28 Comments

• 1. phil  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  Mark,

  If the number of combat missions, not to mention military medals and commendations, was better experience for CinC then by your reasoning Kerry was a much better candidate than Bush. Of course the vast majority of sentient beings on the planet would by now agree that Kerry was most certainly a better candidate then Bush. There are a few holdouts like yourself who seem to spend the day grimly repeating to yourself “Bush is doing a great ob, Bush is doing a great job.” But the thinking majority know that Bush has been a disater.

  Seeing you justify McCains qualifications in terms that favor Kerry over your boy Bush is good for comedic value, but if this is the depth to which conservative “thought” has sunk you guys are in worse shape than even I thought.

• 2. Mark Noonan  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm

  Phil,

  Errmm…well, Kerry’s few months of service in Vietnam aren’t really in the same league as John McCain and are only slightly better than President Bush’s Stateside ANG service…and that was counter-balanced by President Bush’s far superior senior exective experience over Kerry’s weak Senatorial resume’.

  What Clark is trying to say is that McCain’s service is less of a preparation for CinC than Hillary’s junkets as First Lady…and that, my friend, is a monumentally stupid thing to say.

  On the other hand, there are indicators that in the Democratic primary, this might be shifting things her way…given the thin Obama record, Hillary’s junkets actually come across as pretty good stuff for a CinC.

• 3. Bigfoot  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  If the number of combat missions, not to mention military medals and commendations, was better experience for CinC then by your reasoning Kerry was a much better candidate than Bush.

  And Senator Clinton’s husband, twice successfully nominated by Kerry’s party, had no qualifications for CinC whatsoever.

• 4. LiberalNitemare  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  If its 3AM and there is a National Security issue with a pressing need for someone to queitly drink coffee with another head of states wife, Hillarys my go to guy

• 5. Michael  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  The Hildebeast is claiming that many years experience as a waitress somehow qualifies her to be the chef. I’m sure she’s had plenty of “experiences” thanks in large part to her philandering hubby, she has zip for experience to be CinC.

• 6. William Teach  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm

  Of course the vast majority of sentient beings on the planet would by now agree that Kerry was most certainly a better candidate then Bush.

  More “1 World” bs from phil. You do understand that all those sentient beings have no vote in America, right?

  PS: Bush had a higher GPA then Kerry! Hahahahahahahaha!

  It’s 3am and there’s a national security issue. Billy Jeff has just apparently slept with one of the wives of a Muslim leader.

• 7. Diana Powe  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  So, Mark, can you regale us all with the extensive military experience of President Ronald Reagan, the icon of the Republican Party?

• 8. plainjane  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  Please don’t go here after what you did to Kerry. It is just not right and makes you all look foolish.

• 9. Michael  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm

  “after what you did to Kerry.”

  What exactly did we do to Kerry, I mean beside kick his ass up between his shoulder blades?

• 10. Diana Powe  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Michael,

  That was an impressively juvenile string of words you just typed. Congratulations.

• 11. Diana Powe  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  Let’s see here:

  Popular vote:

  Bush - 50.7%
  Kerry - 48.3%

  Electoral votes:

  Bush - 286
  Kerry - 251

  Wow! A landslide! I guess President Bush must be basking in a huge approval rating right now. Right?

• 12. Mark Noonan  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

  If you lose the Superbowl by three points, you still lost, Diana…you can salve your (apparantly) continuing wounds from 2004 with that, but it doesn’t change the fact that Kerry is a loser with a capital “L”.

• 13. Mark Noonan  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  Diana Powe,

  It was Reagan’s two terms as governor of California which prepped him for the Presidency…Hillary has 6+ years as a Senator and some junketing as First Lady. Obama has 3+ years as a Senator. John McCain has a 22 year career as a sailor plus 22+ years as a Senator.

  Gee, I wonder whom among the three is most ready to lead from day one?

• 14. Michael  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm

  Thanks for the numbers. Looks like Kerry still lost. That must be why Bush is the president.
  Oh, and in our system if you lose, you lose. Only losers care about the margin of their defeat.
  And thanks for the attempt to change the subject. I asked what it was we did to Kerry and you talk about approval ratings.

• 15. William Teach  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  I’m sure plainjane is referring to the “swiftboating” of Kerry, you know, that whole “telling the truth” thing. Liberals really hate when we refuse to roll over and play dead and instead go out and tell the truth.

  And they damned sure didn’t like a group going out there like all their numerous “independent and non-partisan” groups throwing smear after smear.

  And, if the libs want to go there, one word: Rathergate.

• 16. Almiranta  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  Diana, you have spent way too much time trying to impress us with how smart you are to try the dumb broad thing now.

  You know perfectly well that the vote count was not relevant because not all ballots were counted. You know perfectly well that each and every state has, and had during the last two presidential elections, a policy of not counting absentee ballots if it was statistically proven that those ballots could not change the designation of that state’s Electoral College votes.

  Therefore, millions of absentee ballots were not counted. And statistically, absentee ballots lean heavily toward the conservative side, the vast majority of them being from military personnel.

  When and if the rules are changed so that every single ballot which is cast properly (that is, in a way which makes it absolutely clear, without any need of interpretation the intention of the voter) is then counted, either side can claim whatever status is conveyed by winning the “popular vote”. And you can claim whatever obscure point you were trying to make by pointing out that Bush didn’t get a “landslide” of votes, even knowing that so many ballots were discarded unread.

  As for Saint Kerry, he and he alone chose to make his Viet Nam experience the keystone of his campaign. He and he alone chose to indentify himself as a war hero. And he did this with the full knowledge of what could, and probably would, be unearthed after he made these claims and asserted that they were proof of his qualifications to be President.

  He already knew that he had not received his first “wound” in enemy action. He already knew of the other incidents in his extremely short career which would probably be made public. He took his chances: First, that he would get away with his highly inflated claims of military heroism, and second that the highly emotional and anti-conservative radical base of his party would overlook fact after fact if those facts did not support their biases.

  He was wrong on the first count, and right on the second. As proved by plainjane, among others, who can still be outraged and indignant at the very temerity of those who dared–DARED!!!– to correct misstatements and provide truth to balance lies.

  And Obama is playing to the same base….

  And, according to the most rabidly radical of the Lefties, those who are this very moment pinning Barack’s poster over their beds and swooning at his every word, if he is elected and takes even one single military action, he will be—- a chickenhawk.

• 17. christian Wright  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  I believe McCain’s violent temper and emotional outbursts may be related to PTSD.

  Imagine a CIC quickly approaching senility and probably untreated PTSD.

  Do you think the nation will want to replace a mentally incompetent president with a psychologically suspect president?

  Who could trust a person like that?

• 18. Almiranta  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  CW, do you kiss you mama wif dat mouf?Oooh, what a nasty little piece of work you are.

  But a valuable reminder of how low the Left will go.

• 19. Terry Ott  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  The Kerry virus is spreading, apparently. As mentioned above, Kerry showed monumental stupidity to throw down the “war hero” claim considering what people knew about that. And now we have a lawyer, spouse, Senator (through connections) campaigning on the basis of us wanting HER on the receiving end of the call that may require a military response, quickly or eventually.

  When she should have “gone to war” over her husband’s aggressive sexual infidelities, she went all Chamberlain on it. She threw a fit, made him sleep on the couch, acted surprised, cried some for public effect, and then smoothed things over and went cruising on in pursuit of her own personal mission of showing him up by being POTUS. No thanks.

  If you have no convictions, it’s damned hard to have the “courage of your convictions”. Deep down, I think Wes Clark must understand that, if he were being honest with himself.

• 20. Willem van Oranje  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  And the Almiranta sails again, long on stuff, but short on facts.

  The Swiftboats have been thoroughly debunked. An early member of the group has even distanced himself from the group and said the following: “It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.“

• 21. Diana Powe  |  March 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm

  Almiranta,

  My point was intended to point out the juvenile level of Michael’s “ass kick” statement, which comment stands. I’m completely aware of the fact that George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. I’m also aware of the fact that we’ll be permanently rid of his presidency in 324 days.

  What I find fascinating is the fetishization of the role of the President as Commander in Chief (said in a hushed reverential tone) as though the President of the United States were Henry V at Agincourt. If that were the relevant comparison, which it is not, then Senator Kerry had it all over President Bush because he’d actually commanded men in combat. As noted, the Kerry campaign’s approach to that was monumentally stupid simply because the President is not Henry V and the fighting in Iraq, which still continues four years later, is not Agincourt.

  Of course, if the Kerry campaign had responded aggressively to the political hackery of the Swift Boaters (which has lent their group’s name to a commonly used pejorative), they might have managed to get the campaign back to something relevant rather than the fighting in Vietnam three decades in the past.

• 22. J's Cafe Nette&hellip  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am

  How Low Can They Go?

  Being hit in the butt with a few pieces of raw rice does not compare to being in captivity in a cage for 5 1/2 years. Yes, I’m comparing John Kerry to John McCain because the old dog Gloria Steinhem from the ERA days has brought up the service o…

• 23. Darva Conger  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 am

  “John McCain, looks like the guy that goes to the curb for the paper and locks himself outside of the house.”

  –David Letterman

• 24. LaMano  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 am

  It’s 3:00 AM and your husband has yet to return home. He swore off his philandering but you’re not sure he can be trusted. Who should you call? Who is best to console you and understands your situation? HILLARY can take THAT call.

• 25. Diane Tomlinson  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am

  being governor of Texas, having failed at every business venture you’ve ever tried and being the privileged son of a former President is “better experience for CinC than 23 combat missions; showing extreme courage under the harshest of conditions for years; the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, the Distinguished Flying Cross; being commander of a squadron; working with Congress to fund new supercarriers and retiring as a Naval captain?”

  Hey that’s catchy it would have worked for McCain in 2000 if he had hung in there!

• 26. MorrisMajor  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  CBS bogus story aside, why couldn’t Bush positively refute the claim that he wiggled out of ANG commitment? What happened to all the records? My money is that he didn’t properly muster out on it and had help covering it up! Just like Cheney and his delay in reporting an almost fatal shooting accident, what was covered up? Of course, only a rotten liberal would question those points because they they hate God and Christians and only liberals can be corrupt and dishonest cause they are moral relavatists.

• 27. Diana Powe  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Very nicely done comment on the topic:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbek46GB-zU

• 28. Michael  |  March 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  I guess I’ll never know what we did to J. Fraud Kerry.