Villainous Company

YES, it was a botched joke.
A botched BAD joke.

On Cavuto this afternoon, his guests were three parents of military servicemembers. Two had lost their sons in Iraq. They cited all the things you did in your post, Cass.

I tend to agree with them. It's the very last straw that broke the camel's back.
AND it's karma.
Delicious, wonderful, warm, gooey karma.
I love it but then I love this country and I respect our President enough not to attempt to make a joke (insult) about him during a time of war.
That's just me and according to Francois and his elitist bastard cronies, I'm just too dumb to know what's right.
I'm not Kerry Smart.

FOX NEWS: "Breaking News >> Kerry Apologizes to Troops, Families for 'Poorly Stated Joke'

Why the HELK should something so basic....so commonly decent have to be a BREAKING news line??? Bottom line: Kerry kinda rang a bell.

And defending him from Max Cleland:
But former Georgia Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, another combat veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, said Kerry is speaking on behalf of millions of fed-up Americans.

"I think people will remember John Kerry's press conference today as the moment we Democrats stopped once and forever accepting the disgraceful smears of Republicans. John Kerry showed our party how to fight back with the truth," Cleland said.

"John Kerry is a patriot who has fought tooth and nail for veterans ever since he came home from Vietnam. He has stood with his brothers in arms unlike this administration, which exploits our troops to make a political point and divide America," he added.

WTH????

Yes, Max Cleland lost 3 limbs in service to this country---but is the mind considered a limb?

LaShawn and James Lileks both say they thought the original statement was about George Bush. I played it, without preamble, for my sister, who does not follow politics closely. She thought it was an insult to those serving in the military, and was shocked. (She might have even voted for Kerry, I'm not sure.)

My very first impression was astonishment that he would be so demeaning to servicemen. When I read what he was "supposed" to have said, it's really quite remarkable that he felt he could get off the hook of this vile slander of the military, with the excuse that he was trying to insult the Commander-in-Chief. It shows what a low creature he actually is.

LaShawn seems to think that Republicans are being opportunistic about this statement. I think from the thousands of responses that bloggers and talk show hosts have received, it is clear that most people heard the same thing my sister and I did - an insult to those serving in Iraq. Their reaction is the same as the knee-jerk reflex. They know what they heard, and they know how they feel about it. No spin machine caused this outrage.

Leaving all this aside, the first report I read about this said that the statement was met with some cheers and some gasps. People present at the time Kerry said it were shocked by it, hence the gasps. If Kerry was in possession of two brain cells, he would have heard the gasps, replayed what he had just said in his mind, checked his notes, and realized he'd botched his insult of the President, and instead insulted the troops. He could have fixed it at the time, but vanity and sense of entitlement insulate him from understanding the responses of normal people.

Even at the first press conference, he could have said he made a mistake, but he cannot, because, Do You Know Who He Is? He is Jean-Fraude Kerrie, who was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple, and now thinks that marrying inherited wealth twice makes him better than us.

What a dullard. Thank God he lost his bid for the Presidency.

if George Bush is a lazy, ignorant moron, what does that make those who voted for the President? After all, they voted for a stupid, ill-educated, intellectually lazy man who got us "stuck" in Iraq?

Thank-you!! This has been infuriating me for years. "Bush is a chimp, Bush is a moron," and by direct and deliberate inference, "so are all of you dipwads that voted for him."

The pompous arrogance of these self-described intellectuals is unbearable, and the self-myopia of demonstrably inferior, mediocre posers like Kerry is stunning.

I fail to understand how "I meant to insult the President, not the troops" is any less offensive. These are not the words or actions of an honorable man, and his weak non-apology doesn't change a thing. Hell, even a sincere apology (assuming the man is even capable of having a sincere belief) would not absolve Kerry in light of his decades of treasonous, despicable behavior.

Thanks, Massachusetts. Who would have thought you could find an even more reprehensible representative than Ted Kennedy?

Too bad Kerry left out the word "US" when he uttered that phrase. The word "US" was only brought up after the damage was done. If "US" was in the prepared remarks then intellectually superior Kerry can't even read. I believe the word "US" was inserted in the speech after the fact.

One other point, Hillary Clinton said his remarks were "inappropriate" which infers that what Kerry said was true just spoken in the wrong venue.

Any questions on how the democrats really feel about our military and foreign policy?! The hole just keeps getting dug deeper.

"if George Bush is a lazy, ignorant moron, what does that make those who voted for the President? After all, they voted for a stupid, ill-educated, intellectually lazy man who got us "stuck" in Iraq?"

Wow. So then by that definition, for example, you can then labeling all those who voted for Clinton as liars and adulterers. Because since Clinton is a proven liar and alduterer, then those who supported him are liars and adulterers as well? Please. Do you really want to do that? I don't, and I won't.

Where does it all end?

Wow! Botch joke, or not, a lot of hand wringing and defensiveness over a guy who lost in 2006. I thought John Kerry and Dems were insignificant? What could be the reason for highlighting this item? Why, an election six days away. Let's see if we are going to have any illegal overseas ballots flood in after the cut-off like in 2000 and then you all will be screaming how the Dems hate the military again.

REalize that only one person in the current cabinet (not including general's, mind you)served in the military. Rummy for two years. Bush and Cheney avoided war. Kerry fought for his country, even though you folks, admitting you like Bush the chimp, tried to discredit him. Max Cleland, Jim Webb...vets. Not George Allen. Not Tom DeLay. Again, Cassandra, no outrage over Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, or Mark Foley on your "truth" website for the past weeks, months, but his comes up, and we can't stop you from talking. Have you seen "Iraq 4 Sale" yet? Whose supporting the troops? That movie shows you it's not the Bush Whitehouse.

He lost in 2004 not 2006 for one thing.
Second thing, the military ballots in 2000 were not illegal, they were posted within the appropriate time frame just not received. If a military member's vote doesn't count, who the hell's does?
Third, since you refer to those ballots as illegal, why wouldn't I think that you hate the military.
You want to deny them a basic right they were seeking to utilitze but couldn't because of military mail delivery.
Fourth, if military service were the criteria for giving weight to opinions, if you haven't served, you need to shut it, right?
Fifth, this is not the place to start prancing and posturing about who's supporting the troops.
You're in "support the troops central"

Last, if you're so concerned about the "truth", you wouldn't be here defending John Pussoir Kerry.

1. Kerry is positioning himself to run in 2008.

2. Serving in the military is not (according to the Constitution) a precondition for serving on the Cabinet, thank God, nor for being President.

Hmmmm...let's see? Thomas Jefferson, whom the Dems are always quoting as if he were God? Did he ever serve in the military? John Adams? Gosh...none of them? Unbelievable.

3. Why on earth would I be "outraged" about a man who had already resigned and who (from all accounts) was waiting until these pages turned 18 (that is, after all, why he was so concerned about when their BIRTHDAYS were, unlike Gerry Studds who just proceeded merrily along and had sex with them anyway, an act the Democratic leadership proceeded to bless as "consensual sex" as they returned him to the House for five more terms with their best wishes. Some "outrage".

Got hypocrisy?

And no, I haven't seen your dumb movie.

Cass,
Don't you have waaaaay back in the archives the very proof that already shot down that ancient, beat to smitherines dead horse B.S. about Bush "not serving? I can't believe how LONG a mantra lasts. As tiring as those e-mail hoaxes that cycle around for 10 years or more and never seem to die. Like the characters in a "scarey movie". UGH!

I mean...really, you'd have thought Daddy Bush would have been prescient and had enough foreknowledge enough to see to it that Junior would have had some battle front time, so he *could be POTUS* in the future.

Would someone PLEASE service the Dismalcrat jukebox and put in some new frickin' tunes!!!

Yes, I do but Miguel won't read it, or respond to it, just like he didn't bother to read the link with all those quotes from officers and enlisted men who served their WHOLE combat tours in Vietnam but who must ALL be lying if John Kerry is telling the truth.

You see, it's all a big conspiracy. The literally THOUSANDS of men who honorably served in Vietnam and say they never say war crimes being committed "on a day to day basis with the full knowledge of all levels of command" as John Kerry testified UNDER OATH to the Senate are all lying bastards and John Kerry alone is telling the truth.

Welcome to Miguel's world. And you wonder why I don't bother to argue with him?

"Thomas Jefferson, whom the Dems are always quoting as if he were God? Did he ever serve in the military?"

Speaking as one of those Democrats who so quotes him, I do believe he was Commander in Chief there for a while. If I recall correctly, he fought America's first war against Muslim terrorists -- the Barbary states pirates. During this war, he commanded naval forces and Marine raiders, with such effect as to free the fledgling Republic from the tribute that many European states paid.

My new t-shirt...

I'm a dumb American and proud of it!

Of course somebody has to read it to me...

Grim, if being Commander in Chief counted then Bush wouldn't be taking crap for never having served. That's really pushing it.

And I didn't pick up anything about barbary pirates in the 3 online bios I checked before I commented so I will have to defer to you on that one.

"...then Bush wouldn't be taking crap..."

The real hurdle to get over is, you have to stop giving Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton crap about it.

On reflection, though, I think that's fair. Serving as President is service, doubtless one that costs you years off your life from stress and weight on the soul. It may be that you served badly instead of well, but you served.

But I don't think I have ever given Clinton a hard time about not serving. Military service has never been something I considered at all necessary, or even desirable, in a President. What I have given Clinton a hard time about is two things:

1. His open contempt for the military as evidenced by various written statements of his and certain acts.

2. Lying to his ROTC officer. That was dishonorable, and fair game, IMO.

Sorry, you don't get off on your behavior whether or not you have served. I think I have been consistent on this.

"Words have meaning, and even the most generous interpretation of what are purported to be Kerry's prepared remarks shows them to be profoundly insulting"...

I agree and add that I believe John Kerr-less' “botched joke” was intended to be a slam on George Bush but he in reality committed the proverbial “Freudian Slip” and said what he really thinks about soldiers, education and Iraq. Why else would he have spent the last thirty plus years defending his traitorous stance on Vietnam and soldiers! He’s a “botched joke” all by himself!

Well, like JF Kerry, I was being unclear. When I said that "you have to stop giving Clinton a hard time," I really meant that I have to.

Now, that's hard. :)

John Kerry is being bashed because he blew a
punch line.

When he made that joke, he was trying to make
the following point: Because George Bush failed
to do his homework, we are now stuck in Iraq.
He was not trying to insult the intelligence of
our troops.

Instead of bashing Kerry for a botched joke,
perhaps we should be asking the question: Did
George Bush do his homework?

Bush under estimated the terrorist threat in
Iraq, despite the fact that he went there to
fight terrorism. He under estimated the
sectarian violence, despite the fact that Iraq
is composed of three ethnic groups who dislike
each other. And he under estimated the number
of troops needed in Iraq, ignoring the advice of
a number of his top military people. As a
result, there was no adequate plan to win the
peace in Iraq, and no adequate means to secure
that peace.

Apparently, George Bush failed to do his
homework.

Perhaps, George Bush who should apologize to our
troops for that failure. They are paying a
heavy price because of it.

And so is our nation.

This issue boils down to the following:
"botched joke by John Kerry" versus "botched
policy in Iraq by George Bush".

And one last thought. If George Bush failed to
do his homework on Iraq, did he fail to do his
homework on how to combat the terrorist threat?

Ralph, you just don't get it. 80% of the people that post here really dis-like Kerry from the get-go, so they're hardly gonna cut him any slack. I'd bet a good 50% or more of that 80% are unwillinging to acknowledge that Kerry mis-spoke in the first instance. Even tho it is (a) patently obvious that Kerry'd have to be dumber than dirt to have intended to say what he did and (b) patently obvious that (epithets/"political exaggeration/rants" aside) Kerry is not, in fact, dumber than dirt.

Add on to that the fact that our Dear Leader saw fit to react as if Kerry was (a) both dumber than dirt and (b) disrespectful to the troops; i.e., as if Kerry had made "the remark" intentionally. Pert near anything the Prez has to say/do/not do is taken as golden here. Indeed, I can't recall any criticism of GWB here at all from the HVES and most all commenters. Hence, accepting the "mispeaking" "spin" (i.e., bowing to a reality-based approach to the phenomenon) by necessity would entail an implied criticism of the President, which is a major faux pas, terra incognita and/or not-to-be-contemplated. That about clinches the question of how "the incident" is viewed.

Finally, many "die-hards" on the right are ever-so-anxious about losing control of the House and/or Senate, so there is a political/electoral angle at play, either consciously or not. Kerry's foot-in-mouth is not likely to help Democratic candidates, and a substantial portion of the right (including, of course, the Administration itself) is (in these seemingly dire times for the GOP) more than happy to try to make politial hay out of the gaffe.

Did either of you even bother to *read* anything I wrote? If you disagree with it, that is one thing, but I don't see either of you addressing the central point:

WHAT HE SAYS HE MEANT TO SAY IS JUST AS INSULTING AS WHAT HE ACTUALLY *DID* SAY.

I do acknowledge that he misspoke.

dgf, on the other hand, is still maintaining (despite my having provided three instances where Kerry has, in fact, been "stupid" (if that's what you want to call it) enough to insult the military) that he would never do such a thing!

Wow.

Just go ahead and ignore evidence that is staring you right in the face.

There is absolutely, categorically NO WAY any person of even marginal good will can maintain that a United States Naval Officer can say that US troops:

1. were committing war crimes
2.on a day to day basis
3. with the full knowledge of their commands AT ALL LEVELS

If this was true, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, breached his duty by not reporting what he say while still in theater.

Finally, it is profoundly disrespectful both to the troops and to American voters to tell them that the President they elected is stupid, poorly educated, and ignorant. Such epithets are juvenile and belong on a playground, not a campaign podium.

If Kerry is so smart, why can't he make a principled argument?

Why does he have to resort to namecalling to make his point? Especially namecalling that is a backhanded insult to any voter who supports his opponent ("Hey - you elected an ignorant, stupid, incompetent man! Not one that I just personally disagree with, and here are all the reasons why I'd do a better job and you should vote for me, but a moron! So what does it say about YOU that you still support him and his "stupid" war?")

Insulted by that argument?

You bet I am.

And if you can't figure out why, frankly I have to wonder about your critical thinking skills, my friend.

When I want to persuade, I analyze the reasons my opponent is wrong and try to give the reasons I think my side is right. I don't say, "Hey, you're an ignornant dumb-ass for disagreeing with me".

That's what Kerry just said, both in his prepared remark and in his 'botched joke'.

Think.

Geez, Cass. Take a chill pill.

You call on me to address your "central point" - that assuming Kerry's explanation is honest, that what he intended to say is as objectionable as what he did say. Do I have it right? (I, foolishly, had thought your central point was to give vent to your longstanding disdain and contempt for Kerry).

Well, I think that your central point is ridiculous. Totally absurd. Your logic is certainly inventive, but not very sound.

Clearly, smart people can do stupid things. I'm sure many smart people have made elementary errors in arithmetic. I'm sure many smart people voted for Duke Cunningham. I'm sure many smart people voted for GWB. I'm sure many smart people who voted for GWB now regret having not exercised more discretion and thought before casting that vote. I'm sure many smart people feel their vote for GWB was justified and the intelligent choice at the time, but that subsequent events/information have demonstated that choice to have been unfortunate. I'm sure many smart and informed people continue to think GWB is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Obviously, tho, just 'cause you or Frank or Karen down the road voted for an intellectually lazy man doesn't mean that you (or Frank, etc.) are intellectually lazy. Maybe you recognized some of GWB's obvious limitations at the time, but bit the bullet because of his strengths or because of Kerry's obvious limitations. I don't know. There are many factors, no doubt, which lead people to vote as they do, including what party affiliation one has, how one was raised, how one reacts viscerally to the opponent, how much the candidate reminds one of his father, what the party platform is, what promise of personal benefit can be perceived by electing one candidate over another, etc. etc. etc. To paraphrase you -- "And if you can't figure out why [this is the case], frankly I have to wonder about your critical thinking skills, my friend. * * * Think"

Just for the record, thanks for the clarification that you acknowledge Kerry did not intend to speak as he did. It certainly was unclear to me from your post that that was your position (there seemed to be a certain ambiguity there, especially given the long excerpt from Hewitt which you provided)

Actually I took no position on whether he "intended" to speak as he did, because only John Kerry can answer that question. I see it as beside the point and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But well let me see if I understand your point here:

I'm sure many smart people who voted for GWB now regret having not exercised more discretion and thought before casting that vote. I'm sure many smart people feel their vote for GWB was justified and the intelligent choice at the time, but that subsequent events/information have demonstated that choice to have been unfortunate. I'm sure many smart and informed people continue to think GWB is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You're sure many smart and informed people continue to think that a stupid, poorly educated, intellectually lazy man is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Let me suggest, dgf, that your logic is somewhat lacking here. Because either Kerry's statement is true or false.

If it is true and Bush really is all three of the things Kerry says, i.e., dumb, poorly educated after having earned one more degree than Kerry has and better grades, and intellectually lazy, than anyone who continues to support him at this juncture is BY DEFINITION either:

1. not too bright
2. not well informed

How is my point not valid? How, by coming right out and saying our President is an ill-educated moron, could Kerry not be delivering a HUGE backhand slap in the face to the President's supporters? Are we supposed to be so dumb that for nigh on six years we never noticed such an obvious fact, or does it take a Yale man with a C average to notice such delicately nuanced truths and interpret them for us proles?

If, on the other hand, Kerry's PREPARED REMARKS - not his botched joke - was dumb and insulting (IOW, he resorted to a baseless ad hominem attack that also backhandedly insulted the 1/2 of America that voted for Bush and the sizeable portion of the military which continues to respect and admire him today).

And frankly, this from you is also condescending and insulting, and you don't even realize it:

There are many factors, no doubt, which lead people to vote as they do, including what party affiliation one has, how one was raised, how one reacts viscerally to the opponent, how much the candidate reminds one of his father, what the party platform is, what promise of personal benefit can be perceived by electing one candidate over another, etc. etc.

Does it ever occur to you that people might simply disagree with your personal assessment of the man?

Does it ever occur to you that people might see the world through a different lens, or that people might have voted for Bush because THEY AGREE WITH HIS IDEAS?

Does it ever occur to you that disagreeing with you does not make a person stupid?

Because there is no room in Kerry's prepared remark for that possibility.

Words are chosen precisely for the effect desired. Which is why we measure them, sift them, use them to tell stories, to relate humor, sadness and manipulate the masses. I am sure that our legal friends who comment here from time to time would agree. Words are powerful.

Sen. Kerry chose those words for a reason, and given his past performances and accompanying
outrages over his verbal faux pas, we should not be surprised but turn our backs and say "Things never change." They need to. Our leaders have this patronizing attitude about their constituents. They need to be reminded that what we the people give we the people can take away. I could care less what the man thinks or says in private. I could care less what he says in public as a private citizen.

But what he says as a so called representative of the US government and a member of a party
that is jockeying for a majority does matter.
What he said under oath then and now does matter.
And he needs to learn that lesson.

Ralph, I agree that we as a nation have paid a great price because of this war. Let me list the ways:
Conscription - this darn draft has savaged the
youth of this country - oh wait, not this war.

War rationing - no new tires for that old jalopy
and, sorry Cass, no silk stockings this year.
Wait a minute, different war.

Disrupted economy - oh how the war has decimated
our once-thriving economy. Oops, forget it,
record-setting Dow - my bad.

Higher taxes - have to pay for this war, you
know. Crap, I'm sorry, huge tax cuts and
record-setting tax revenues - what was I
thinking.

Stalemate for over 50 years with no end in
sight - what am I thinking, Korea?

Yes, Ralph, a great price has been paid by a very tiny proportion of our military, a price has been paid by the rest of us who have loved ones in this fight, and little to no price has been paid by the rest of you. What great price, Ralph? This nation goes along, for the most part, blissfully unaware of that there is a real war being fought. Is there a great price to our psyche because of that evil W? I'll tell you what's really happening - so many left-wingers like you allow your fertile mind to produce the illusion that you actually are paying a great price. Your white-hot hatred of our President didn't start with this war - no, it started the day he was selected, not elected. Everything else has been predicated on that and nothing else. But I sort of like this apology thing that Mr. Kerry has started and I'd like to join in. I apologize to you, Ralph, for the blunder of assuming that you had even one clue about this war.

I'm shocked that LaShawn Barber would buy into Kerry's line of bull that, "The White House," deliberately, "misinterpreted," what he said...to mean exactly what he SAID. This is my take:

1. The claims about what he was, "scripted," to say, and what actually came out, don't wash. I saw a comparison of the supposed script, and what he actually said, and unless he is one helluva poor reader...which is, ironically, how he and his Democrat friends characterize the POTUS.

2. If his story is true, and he intended to attack the President with a pathetic joke, I agree wholeheartedly with Cass. He is insulting everyone who supports this president.

3. I also can't help seeing the irony in the fact that his initial defense was NOT to admit his mistake, but to turn himself into a, "victim," of the, "Despicable Republican attack machine," at the same time he was attacking the President for, "misleading the country into war...blah, blah, blah."

4. Anyway you slice it, the guy's an absolute jerk, who loathes the military. The evidence is there for that charge, without, "misinterpreting," his recent remarks.

As I approach an age where my eyes don't work as good as they used to, I inadvertantly posted this message in the wrong comments section. I hope I placed it in the correct comments section this time.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. America is involved in a clash of civilazations. Here is a piece I recently wrote:

World War Three

Richard S. Lowry

7/12/06

We are living in turbulent times, but you would never know it walking the streets of America. America has been at war, or should I say that America’s enemies have been at war, since the taking of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The World has been involved in this slow-motion war since 1979. Yet, the everyday American does not feel the effects of this conflict. We all live in such comfort and security that we do not realize that our “Camelot” is under siege.

In years gone by, when aggressors attacked their enemy, it was quite clear to everyone taking refuge in the castle that a state of war existed. Everyone knew that they were in peril. Today, we are fighting a war halfway around the World. Surely, our economy has been affected, but not enough for the American public to feel the pain of war. For us, the war on terror is a nightly news item and a political football to be kicked around in the nation’s capitol and on news talk shows. Only the families and friends of our casualties feel the pain of this war.

It wasn’t until 9-11 that the American people were shocked into the reality that we were at war. It wasn’t until those majestic buildings came crashing to the ground in a cloud of crumbling debris and broken bodies that we realized that we were vulnerable. We all woke up to the reality that there were people in the world that meant us harm, people who were dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. But, soon we forgot. Soon we let our comfortable lives lull us back into a sense of complacency and false security.

Wake up America!

Nothing has changed. Usama bin Laden is still out there. The Taliban continue to fight in Afghanistan and Americans are dying nearly every day in Iraq. Our struggle continues. Our enemies still plot our destruction and Israel is under siege. Bringing our troops home from Iraq will not change anything except to embolden our enemies.

People who study history and warfare understand that the only way to win a war is to eliminate ones opponent’s will to continue. Our enemies understand this as well. They know that America will lose heart and that we will eventually call for the withdrawal of our forces from the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our enemies know that it is only a matter of time until victory is theirs.

What if we lose?

What would happen if gasoline rose to $20 per gallon? How many Americans would lose their jobs? How many small businesses would go under? What would happen to our economy? Who in this World would come to our aid if our economy were thrown into chaos? And, who would stop the Islamic Fundamentalists from oppressing women, destroying Israel and returning much of the eastern world to the Stone Age? If you are anti-war, you should be cheering for our victory in Iraq. If we lose, war the likes of which the world has never seen will break out when the fanatic factions in the Middle East attempt to wipe out Israel – and they will.

We are surely in the midst of World War Three and we must win this conflict or Armageddon will surely follow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard S. Lowry is the author of The Gulf War Chronicles and the newly released Marines in the Garden of Eden. He has spent years studying our military involvement in Southwest Asia and is an expert on our struggles in Iraq. He is currently working on the third book in his series, Viking in the Valley. It will tell the story of the 2d Marine Regiment’s latest deployment to the Al Anbar Province and their year-long struggle to tame Iraq’s wild west. Visit www.marinesinthegardenofeden.com for more information on Richard Lowry and his work.

I'm going to take a decidedly different tack with this one. I don't really care if John Kerry botched a punchline on a joke or not. But what he said sounded outragreous, and if it gives the GOP a knife to stick in him and twist it to the point even the drive by media can't ignore it, life doesn't get much better than this.

What I think has been failed to be mentioned is that John Kerry was the Democrats choice for President in 2004. This means that they thought he was the best man for the job. What he says, and what he thinks of us uneducated peons tells us exactly how we'll be governed should the Dems gain control of congress.

This should frighten any thinking working man. To have this smarmy, elitist, yale gigilo looking down his nose at us makes me want to see it bloodied.

(And it's getting bloodied as we speak. :))