Well to answer your question yes, I think what she did is wrong. Absolutely wrong. But she is not running for office and there is a big difference between a private citizen who is related to a candidate mouthing off, and Cheney and Hassert saying that to vote against Bush is to invite a terrorist attack.
Rob
· 5 years ago
In your first comment you asserted that she was only a private citizen and relative of Kerry voicing her private opinion. That isn't true. She is a representative of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
Would it have made a difference to you if Cheney's comments had come out of a Bush/Cheney campaign staffer instead of the VP himself? Because I don't think it would have made a difference to you at all.
I understand that you find Cheney's comments insulting, but there's some truth in them as well. John Kerry has not convinced me of the fact that he takes international terrorism seriously. And if he isn't taking that issue seriously then electing him does put this country in greater danger of getting hit. A lot of people on the right feel that way including myself. Maybe you disagree, but that you do disagree doesn't necessarily make our point a bad one nor does voicing that opinion make us bad people.
And, when comparing the comments above to Cheney's comments, I have to believe that the comments from the Kerry campaign were much worse.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
No I would not have thought it as bad had it been a staffer. For example, I dont think the Bush staffer who said about underemployed people, "If they dont like their job, they should find a new one, or take a prozac," represented the Presidents feelings about the underemployed or unemployed do you? Secondly Rob, you dragged me into this by tracking back to my post. NO I dont think you are bad people, or I would not support your blog, link to it or consider you a friend.
Kerry may not have convinced you. I doubt he ever would, considering your strong and partisan support for Bush, and that is your right. I dont begrudge you for it, in fact I respect it.
Likewise, there are many who feel that making comments like Cheney and Hassert have undermine the political process and are nothing more than propaganda. Despite Right Wing efforts to blame 9/11 on Clinton, it happened on Bush's watch and ultimately history will record it as such. It will also record the failings of previous Presidents in preventing the build up that allowed 9/11 to happen, including Republican Administrations that supported Bin Laden during his defining years as a Mujahadeen leader. No one's hands are completely clean in the issue. To make such claims about Kerry being soft on Terrorism is tantamount to calling him a traitor before the fact, it would also assume that the American People would not demand that our President have as a top priority keeping us safe, and that a likely to be Republican Congress would sit idly by and do nothing, all ridiculous assumptions and nothing more that propaganda. That is my opinion.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
I understand that, but I have not heard Kerry voice that opionion. And I stand by my assertion that there is a big difference and one that I find insulting, when the VP of the United States and the Speaker of the House tells me that by voting against their parties candidate, I am voting to see my country attacked. There is no way to spin that story, and it is distinctly unamerican.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
What did you think of the comments by the Bush Cheney Staffer on Employment, were they discpicable as well?
And Cheney and Hassert are not making comments that are qualified as opinions, what they are saying is, if you vote wrong, there will be an attack and you will have noone but yourself to blame. That is a very big deal.
Rob
· 5 years ago
David, in the article it states that she's working for her brother's campaign in an effort to gather votes for Americans currently traveling or temporarily living abroad. She was speaking on behalf of the campaign.
Rob
· 5 years ago
I didn't mean to imply that you thought I was a bad person. Sorry if it came across that way.
I do, however, feel that you are making too much of these comments from Cheney and Hastert. I just did a post about the most recent comments from Haster and I think it sums up my stance on them quite nicely. Click here to read it.
National security is the biggest single issue in this election. It is also a binary issue. One set of candidates must convince voters that they can keep America safer than the other set of candidates. It has nothing to do with campaigning based on fear. Cheney and Hastert are trying to point out that Kerry/Edwards, in their opinions, are weak on national security. What is so wrong with that? I think the resentment toward comments like that have more to do with Democrats wanting to avoid the national security issue than it does with any real concern about "campaigning on fear."
I just don't see where its something to get offended about.
And I'll grant you the point you make about Kerry's sister's comments not coming from the mouth of the candidate. But that doesn't make them any less despicable. Honestly, I really think they're rather treacherous.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
No, I think I will pass Rob. You arent going to be convinced and niether will I. So it is another case of agree to disagree.
Rob
· 5 years ago
What did you think of the comments by the Bush Cheney Staffer on Employment, were they discpicable as well?
I think those comments were an unfortunate and ill-advised attempt at humor. Certainly untrue and embarrassing for the Bush campaign. But they differ in severity from Ms. Kerry's comments in Australia which were aimed at creating rancor toward the U.S. among the citizens of that nation.
That to me is a big difference. I don't see where the two can be compared.
And here is the quote from Cheney you're talking about:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.
He's saying that it is a danger, not a certainty. He is stating an opinion. He, obviously, believes that the Bush administration can keep America safer than Kerry/Edwards.
Tell me why it is wrong for him to express that feeling?
Rob
· 5 years ago
Alright David, but I'm still interested in hearing why Cheney's comments were so wrong if you feel like taking this up again later.
Alan E Brain
· 5 years ago
By the way, not too many people down here are taking Princess Diana Kerry seriously. We're not even irked at "foreign interference with local elections", what she said is just not worth worrying about.
OTOH Latham may beat Howard in the next elections, but if so, it will be on local issues. Both Howard and Latham engaged in a p*ssing contest on TV about who was going to be tougher on the Islamic terrorists. Howard said it was a global concern, Latham wanted to put resources only into our region (ie Indonesia - it is the largest Muslim country in the world, after all, and has had 3 spactacular bombings since 2002). Bookies are giving 3:1 odds on Howard, but I think he's more like 5:4 on.
Disclaimer : I'm voting Liberal. (Which in Oz means right-wing, what else did you expect?) Our Federal Election is in early October BTW.
All Comments
Would it have made a difference to you if Cheney's comments had come out of a Bush/Cheney campaign staffer instead of the VP himself? Because I don't think it would have made a difference to you at all.
I understand that you find Cheney's comments insulting, but there's some truth in them as well. John Kerry has not convinced me of the fact that he takes international terrorism seriously. And if he isn't taking that issue seriously then electing him does put this country in greater danger of getting hit. A lot of people on the right feel that way including myself. Maybe you disagree, but that you do disagree doesn't necessarily make our point a bad one nor does voicing that opinion make us bad people.
And, when comparing the comments above to Cheney's comments, I have to believe that the comments from the Kerry campaign were much worse.
Secondly Rob, you dragged me into this by tracking back to my post. NO I dont think you are bad people, or I would not support your blog, link to it or consider you a friend.
Kerry may not have convinced you. I doubt he ever would, considering your strong and partisan support for Bush, and that is your right. I dont begrudge you for it, in fact I respect it.
Likewise, there are many who feel that making comments like Cheney and Hassert have undermine the political process and are nothing more than propaganda. Despite Right Wing efforts to blame 9/11 on Clinton, it happened on Bush's watch and ultimately history will record it as such. It will also record the failings of previous Presidents in preventing the build up that allowed 9/11 to happen, including Republican Administrations that supported Bin Laden during his defining years as a Mujahadeen leader. No one's hands are completely clean in the issue.
To make such claims about Kerry being soft on Terrorism is tantamount to calling him a traitor before the fact, it would also assume that the American People would not demand that our President have as a top priority keeping us safe, and that a likely to be Republican Congress would sit idly by and do nothing, all ridiculous assumptions and nothing more that propaganda. That is my opinion.
And Cheney and Hassert are not making comments that are qualified as opinions, what they are saying is, if you vote wrong, there will be an attack and you will have noone but yourself to blame. That is a very big deal.
I do, however, feel that you are making too much of these comments from Cheney and Hastert. I just did a post about the most recent comments from Haster and I think it sums up my stance on them quite nicely. Click here to read it.
National security is the biggest single issue in this election. It is also a binary issue. One set of candidates must convince voters that they can keep America safer than the other set of candidates. It has nothing to do with campaigning based on fear. Cheney and Hastert are trying to point out that Kerry/Edwards, in their opinions, are weak on national security. What is so wrong with that? I think the resentment toward comments like that have more to do with Democrats wanting to avoid the national security issue than it does with any real concern about "campaigning on fear."
I just don't see where its something to get offended about.
And I'll grant you the point you make about Kerry's sister's comments not coming from the mouth of the candidate. But that doesn't make them any less despicable. Honestly, I really think they're rather treacherous.
I think those comments were an unfortunate and ill-advised attempt at humor. Certainly untrue and embarrassing for the Bush campaign. But they differ in severity from Ms. Kerry's comments in Australia which were aimed at creating rancor toward the U.S. among the citizens of that nation.
That to me is a big difference. I don't see where the two can be compared.
And here is the quote from Cheney you're talking about:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.
He's saying that it is a danger, not a certainty. He is stating an opinion. He, obviously, believes that the Bush administration can keep America safer than Kerry/Edwards.
Tell me why it is wrong for him to express that feeling?
OTOH Latham may beat Howard in the next elections, but if so, it will be on local issues. Both Howard and Latham engaged in a p*ssing contest on TV about who was going to be tougher on the Islamic terrorists. Howard said it was a global concern, Latham wanted to put resources only into our region (ie Indonesia - it is the largest Muslim country in the world, after all, and has had 3 spactacular bombings since 2002). Bookies are giving 3:1 odds on Howard, but I think he's more like 5:4 on.
Disclaimer : I'm voting Liberal. (Which in Oz means right-wing, what else did you expect?)
Our Federal Election is in early October BTW.