John Kerry’s Rebuttheadal


In Kerry’s response yesterday to the outcry over his astoundingly stupid remark about US military personnel:

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions.


Kerry cancels 3 campaign events after remarks
Senator won’t make appearances with Dem candidates following uproar

You were, uh, saying something about “real men”, Mr. Kerry?

Meanwhile, dumb hick unedumicated troops in Iraq have a response of their own:

Pic via Blackfive.

UPDATE: This just keeps getting better!

Yesterday: Sen. John Kerry: ‘I Apologize to No One’

Today: Kerry apologizes

What a boob.

UPDATE 2: I was sent a higher-res version of the pic, so I’ve upgraded. Click for a better look.


  1. He meant no offense to the troops – only to their commander and chief during a time of war. Yeah. Jerk. At least he’s been consistant at his flipping, and most of all, flopping.

  2. The thing about Kerry is that Bush was very very beatable in 2004. I’m basically a Republican, but I would have voted for a good Democrat candidate. Not because I hate Bush, but because Bush isn’t terribly strong in most areas. But Kerry acted like a moron. I don’t think he really *is* a moron. But he continually talks and acts like one. Moron, no. Boob, yes.

  3. I wouldn’t have voted for that idiot if he were the only one running. I remember when he accused my uncle and my friends fighting in Vietnam of being war criminals. I will always remember. He belongs in jail but deserves much worse.

  4. Dfens: To be very clear, I would never ever have voted for Kerry either. What I was getting at was that Bush could easily have been beaten by even a *marginally* competent opponent. Which Kerry was not. The thing is, I was voting almost completely on the War on Terror issue in 2004, and I probably will be in 2008, as well. So ‘competent’ means having a real plan to prosecute the war successfully and to build our military into a force that can both fight this low-intensity fight and also be prepared to take on higher-tech opponents. I hate to think I’ll be a single-issue voter again in two years, but I don’t think I’ll have a choice.

  5. What beautiful irony:John Kerry began his political career by bashing soldiers, and it has come to a crashing end because of John Kerry bashing soldiers.

  6. Moron, no. Boob, yes. Hey, the ugly guy married an ugly babe with mega-bucks. I guess that elevates him above the moron level.

  7. What exaxtly are our armed forces doing in Iraq that they have the spare time to consruct a thirty foot long banner? Or were they on orders to make the gigantic bannner?

  8. You know what’s sad in a way is this headline is definitely taking the spotlight away from this one: U.S. Productivity Was Unchanged Last Quarter; Costs Up 3.8% Interestingly enough, manufacturing productivity rose 8.6% during that same period and costs were down. Of course, on the other hand maybe it is a good thing because I really don’t think the Democrats have any plan that would actually increase productivity. Strangely, though, I found an interesting article in what I would consider to be a liberal rag (New Republic): For 25 years after World War II, widespread prosperity was a bedrock assumption among liberals. The Port Huron Statement, issued by the Students for a Democratic Society in 1962, famously began, ‘We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort… .’ There was good reason for such economic optimism: From 1947 to 1973, the median family income more than doubled. And so, with the middle class flourishing, economic liberalism concerned itself with the plight of those left behind–inner-city minorities, the rural poor, and so on. Since the economic pie was growing on its own, liberals’ chief concern was ensuring it was divvied up fairly. But, starting with the oil price shock of 1973, the spectacular postwar boom ground to a halt. For the next two decades, living standards barely rose at all. Wages would grow during an expansion, but only enough to recapture the ground that had been lost during the previous recession. (This period was neatly captured by the title of Paul Krugman’s 1990 book on the subject, The Age of Diminished Expectations.) The reason everything went bad all at once could be boiled down to a single word: productivity. Productivity, which is a measure of how much workers produce per hour, is the essential ingredient for higher material living standards. After all, the two ways to create more wealth are to work more hours or to be more productive in the hours we work–whether through technological advances, improved skills, organizational streamlining, or whatever. Since the number of hours in a day is finite–and, anyway, few people want to spend every waking hour slaving away–the only way for a society to enjoy greater material comfort over the long run is to increase productivity. As Krugman wrote, ‘Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything.’ In a widely noted 2005 paper, Northwestern economists Robert Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker concluded that, for some time now, productivity gains have gone entirely to the top one-tenth of the workforce. ‘A basic tenet of economic science is that productivity growth is the source of growth in real income per capita,’ they wrote. ‘But our results raise doubts, that we find surprising and even shocking, about the validity of that ancient economic paradigm.’ Ever since the Gordon and Dew-Becker paper, economists–especially those on the left–have been obsessed with the phenomenon, discussing it in the mystified tones astronomers might use for a previously undetected black hole in our region of space. ‘Part of the answer is, we don’t really know,’ confesses Peter Orszag, a former Clinton economic adviser. Isn’t it nice that we live in a service economy now, with our record trade deficits and stagnating wages and productivity? Makes one feel warm all over.