Who’s the Dummy Now?
October 31, 2006 on 8:47 pm | In Main, National |Wow. How could an experienced public figure make such a gaffe and be so imprecise with language? No, we’re not talking about Sir Malaprop (a.k.a. George W. Bush) but about the guy Democrats told us was Bush’s intellectually superior opponent in the 2004 presidential election, Sen. John Forbes Kerry.
In a speech Kerry gave at Pasadena City College in California on Monday, the brilliant senator said, “You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Kerry said later it was a botched delivery and he was actually referring to the president “getting us stuck in Iraq,” not to the poor American souls who are mired in that hellhole. I’m no fan of Kerry’s, but to be fair, he probably was talking about Bush. I can’t believe he would be stupid enough to cast aspersions on the intellect of those who are putting themselves in harm’s way over there.
Of course, the Bush administration and its proxies wasted no time in making political hay of Kerry’s bungling, demanding an apology and insisting, as Bush did, that the troops are “plenty smart.” Once again, we have a distraction from the upcoming midterm elections. In this case, it was offered up by Kerry and seized upon by his Republican antagonists for partisan advantage.
I offer this commentary only because I had written a previous post on those who assumed the president was an idiot because he is inarticulate. Kerry made a gaffe of Bushian proportions but I don’t see those same people moaning about Kerry’s lack of mastery of the English language. No, they make the same excuses Bush’s supporters did when the president said, “It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.”
If I were a Dem, I would not be happy about this. At a time when Democrats wanted to focus attention on the miserable war itself, Kerry has succeeded in reviving long-held doubts about whether the Dems really are supportive of the military. It’s especially damaging coming from a guy like Kerry who said some pretty icky things about his fellow soldiers when he testified before Congress after the Vietnam war was over. I”l bet a lot of Dems are privately saying the same thing a top Democratic strategist told CNN.
“He has already cost us one election. The guy just needs to keep his mouth shut until after the election.”
Now can we get on with the elections? I will have my picks and preferences by the end of the week.
P.S. For a satirical look at Kerry’s remarks and other gems uttered during his career, click here. The video on YouTube was produced by Scrappleface.com.
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Don’t these people have speech writers? If that kind of stuff makes it into the final draft, someone needs to be fired.
Even if it was supposed to be a joke.
And if that was just an “off-the-cuff” remark than he should think about a new career. One that does not require non-scripted public speaking.
That goes for the President too.
Comment by fred — October 31, 2006 #
And the “freak show” grinds on…
Actually, Kerry makes a pretty good point. If you party too much in college, you may just find your butt in Baghdad. So hit the books kids. All the excuses aside, that was, in fact, what he was saying to a group of college students.
As someone who partied too much in college and joined the Marines for a pay check, I could have used the wisdom of J(F)K.
Anyway, thanks Senator. If we keep the House, we’ll know who to thank.
Comment by jake — October 31, 2006 #
Kerry’s a boob. So what.
The elephant in the room is this: Military service is a version of class warfare decked out in patriotic bunting. Because a disproportionate number of those who serve in the military do so because they have few or no other good options. In making that “choice,” they must be willing to give up their lives.
The fact that this is a result of limited access to a good education, let alone economic resources, is precisely the point Kerry was trying to make. The wonder is not that he made it in such a boneheaded fashion, but that he would give two hoots about the plight of the urban and rural poor. He doesn’t. It’s just political opportunism of the worst sort, so it serves him right that it backfired.
As for “supportive of the military,” Terry, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame. I’m supportive of the military because I want them to come home right now, alive, without killing one more clueless Iraqi. Aren’t you?
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — November 1, 2006 #
What I wrote, Fred, is that Kerry’s remarks revive “long-held doubts about whether the Dems really are supportive of the military.” I myself don’t harbor those doubts, but there is a widepread belief among those in the military who do.
At precisely the time when the Republican base is disgusted enough to stay home in large numbers Nov. 7, this could serve to fire them up enough to show up and vote.
Kerry should have used your words to explain his own and he would have been better off for it.
Comment by Terry — November 1, 2006 #
Kerry botched the joke badly and may have been ” fighting the last war. ” You flunk out of college these days, chances are you’ll end up getting stuck in a dead end job. But not in a dead end war. The interpretation of Kerry’s joke might have made sense if he had told it in 1968 ( Right after I failed college and ended up getting drafted )
As there’s no draft now, there is no logic in what Kerry uttered. Many negative things can be said of Kerry,but he’s nothing if not logical.
Wrong joke. Wrong time.
But Kerry ” Bashing ” the troops? After what Rummy et al have done, and not done for them in Iraq?
Get real.
Comment by terry mccarthy — November 1, 2006 #
People have made way too big a deal of Kerry’s comments. Disenfranchised people and people who don’t have good chances of getting into college often end up in the military. Right now, they are “stuck” in Iraq. Right-wing commentators are grasping at threads with this non-issue. The bigger news of the day should have been the report that Saddam Hussein had unconditionally surrendered to the U.S. prior to our invasion. This is a huge story that received much less attention than Kerry’s overblown comments.
Comment by Michael — November 1, 2006 #
Precisely, Michael. They’re grabbing at straws, but they’re also panicking because Kerry stated what is an obvious (but never discussed) truth — that we’re using the disenfranchised as cannon fodder.
Watch Kerry turn around and apologize for not “supporting” the troops, however. Ughh.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — November 1, 2006 #
Heh heh! Kerry’s canceling his appearances now. See? I told you. The Republocrats are a bunch of spineless idiots.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — November 1, 2006 #
I think the appearances he’s canceling are those on behalf of Dem candidates around the country who now consider Kerry a liability. And you are correct, Michael, that the GOP is making too much of this, just as the Dems would have if Cheney or Hastert had said the same thing. But the significant thing about this is that it could motivate the GOP base to get out there and vote for Republicans. If the Dems fail to take the House, Kerry’s words will live in infamy.
After looking at the video again, I agree with Fred B that Kerry meant what he said and is trying to weasel out of it with the “botched joke” spin that he keeps repeating. And I also agree that the way in which we staff our military is a worthy discussion to have, but no one wants to have it. The Bushies don’t want a draft b’c it would mobilize opposition to this war and create ugly scenes on college campuses, just as it did during Vietnam. In fact, I’d be willing to bet the administration would sooner give away Rolls Royces as re-enlistment bonuses than have a draft.
And with the notable exception of Charlie Rangel, few Dems will broach the subject of conscription b’c it is profoundly unpopular. The draft is one measure that would reemphasize the gravity of military operations since the pool of soldiers would reach more across socioeconomic lines than it currently does. Another thing I would like to see is a Congressional declaration of war when we embark of these kinds of adventures. But of course, that would connote sacrifice, which no one wants to do across the board. I don’t believe we have declared war against anyone since two days after Pearl Harbor. Do I have my history right, Jake?
Comment by Terry — November 1, 2006 #
“Because a disproportionate number of those who serve in the military do so because they have few or no other good options.”
Fred… I don’t normally address people on these types of forums directly, but I can’t let that comment pass. The above statement is not only wrong, but it shows a deep ignorance of today’s military. And if you have any question as to why there has been such a ferocious backlash to the Kerry statement, it is this notion on the part of you and others that the military is not a “good” job option and, by implication, is populated by people who couldn’t do better.
This hackneyed negative stereotype of military service is just so out of sync with reality that it is really quite astounding that it continues on to this day.
The Heritage Foundation did an in depth study (see link below) of the makeup of today’s military. They found that in point of fact, the military looks quite like society in general, though recruits tend to be richer, better educated and more rural than the mean. They also found that motivations behind joining the military are generally not economic, but rather based on occupational preferences.
Members of today’s military are very proud of the fact that they were able to join the forces, as entrance is extremely competitive, as is advancement. And yours and the Kerry statements tend to really tick them off, not surprisingly.
Let me put it to you this way. How would your son or daughter feel if after toiling away in school and gaining entrance to Williams College, or Case Western Reserve Engineering School, or the Peace Corps, or a special internship at Microsoft, someone then said, “Oh, they only went there because they couldn’t do any better”?
If you think the above examples are absurd, then, frankly, you need to become more familiar with military standards.
While this country is at war, it is inexcusable for people to know so little about the state of their military - a military that represents them throughout the world. I encourage you to take some time to learn about the standards of today’s military, how they compare to other fields,and the something about the quality of the personnel who serve this country.
It will quickly become apparent that people who can’t easily find a job, certainly won’t find one with the US military, where standards are so exacting.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
Comment by jake — November 1, 2006 #
Dear Jake (and Terry),
This is just the kind of GOOD row I’ve hoped your blog might encourage, so thank you both. Jake, your points are well argued and certainly will cause me to re-examine some of my assumptions. I will not quite concede the argument yet, but I will get back to you.
I do want to clarify that I (and perhaps Kerry, though I can’t speak for him) do not demean the people who serve in the military, or their intelligence. I only argue (based on much that I have read) that socioeconomic factors compel the less advantaged among us to serve. Though as I said, I will take that under advisement. I think, in addition to wanting to know the composition of the armed forces, we would want to know who’s actually doing the fighting and dying.
Incidentally, my father has a long record of military service and has the rank of general in the New York Guard.
On another day, I will comment on the statement that we are “a country at war.”
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — November 1, 2006 #
Fred -
I’m glad you enjoy a good intellectual tussle. While you are researching a response, let me add that it is my experience that the people who are “fighting and dying” do not differ in significant ways from the general military population. I’ll leave it to you to prove otherwise.
You may also find these points worth contemplating:
* Contrary to general reporting in the media during the Vietnam era, DOD studies show that minorities died in no greater proportion than others during that war.
* As always, the most dangerous job in combat is the platoon leader (1st or 2nd Lieutenant). As such, officers experience disproportionately high casualties rates. It would be difficult to make the case that any Army or Marine officer joins the military for economic reasons.
* My experience as a an officer in the Marines in the 1980’s was that African-Americans tended to be under represented in combat MOSs (jobs). They tended to see military service as a career option and, as such, gravitated toward administrative positions. This was in marked contrast to the “boys from the suburbs” who joined the Marines with Rambo fantasies (now more commonly World of Warcraft fantasies). My general impression is that this is still the case, although African-American representation in the military is markedly lower today than it was in my time. (Read: failing inner city schools.)
* On my regular visits to the USMC Recruit Depot at Parris Island (I live nearby), the most striking contrast from my day (1983) is:
1) The dearth of minorities. Rather than the 15-20% African-American that was the norm in my day, my best guess would be that that number has dropped well below 10%. (It is probably a bit higher in the Army.) For the record, the African-American population in the US is 14% of the total, I believe.
2) An up tick in the number of Hispanics, constituting perhaps 5-10% of the average platoon.
3) The size and strength of the recruits. I often tell people a Marine recruit platoon resembles the football team of a Division AA college in Wisconsin.
4) And, anecdotally (from brief conversations with the recruits), they seem to be brighter and better educated than my peers and I.
Having spent an afternoon this past weekend in the amputee ward at Walter Reed, I can tell you that the soldiers and Marines in such a condition do not consider themselves victims, and resent that implication (easily heard through the windows from the Code Pink protesters). So despite how we may see them, they clearly believe that bestowing a victimhoold on their condition is demeaning.
And finally, whatever one thinks of the war, the Bush Administration, whether we are at war or not (!), or anything else, there is and should be a clear line between criticizing war policy and castigating the military folks we have hired to carry out the civilian policy (unless, of course, they’re performance is lacking). Whether Kerry meant to use military personnel as a political prop, or simply screwed up a bad joke (I tend to think it was a bit of both), it is not inappropriate to make him pay a political price for failing to avoid crossing that very bright line… something he, in my estimation, has done once too often.
Jake
Comment by jake — November 1, 2006 #
The army is made up of soliders on both ends.
Pat Tillman served in one of the most highly skilled units in our armed forces.. and chose that path over a career playing in the NFL.
Then some of our soldiers are there because they have a family to support, and only a high school diploma, which can only get them so far. The service offered them a steady paycheck and benifits plus a chance for higher education that they could not afford to obtain on their own. They just happened to be enlisted in a time of war.
not all of our soliders are kids who failed out of college. and they are not all millionaires who just love their country so much, they’s give it all up to defend it.
Comment by fred — November 1, 2006 #
One silver lining is that come 2008 we won’t have to go through a reprise of Kerry’s 2004 bungling on the campaign trail. He has too many self-inflicted wounds, to go with the wounds from Republican snipers, to sustain another serious run for the White House. That is good news, especially for Dems.
Comment by Yankee — November 2, 2006 #
Hi Terry. Despite your misgivings about the NY Times, I hope you will read Tom Friedman’s OpEd today: Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence. We can celebrate or gloat at the self-destruction of Kerry, but the other side of the equation is far more sinister. btw, this is the best blog in weeks.
Comment by Peter Halle — November 3, 2006 #
Hi Peter,
Glad you enjoyed this blog. It certainly sparked an interesting and fruitful discussion.
As for Friedman, I do not buy the print edition of The Times and am not a subscriber to “Times Select” — the pay wall behind which the Gray Lady’s venerable columnists have been put.
But Friedman is sometimes very interesting. Perhaps you (or someone else w/ access to the online version of the column) could email the column to me (or copy and paste it into another comment on this blog entry).
Comment by Terry — November 3, 2006 #
Just emailed it to you, Terry. Am I allowed to put a full for-pay column on the blog?
Comment by Peter Halle — November 3, 2006 #
I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
But I didn’t see that the joke was on me, oh no.
I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing,
Oh, if I’d only seen that the joke was on me.
– The Bee Gees, 1968
Comment by jake — November 3, 2006 #
I don’t know, Peter. Friedman makes a couple of good points and then just goes off on a tireless rant. Perhaps Friedman would like us to forget that he was and still is a big fan of going into Iraq, but just thinks the Bushies screwed up the execution of the war and its aftermath (sounds like Hillary).
Comparing Rove to a tobacco executive is cute but ludicrous. I find it especially tiresome when people imply (or in Tom’s case, say outright) that if people take their cues from someone he disagrees with, then those people must be “stupid.”
And whenever I hear people complain about the evil genius Rove, I can’t help but think they are insanely jealous they don’t have someone that talented on their side.
Believe me, if the Dems had someone who could win so many elections for them with the same sorts of divisive tactics, they would be thrilled beyond belief. As is often the case, I guess it’s a question of whose ox is being gored.
Comment by Terry — November 3, 2006 #
We have not asked one very important question. How do our troops feel about Kerry’s statement? I cannot speak for all, BUT I can speak for a 21 year old United States Marine on his 3rd tour in 3-1/2 years and his friends. They think Kerry speaks like someone with not much common sense, they think he is the type of person who opens his mouth before thinking, they ask how does someone like Kerry get into a position of leadership with his feelings towards our military. Some are confused, and hurt by Kerry’s statements. These young men and women have worked very hard physically and in the classroom to get were they are today. It is a great accomplishment and society should feel a debt of gratitude for what they are doing for us, as we did in WWII. Instead we have prominent people like Kerry putting them down and what they do for this country. I have seen first hand how our men and women in the military live. I have seen what they give up for this country, to be a part of our military, I have seen what they get paid for putting there lives on the line every day, it is not much for what they do take my word on it – BUT they do not complain about it! They do there job. They do like to hear people say thank you – not even directly to them – just in general! It is something so simple that motivates them every day. Instead we have Kerry, I will not say it is a democratic view. I hope it is not – I hope it is not a republican view. It is better to think it was just Kerry! I do believe that the democratic committee should have made him respond sooner then he did with an apology to our troops. That is what I would expect from either party.
Comment by Bob Riva — November 4, 2006 #