There are probably more loathsome human beings, but it's hard to imagine one that came as close to becoming president as Senator John Kerry.

And you know, this insulting-the-troops thing has to be driving him nuts, because he probably was taking a slam at Bush, but it backfired. A smart politician would apologize, and say that he didn't intend any insult to the troops themselves, but Kerry's not a smart politician. I don't think that going on the offensive (and I mean that in more than one way, with his comment about Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh) is going to play well with the independent and moderates, regardless of how much it gives orgasms to the net roots. In particular, when he talks about how he's always supported the troops, it just provides another opportunity for his opponents to remind people of the 1972 Senate testimony, in which he accused them of being war criminals.

And if this story develops legs like a centipede, and extends for another week into the election, and the Dems don't do as well as they are currently drooling for, guess who will get the blame? Not that he ever had a prayer, but that will be the end of any hope, even on his own part, that he will get the Dem nomination again.

[Update a few minutes later]

Kerry obviously never learned the first lesson of holes (i.e., when in one, stop digging). Now he's insulted the troops again:

I am a retired US Navy Senior Chief who spent 21 years serving in the nuclear navy. I read Kerry's statement and took it as an insult. I just heard his press conference and now take offense that he thinks I'm "crazy" because I was insulted by his remarks last night.

As others have said, like Howard Dean, he's a gift to Republicans that just keeps on giving.

You have to wonder just how powerful Rove's mind-control beams are to get them to behave this way.

[Update]

For those wondering what this is about, here's the video on youtube.com. And as one commenter pointed out, if he meant to insult Bush, that's kind of ironic, considering that the president has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, with better grades than Kerry got.

[Update about 4:37 PM EST]

Bush is going to make a speech shortly that had been previously planned, but he will now take the opportunity to respond to Kerry's remarks. Time to put on some popcorn.

[Update a little before 6 Eastern]

Austin Bay has further thoughts:

I’m listening to his latest statement (1:30 or so CST) and it is a re-hash of The Great Litany of leftish accusations. Reaction as I listen– this guy knows he made a mistake and he’s pedaling fast. Wait– now he says he is a real man. Yeah, he basically said he’s a real man. (Get a transcript!) If he’s a real man, he has the chance to prove it. Senator Kerry needs to debate his Swift Boat veteran critics. Man to man. Now. Not later.

In the spare space of 24 hours Kerry has resurrected the Vietnam Syndrome –at least his and the left wing of the Democratic Party’s Vietnam (loser’s) Syndrome. This is stupid but particularly stupid in the last week of a national election. Doubly stupid in the midst of a long, grinding war. Kerry is trapped, in an odd sort of amber. He’s stuck on stupid and stuck in the past simultaneously.

Was there supposed to be a link to an article in the initial entry?

Kerry is living proof that "once an asshat, always an asshat."

- 13 years on active duty, BS in math, MA in Space Systems Management, MS in Software Engineering

Kerry meant Bush?

Bush's university grades were BETTER than Kerry's, a fact that Kerry deliberately concealed in 2004 by refusing to release his transcript until AFTER the election!

Thanks Jim, I was watching the discussion of this matter on Fox and I remembered that very fact of Kerry vs Bush academic records and was going to post it but you beat me to the punch. It goes to prove the adage that if you repeat a lie long enough even the liar (in this case Kerry) begins to believe his own lie.

Yawn!

I think it is probably true that it was a botched joke. But even then, it's a joke that makes almost no sense at all. I mean, really, was his intended point that if you don't get a good education you might end up becoming ... President of the United States?

I'm sure this is going to make a HUGE difference. Watch all those blue leaning races now run red. It is truly the greatest event of this election season. Wow. Yawn.

Kerry insulted the troops!

Kerry is French!

Kerry Surfs!

Kerry is too tall!

Bush is smarter!

If not for Kerry we would be winning in Iraq!

It's all Kerry's fault!

Vote Republican!

Kerry says something and this "insults the troops" you say.

But isn't it a bigger issue what is actually _happening_ to the troops? They're dying at ever greater rates in a war that seems to be going nowhere and making no progress at all. And Kerry is not responsible for that, Bush is. He may be saying stupid things, but he isn't getting them killed. What's the bigger insult?

I see the trolls got their talking points early today.

What's entertaining about this is that since 2000, the Dems have kept trying to relive the glory of their October Surprise DUI story, and they keep botching it.

With fanboys like AnonElections and Jim Smith helping the cause... no wonder Kerry lost.

I just surfed by Glenn Reynolds site.

The quantity of John Kerry coverage is astounding. Rand and I share the opinion that America was given two really lousy choices in 2004, we just see differently on the lesser of evil analysis.

Anyway, given the massive quantity of coverage given Kerry's doofus move (and for the record John Kerry is a complete and total doofus) I can only conclude that the GOP is otherwise "out of ammo"

For example, this billmon snark is pretty good.

Cue photo of George Bush handing a screaming child to his parents and billmon quips:

Having successfully terrified a small child with his threat that "the Democrats are going to use you for science experiments and then sell you to the terrorists," President Bush returns the crying toddler to his parents. (Photo by AP)

Yup, better to run 24/7 with the "John Kerry is a doofus" theme. It is true and maybe that is all that's left in the ammo box.

"They're dying at ever greater rates in a war that seems to be going nowhere and making no progress at all."

All due respect to those that have lost their lives and limbs but looking at it from a strategic standpoint this war's casualty rate is extremely low in comparison to let's say the Philippine-American war where 4200 soldiers lost their lives - that war lasted 3 years.

I know of a story that just happened here over the weekend where some people got in a fight over the Cowboy's football game while driving down the road. Well one thing led to another and a young girl ended up being pushed out of the moving car. She lost a foot as a result of hitting the pavement. Should we be blaming Roger Goodell and the NFL for creating this atmosphere of discontent that lead the dismemberment of a young girl's limb?

These are hard decisions to make and we should never pretend that it isn't. As much as the world view in our head is that we should rise about such things the reality on the ground is that people do bad things to eachother. It is sad that we ultimately have to pay the price and come between these ignorant dumb-asses who only know the way of the gun and death. However, we unfortunately don't get to hear the true stories of how much progress our soldiers have made to improve people's lives in the midst of deadly conflict.

John F.-student Kerry epitomizes the position that we should do just the bare minimum to make our way through education/life, look to marry into wealth, and avoid the heavy lifting required to actually accomplish anything of note.

Since string theorists tell us (ha ha) that there are 10^500 possible universes, could there be a universe so perverse that John F. Kerry is president? I doubt it. Kerry disproves string theory.

"from a strategic standpoint this war's casualty rate is extremely low"

True, but so what? You can bleed out all at once or drip drip drip for years, the end result is still the same.

The problem with Iraq is that we're not making any progress. We put new recruits in boot camp and ship them off to Iraq in three months, yet here we are three and a half years in and the Iraqi army _still_ is not ready to patrol their country. The security situation is horrible, the bombings and slayings are worse than they were three years ago, and the American casualty rate is increasing--none of which you can deny. So "relative to other wars" is irrelevant. Are we winning? No. So why don't we fire the leadership?

The security situation is horrible, the bombings and slayings are worse than they were three years ago, and the American casualty rate is increasing--none of which you can deny.

I suspect that the American casualty rate will go down after the election. The terrorists are playing to the media right now, attempting another Tet. They can't sustain this for long--their casualties are too high.

Ok, so I read through the news reports. This is just a stupid Kerry joke taken out of context. Perhaps Kerry's handling damage control poorly, but there's really not much to this story.

I suspect that the American casualty rate will go down after the election. The terrorists are playing to the media right now, attempting another Tet. They can't sustain this for long--their casualties are too high.

Rand, hope you're right. But even if so, the insurgency groups will probably win a modest political victory here.

I suspect that the American casualty rate will go down after the election.

Would you like somebody to pull up all similar predictions over the last 3 years?

I've a friend currently with the British Military in Basra, I'm curious to hear his view from the inside when he gets a chance.

Well, looks like Kerry had to cancel a bunch of campaign stops. So at least he knows he did something wrong.

I doubt it. Much more likely the Democratic candidates he was planning to campaign for know he did something wrong.

Dave: "I've a friend currently with the British Military in Basra, I'm curious to hear his view from the inside when he gets a chance."

I have a US Marine friend just back from Ramadi, which by all accounts is a bit "hotter" than Basra, will his view "from the inside" do for the moment:

"How things are going in Iraq: Not nearly as bad as you think. Ramadi and the 'restive' Al Anbar province get a lot of press, as does Baghdad. Al Anbar has about 4% of the population, and Ramadi is a burg of 3-400,000 folks. It's crappy there, it will probably always be crappy there. Don't read too much into it. So, it's EASY to find bad things to report on in Ramadi and farther west... but that doesn't really mean all that much. Even within Ramadi (where I just came from) things are moving forward, albeit slowly. Now, as to the 'sectarian' violence... there's no denying that the Al Qaida plan of increasing sectarian violence is working... the only question is whether we will be so stupid as to respond to their play as they wish us to respond. I do not rule out stupidity, though... especially if the mid-term elections go the way the pundits predict."

Ok, so I read through the news reports. This is just a stupid Kerry joke taken out of context. Perhaps Kerry's handling damage control poorly, but there's really not much to this story.

Sure, that's the line Kerry is spinning but it just doesn't match what happened. Kerry was speaking to a bunch of students and repeatedly used the word "you." How am I to believe under those circumstances that "you" in that context meant "Bush"?

Even if he did botch a joke, it shows incredible ignorance not to realize what he actually said was highly offensive and apologize. He refused to do so.

Kerry is convinced that he's the smartest guy in any room. Given that his record at Yale shows he earned poorer grades than Bush, he seems to have a rather inflated opinion of himself. Now, if you measure intelligence as the ability to spunge off of rich women, then he's a freeking genius. If you measure it in actual accomplishments, he doesn't come across too well.

At least the troops have a sense of humor about it.

Jim Smith writes, with respect to the war in Iraq:

> Are we winning? No.

We have about 5,000 years of military history. In all that time, the definition of victory hasn't changed a whole lot:

1) Destroy the enemy's army.
2) Occupy his country.
3) Capture his capital.
4) Depose his government.
5) Kill or put his leadership on trial.

Considering how quickly each of those five things was accomplished in Iraq, you wouldn't think whether Iraq was a victory or not was in doubt. But then again, I wouldn't have thought that stopping for fuel for a few hours on day 3 of the invasion was a quagmire either.

Mike