Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Arguing that unnamed foreign leaders want him to be President is almost tantamount to soliciting foreign involvement in our elections. A stupid thing to say. People will ask: Is he getting foreign money? Will he change his positions to placate foreign supporters?

Posted by bllg at March 15, 2004 04:07 PM

Do the names Johnny Chung, John Huang, James Raidy, et al ring a bell?

Posted by Lynxx Pherrett at March 15, 2004 05:57 PM

I believe I saw that Zapatero has stated openly that he would prefer that Bush lose in November.

Chirac is the obvious choice for another Eu-nik leader against Bush.

Blair? He would never ever say it, but Tony is too smooth a politician to fall on his sword for anyone, including George W. Bush.

Posted by Bill White at March 15, 2004 06:11 PM

Watch for Kerry and his supporters to call as ~negative campaigning~ any attempt to call him or to get him to elaborate on a subject he brought up.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at March 15, 2004 06:56 PM

I normally refrain from posting "me too" comments, but since we are so often at odds I thought it would be refreshing to agree with you on politics for a change. Yes, this was an incredibly stupid thing for Kerry to say. What was he thinking? :-(

Posted by Ron Garret at March 15, 2004 07:36 PM

Saying stupid things aren't presidential?

Then how the heck has George lasted soo long?

Posted by IXLNXS at March 15, 2004 09:58 PM

Oh, it certainly makes sense to assume Shrub is Osama's favorite choice...he wants war after all.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 16, 2004 12:52 AM

Marcus, don't you ever tire of looking foolish? No one wants war except Osama. He didn't get the war he wanted--instead he's hiding in a cave.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2004 04:07 AM

He didn't get the war he wanted

He didn't?

By all accounts he was hiding in caves long before 9-11. He's got the west at each others throats (with the exception of the US and UK), NATO in tatters, US politicians in the mainstream talking about walking away from the UN. The US out of Saudi, a veritable civil war en route in Iraq and a dramatic increase in international terrorism.

Strategically a Bush win would probably work best for him. Besides, he thinks he's on borrowed time and has done since the 1980's.

And you know what else? I'll be that, despite his supposed chumminess with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair isn't on that list.

Tony "I'll be your friend" Blair? Rand, Tony Blair is one of the slimiest politicians the UK has ever produced.

He wants to be everybody's friend.

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 04:22 AM

Part of the hubbub is due to a transcription mistake.
Kerry states "more leaders" not "foreign leaders" want him to be president. Still the context appears to indicate foreign leaders.

Let's go conspiracy theory. As far as being a Manchurian candidate, Kerry's service in Vietnam (and powerful family) would make him an ideal candidate for recruitment by the Chinese intelligence service or maybe the Mob (who had extensive contacts in Vietnam as well). In the late 70's he morphs from Vietnam War protestor to convicting the "number two" mobster in Massacheusetts. A task which might have been assisted by the Mob? Sure!

And he has received donations from Chinese intelligence sources, and made statements (admittedly in reaction to Bush's stance) supporting China in the China-Taiwan issue. Then you have people stating publically that Kerry was killing noncombatants in Vietnam. Ideal blackmail for your pet senator.

Clearly, this cloud castle needs some work in the wings and maybe a touch of paint, but it's mostly there. Now back to your regularly scheduled reality...

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 16, 2004 09:03 AM

Can anybody tell me if John Kerry ever accomplished anything notable after his commendable combat experience? I understand that he led up to 1200 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. 1200 is a fairly small number in comparison to the 543,400 who served in Vietnam in 1969 alone.

It appears that Kerry was a "made for TV" anti-war protestor whose influence was grossly magnified by positive TV exposure. I realize that he won the prestigious 2002 Visiting Nurse Association of America's "Legislator of the Year" and the Brockton Little League's "Appreciation Award" on March 7, 1988, but has this guy ever done much but point his finger at someone else and say, "Bad man!" ?

Does Kerry have any steadfast values? He turned own his former Vietnam buddies as soon as he got back to the states. He called his fellow troops "baby killers" just as quickly as the cameras and microphones turned toward him. He said he supports the traditional concept of marriage yet in 1996 he voted against Defense of Marriage Act. Do we really know this man?

Posted by Jim McDade at March 16, 2004 09:57 AM

Jim,

It is precisely attacks like these (whether against Kerry or against Bush) that will undermine any space policy that is not fully owned by both the Democrats and the Republicans, just like Neil deGrasse Tyson said last weekend, as reported by Jeff Foust.

And sadly, space policy may be the least of our worries if America grows increasingly and bitterly divided.

Posted by Bill White at March 16, 2004 11:37 AM

There are days when I just want to quit, move to Canada, find a warm, intelligent woman, settle down and forget politics. This could be one of those days.

First we have the presumptive Democratic nominee committing a real blunder -- and then compounding it. Way to go, John.

Then we have the Republicans jumping in with reactions that seem, shall we say, less than thoughtful.

Now we have normally thoughtful people like Rand jumping in with a proposed commercial that makes me want to join up with Kerry now.

For the record, I don't think Bush is stupid. He apparently is, however, lacking in curiosity and is somewhat narrow. Kerry seems more intellectual and flexible. I think it would be a wonderful thing if Bush sought to become more intellectual and learn more about the world around him.

Finally, I'm getting tired of French bashing. France stood up, at great cost, to an expansive German tyranny in the First World War. Check out this UK web site for more information about the cost of that resistance. And the second go round with Germany? Military blunders by a nation still weak from the earlier war can explain that. They've done their bit in fighting tyranny for awhile. We're currently bigger and stronger. Let's be a bit magnanimous, folks.

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 16, 2004 01:49 PM

There are days when I just want to quit, move to Canada ... Finally, I'm getting tired of French bashing...

Obviously not familiar with Don Cherry I take it?

I sure wish all the people who want to make the US just like Canada would just do everyone a favor and just move there instead. Maybe we can institute an exchange program with Alberta and non-Vancouver B.C.for a one-for-one trade.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at March 16, 2004 08:50 PM

I do not feel very optimistic right now.

It is quite likely that the current President may survive the November elections. After all, he has far more money to spend on negative attack ads (President Kerry would have delayed "defending America until the United Nations approved"(!), Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion" etc.) and his team is as ruthless as it is disciplined. This is how his campaign began four years ago, trouncing John McCain in South Carolina. But if he does that, he will most likely win a Pyrrhic victory. The opposition loathes him more deeply than any American President since the opinion poll era began (even Clinton was not this unpopular among Republicans during impeachment!) and transatlantic relations have deteriorated badly as well. Subsequent Administrations will have to pick up the pieces and solve the looming budget crisis while addressing the war on terror virtually alone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473/

I know it is not going to happen, but Joe Biden is right: what America and the world badly needs right now is a "fusion ticket" consisting of Kerry and John McCain. We badly need something to
rally around, and McCain is widely respected by independents as well as many Democrats. If McCain insists on fiscal responsibility + staying committed in Iraq as preconditions for joining the Kerry ticket, it would dramatically increase his appeal among moderates. Of course, the new Administration would still have to work with a Republican Congress so it would have to be
capable of working with the opposition in order to get things done.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 16, 2004 11:41 PM

>>He didn't get the war he wanted

He didn't?

No, he didn't.

By all accounts he was hiding in caves long before 9-11.

By all accounts? I'm not familiar with any. Before 9-11, he was the power behind the throne of Afghanistan. Are you seriously saying that he expected to lose his client state as a result of September 11?

He's got the west at each others throats (with the exception of the US and UK), NATO in tatters, US politicians in the mainstream talking about walking away from the UN. The US out of Saudi, a veritable civil war en route in Iraq and a dramatic increase in international terrorism.

The west is hardly "at each others throats." NATO is in no more tatters than it's been since the end of its reason for existence (the Cold War). There is no civil war en route in Iraq, despite your fantasies, and we don't know what the state of international terrorism would be if 911 hadn't happened. He intended to get the US out of the Arabian peninsula with our tails between our legs, not because the need for our presence disappeared with the fall of Saddam. He didn't expect the House of Saud to start cracking down on his minions.

What he wanted was a full-scale war of the West against Islam, perhaps including nukes. What he wanted was a blind and unnuanced (to use Marcus' favorite word) response. What he got was the loss of his fiefdom in Afghanistan and much of the top tier of his organization, and the beginning of freedom in the Arab world.

Believe me, this wasn't what he expected, or desired.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2004 07:18 AM

The other day I had a realization that Kerry is probably very, very wrong on this count, at least when it comes to Western Europe.

Imagine for a moment that the Germans and the French actually realize the threat from Global Terrorism (which is why they are helping round up cells in Europe. Then further imagine that they understand the US can and will defeat global terrorism eventually.

A Bush Presidency means the Europeans can play good cop to the USA's bad cop routine. They can more or less sit out the war while the US does the heavy lifting. They can hope to avoid being targetted and bash Bush whenever they want to satisfy their voters. It's morally bankrupt and cowardly but logically its a win/win on most accounts as far as the Europeans are concerned. Damage to relationships and to the UN can be repaired after Bush is gone and the war is over.

A Kerry Presidency means the war will continue but a good cop (USA) and good cop (Europe) routine will mean both sides are targets (and Europe is easier to infiltrate). The US will not do the heavy lifting so the war will last longer and the European leaders will not have America to blame.

Posted by ruprecht at March 17, 2004 08:38 AM

Raoul,

I notice you didn't reply to any of my points. Is it because you are unable?

Point one, simplified: Kerry has some worthy qualities that Bush would do well to adopt. The obverse can also be said.

Point two, simplified: Rand's proposed commercial -- and some of the other comments posted here -- do no credit to Bush supporters. In fact, they make Kerry look like a more reasonable pick.

Point three, expanded: Some Americans are now condemning France, of all places, for doing what this country did in spades for a significant part of the twentieth century.

Let me give a brief history to demonstrate my point. Back in the 16th century England and France began their efforts at establishing colonies in North America. Over the next few centuries the peoples of "Old" Europe invested significant capital and large numbers of people in helping make this country, among other things, a major world power. Yes, the people who came here benefited. Yes, there was some benefit to investors as well. But to deny that we -- meaning current day Americans -- also benefited from this flow of capital and people is to beggar the imagination.

Now, in 1914, a major war broke out in Europe. On one side were the Central Powers Of Germany, Austria-Hungary and others. On the other side were the Allies of Britain, France, Russia and some others. Looking back that far, it's reasonable to debate whether the United States should have entered the war at all and, if so, on who's side. I think the U.S. should have entered the war on the side of the more democratic and free Allies, but reasonable people can disagree. World War II is more clear cut.

What did the United States do during that period, though? Sat on the sidelines throughout some major warfare when it appeared that our interests were at stake. There might have been some good reasons for that. But -- still -- that is what we did.

We finally joined the fighting, and -- in the period after World War II -- stepped in and helped Europe recover from two devastating wars.

Now some of you are mad that "old" Europe is sitting on its hands through a much smaller armed conflict. Tough. It takes a long time to recover from industrial age total warfare.

And Raoul, can't you take it? I post a message that disagrees with you. What do you want to do? Toss me out of the country. Have you so little confidence in your own abilities or your own views?

Go to hell, Raoul.

Rand, you're a reasonable guy who normally makes his points well. I don't think you did in the posting that began this thread. Your last posting in this thread is much more what I expect of you.

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 17, 2004 10:44 AM

Chuck, I am simply pointing out what kind of commercial Kerry is opening himself up to (probably by independent groups--not the Bush campaign itself) by his stupid behavior. It may not be effective for you, and it may even be counterproductive in your case, but I suspect that it would pack a wallop for many.

I'm not much of a Bush supporter on any issue other than taxes and the war, but I think that Kerry would be a disaster for the country if for no other reason than his temperament (McCain would have had the same problem), though there are plenty of other reasons.

Fortunately, I think that he's already starting to implode. Terry McAuliffe got his wish of an early candidate, and the process didn't test him sufficiently.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2004 10:55 AM

Does it help or hurt that Zapatero has already stated in public that he prefers Kerry?

Posted by Bill White at March 17, 2004 11:00 AM

Friends, Voters, Countrymen,
Regardless of your political pedigree, I think Zapatero has already PROVED he is Kerry's kind of guy. He said before the election, and since, that hunting down, killing, and arresting terrorists is not the way to handle the problem. And to prove he that believes in his political stand, they have hunted down and arrested the supposed Madrid terrorists. FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP!!

Sen. Kerry was for the war, he was against the war. FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP!!

I love the sound of flip flopping in the morning!!! It sounds like victory, or does it, yeah it does, no it doesn't, yes it.....

Posted by Steve at March 17, 2004 03:44 PM

Things in Spain continue this morning. It's 9:05 EST and Fox News just announced yet ANOTHER arrest of a suspeted terrorist. So they will arrest the terrorists in THEIR country, but don't think we should go after their bases or known supporters. Typical Socialists, do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by Steve at March 18, 2004 06:17 AM

Wasn't it 1984 where the government wanted constant war to destract the people. Bush and company intend to finish the war, that's no good, no good at all.

Posted by rupecht at March 18, 2004 07:55 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Rand.

Why did the commercial offend me so much? I came of age at the tail end of the McCarthy era. McCarthy was gone, but his dishonesty and lunacy lived on. Tarring Kerry with the brush of Kim Jung Il et al. reeks too much of the people who made wild accusations about such people as President Eisenhower with respect to Communism.

Personally I see both Kerry and Bush as deeply flawed people. I'm very disturbed about the quality of people we seem to be getting in politics today. Bush is certainly no Reagan or Eisenhower -- no matter what his partisans claim. And Kerry? Well, let's just say he's no Roosevelt, Truman or even Kennedy. Yes, I am aware of the imperfections (well, at least some of them) of all those previous Presidents.

Posted by Chuck Divine at March 18, 2004 09:37 AM

"There are days when I just want to quit, move to Canada, find a warm, intelligent woman, settle down and forget politics. This could be one of those days."

Perhaps you ought to visit some of the men's issues websites before you take this path. Try, for instance, www.mensnewsdaily.com.

Canada is, semi-officially, the feminazi state. Wives can seize a husband's property and children, and have him committed to jail, on the basis of allegations alone in issues of domestic violence. The stories of this are legion.

Unless you are suicidal, I'd suggest a different course of action.

Posted by Stephen at March 18, 2004 12:23 PM

Part of the hubbub is due to a transcription mistake.

A liberal hack reporter for the Left-of-the-New-York-Times Boston Globe writes a story quoting hometown hero Kerry about the foreign leaders who support him. Said reporter probably figures he's doing Kerry a favor by putting out this story. Most of these media types are so far gone in Europhilia it would never occur to one of them that anyone could think the approbation of effete foreigners was anything but peachy keen.

Then the fit hits the shan.

Suddenly realizing he may have inadvertently dropped a sizable banana peel in front of his man Kerry, aforesaid reporter damn near breaks the sound barrier in haste to try unscrambling the egg he just laid.

But, hey, I believe him. After all, they wouldn't print it in the paper if it wasn't true. Right?

Does Kerry have any steadfast values?

I can think of one, Jim. John F. Kerry has always had an unshakeable faith in the rightness of doing whatever appears necessary to advance the career of John F. Kerry.

I don't think Bush is stupid. He apparently is, however, lacking in curiosity and is somewhat narrow.

That makes your opinion of him appreciably higher than those publicly expressed by every Democrat who's ever run against him. You'll notice that none of these much smarter people is currently an officeholder.

Speaking personally, I've never met the man. I move in, shall we say, somewhat less rarefied circles. I have nothing objective on which to base an opinion of Bush's brains other than the fact that he got an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

So did my uncle. He's a chemical engineer and retired as No. 2 man at a Fortune 500 company. Seriously sharp dude.

Now HBS is to MBAs roughly what Annapolis is to people who like to muck around with boats. Who you are, or think you are, is famously irrelevant. No dumb "legacies" need apply.

But, hey, it could be just a lucky accident more Fortune 500 companies are run by Harvard MBAs than alumni of the B-schools of the next half-dozen or so ranking alma maters combined. Hell, I once won 17 straight games of solitaire.

So Bush got into the program, didn't wash out and got this degree.

"Influence" is not a viable explanation. This was over 30 years ago and Bush wasn't anybody. Heck, even his Old Man wasn't anybody much. Oh, yeah, almost forgot. Bush was an ex-freakin' Yale legacy. Yessiree, you can just bet the rent that was a brownie point in Cambridge!

Chuck. Buddy. Pal. This Bush dude has made being underestimated by his enemies into freakin' performance art! You guys gotta quit going for the hip fake every time!

Finally, I'm getting tired of French bashing... They've done their bit in fighting tyranny for awhile...

Chuck, we're not ragging the Frogs because they'd rather sit in cafes and sip Pernod than dodge improvised explosive devices. Hell, I'm a little old and fat for that myself. We're ragging the Frogs because THEY'RE ON THE OTHER FREAKIN' SIDE! If I was one of their honorable ancestors, I'd be glad I was dead.

I do not feel very optimistic right now.

Funny, I feel fine.

...what America and the world badly needs right now is a "fusion ticket" consisting of Kerry and John McCain.

That's a "fusion" ticket, alright - unstable, radioactive and explosive.

Does it help or hurt that Zapatero has already stated in public that he prefers Kerry?

I think I'll take 'Rhetorical Questions and Their Obvious Answers' for $1,000, Alex.

Tarring Kerry with the brush of Kim Jung Il et al. reeks too much of the people who made wild accusations...

Chuck, the N. Korean broadcasts are public record. Kerry's own people say he sent the Iranian mullahs a note promising to try to improve relations. Wild accusations? Last I heard, truth was still a sufficient defense against a charge of slander.

And pointing out inconvenient facts is not "McCarthyism" except to someone who wants to change the subject. Next time, try, "Hey, look over there! A buffalo stampede!" instead. I've had pretty good luck with that one over the years.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at March 18, 2004 02:28 PM

Post a comment