Tom Maguire reminds me of this truly outstanding quote from John Kerry yesterday during Meet The Press. I had intended to blog it, but forgot to with everything else going on. At any rate, check out this beauty:
MR. RUSSERT: Well, we’ll see if he runs it–“We have a generational responsibility to fix them.”
And then in 2003, you said–“Declaring `I am blessed to be wealthy,’ Senator John F. Kerry said that, if elected president, he would consider some form of means-testing for rich Americans as part of a broader review of ideas to shore up the Social Security system.” … But “`Rich people are getting checks from poor people well beyond what they put in the system,’ said Kerry. …Another idea Kerry said he would consider is raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. …`Maybe people ought to pay up to $100,000 or $120,000, I don’t know,’ the senator said.”
Specifically, Senator, do you still agree with yourself? Should we raise the retirement age or consider it? Should we raise the cap on income level that people pay payroll tax?
SEN. KERRY: Precisely what I said in 1996 is “We should consider” a number of these things. We did consider them. I considered them. Others did. I rejected them.
Move over Bill Clinton- thar’s a new sheriff in town. And the best is Kerry said it with a straight face!
*** Update ***
Jim Geraghty catches this gem:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?
SEN. KERRY: No, it’s more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago.
Then, a few seconds later:
MR. RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?
SEN. KERRY: Sure. And I’m glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I’ve said that a hundred times. But we’ve missed opportunity after opportunity along the way, Tim, to really make America safe and to bring the world to the cause.
Consistent as ever. We’re less safe because of what we’ve done in Iraq, and yet more safe at the same time.
‘Straight face’. That is the groaner of all groaners.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is remotely laughable about that statement. Kerry said he considered some changes to SS (I believe that is what the word “maybe” means) and rejected them. So?
Hrmm. Try this on, Space.
I think I will consider writing a nice letter to Ted Kennedy telling him how much I appreciate his service. There, I considered it. Not gonna happen.
I also liked Kerry’s remark (I’m quoting from from the MSNBC link you gave) that “I won the popular vote in the battleground states by two percentage points.” Wow, the jerk’s a winner after all!
I will be happy to untangle this vast puzzle for you, John.
The proposition that the present Iraqi government is non-hostile, yea, more than friendly, to us, while Saddam Hussein was extremely hostile to us is an entirely different proposition from the question of how safe we are in the world today compared to three years ago.
Hope this helps!
(The question of whether we are safer or not is a quite debatable one, though you may not agree; would you disagree with the assertion that there are a lot more people in Iraq in Iraq interested in killing Americans than there were three years ago, along with many people lacking said interest? Please be clear that I’m quite uninterested in arguing that America is less safe because of Iraq; I am quite prepared, however, to argue that there’s a non-loon argument to be made for the proposition; agree or disagree?)
Since the left is always screaming the real threat is Bin Laden, and the best he seems to be able to muster is a pathetic girlish whining video appearance imploring us to vote for the gigolo-traitor and repeating Mikey Moore talking points, I’d venture to suggest that by the left’s own standards we are very much safer.
Of course their standards seem to shift along with the goalposts at any given moment.
Man, I have no idea why those jerkwads in Iowa thought Kerry was the guy, I really don’t.