they didn’t, they might end up stuck in Iraq. Yadda yadda, we’ve all heard it over and over again.

Okay, so, at first it was taken as an insult to the soldiers in Iraq. Which made me think, “Huh?” I mean, after all, these are not soldiers being drafted because they have dropped out of school or are getting bad grades. But anyway….

Then, he tried to explain that he wasn’t trying to insult the soldiers, but Bush for getting us stuck in Iraq. Okay, that may be what he really meant, that’s feasible.

But, that makes one wonder. So, what he is saying is do well in school, go to Yale, and get better grades than he (Kerry) got (who also attended Yale, but with lower grade averages than Bush), and be smarter than the average Yale student, and…get stuck in Iraq?


Okay and one other one that is not making complete sense to me.

Clinton rapes a woman (okay, allegedly, but if you saw her interview, how much room for doubt can there actually be?), and he has many immoral escapades with a young intern in the Oval Office. What happens when that all comes out? Nothing much. People say that his private life has nothing to do with it.

Contrast that with the Mark Foley “Scandal.” Is what he did more or less evil than what Clinton did? Does his private life have nothing to do with it? He was out of there the moment his behaviors were discovered. Gone, kaput! His own party had him removed, and he resigned.

Clinton’s party did not have him removed, and he did not resign.



PTD said...

I used to be a JFK Democrat, but they now have too many double standards. They look the other way when Clinton cavorts with young women and soils the sanctity of his office. As long as they get all their goodies, they are okay. But let a Congressman send inappropriate emails to a young page (and I am not condoning that, by the way), and they cannot let it rest even though the guy is gone! You raise excellent questions!

Anonymous said...

regardless of party, politicians should be:

1. Humble (Big-H Humble!)

2. devoid of humor

3. quiet

4. busy helping their constituents

... if not, they don't belong in office.

kat said...


I agree with what you say, especially the big H! However, I think that humor is a sign of intelligence, so I would like there to be humor, as long as it is not tasteless or inappropriate.

kat said...


I was a JFK Dem, too, a long time ago. I think what you say about the goodies is true for many blind followers of any political affiliation. I think that the double standard things is pretty evident.

Thanks for the kudos.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you about humor, Kat. Just not in politicians.

charliehorse said...

What Clinton did in his private life WAS his private life and it didn't affect his ability to be a great leader. Bush is the most retarded president we've had and Foley was a hypocrite. He sent sexual emails to boys and that is just plain evil.

Anonymous said...

Clinton's infidelities over the course of his marriage represent a high level of moral corruption. I don't want a leader, a representative of the greatest country in the world, to be a moral vacuum.

kat said...

Okay, so which is more repugnant, a sense of humor or immorality? Let me think about that one. Okay, I'll go with immorality as being the repugnant one.

And, while I do not, ever, condone Foley's actions, would you see them as being the same degree of evil as rape and cavorting with a young intern in the oval office? Or not?

To me, evil is evil, regardless of party affiliation.

Anon.~ moral vacuum is a good way to put it. I think that what one does in one's "private life" is pretty much an indicator of what one would do in every other aspect. If we are compartmentalized, we lack integrity.

6 String said...

Following the travesties of our elected, or non-elected officials brings about another question. What if you want neither party in the White House? Our two party system says if you're not Republican you're a Democrat and visa versa. Any other party is considered fringe element. Electing anyone other than a Democrat or Republican will never happen. We oscillate from one party to the other blaming the incumbent administration for our woes only to remove them from office in four years in hopes of change. What is really disconcerting overall is our representatives, senators, rarely spend time working. They show up for late roll call on Tuesday returning from a weekend of fund raising and special interest meetings, get briefed on important matters sparingly, debate and maybe vote on something Wednesday, by midday Thursday they are off to their districts to keep the fund raising going. When do they work? The more things change the more they remain the same. I'm voting for Mr Dobbs (new movie), Robin Williams would at least give us some laughs instead of BS.

kat said...

6 string,

I feel your pain! I have been seriously considering voting libertarian here and there.

6 string said...

Post Election results have sent a message to the Republicans. However the Democrats will find this victory bittersweet as they have to deal with the problem. I admire Bush for his guts to do something about it, however any war is never truly successful, pain and suffering of innocents the price of victory. NO matter who is elected they need to WORK toward peace instead of BLAMING the other party. If we could only get the Extremists to see peace as a positve. Our words and actions abroad need more care about others. Security and Understanding need to be spoken at the same time. The impasse of clashing idealogies ignores our profound insignificance on a blue dot in the middle of nowhere. We should pause and view this oasis from afar and put aside for one moment the beliefs that lead to conflict and realize the future is as one.

kat said...

6 string, I agree with what you say, in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we live in a world where terroism exists. Terrorists would never agree to peace. They would only agree to stop once they have annihilated every US citizen. I do not see peace in the world from here until the end. All we can do is protect what we have (some degree of peace, liberty, etc.) against those who would murder innocents in their attempts to take it away.

I would love to live in a world where we can talk things over if there are any conflicts. But Osama and his kind are not into compromise or talk.

The ideal sounds wonderful. And I would never give up on peace, or praying for it.

But we need to preserve it and protect it.

6string said...

I agree, the reality check of terrorism is bleak. However I do think we do not confront the truth in open world forum. I think getting terrorists to engage in dialogue undermines their position. The lies and spin need to be confronted verbally not just militarily. Expose the liars for what they are, truth will prevail, let them spin the comments all they want, it will still be lies for the world to see, repeat it over and over until their position makes no sense to anyone and their isolation and the world's scrutiny of their a constant.

kat said...

Do you think it would work (assuming they would even agree to discuss anything)? I wonder how the media would spin such a thing.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
6string said...

The media's spin today is worse than ever. This a whole topic for discussion. In fact the whole "spin" concept is something we live with contantly. From advertisers, to politicians, to idealogy, nothing is without interpretation. One's man's truth is gross lies, or "mis-intelligence" or any other number of spin words to an opposing view. The fact is truth is manipulated, distorted, until the truth is no longer truth, yet purported to be undeniably the facts. Yet basic humanistic feelings of not killing your fellow man have been overshadowed by extremists blind faith in their idealogy, or so we would believe, perhaps the Iraq war has turned into a free for all power struggle for enormous assets under the guise of sectarian violence, a means to justify the end goals. Our "liberation" of the Iraqi people merely a precursor to the next heavy handed authoritarian rule in the battle for control of the Iraqi government. Our sideline management of a war does little to change the soul of a country.

kat said...

Perhaps the main point could be, to be simplistic (in some ways, but then again, not really), do the Iraqi citizens want to be free and are they, as a whole, or in general, glad for that we have done for them?

For me, often enough, the underlying truth is freedom. If we can help others obtain that, and preserve our own, then that is a noble mission.

There will always be spins and politics and slants and mistruths. I tend to err on the side of personal freedoms for human beings, wherever they may reside, whatever their ethnicity.