Dr. Frank's What's-it

I think you're overplaying this whole thing, dr. drudge. anyone with half a brain can see that he meant that terrorism shouldnt rule our lives here in america. perhaps the term nuisance was dismissive. however, it's totally defendable to alarmist republican attacks. cost him the election? hardly.

Maybe so, Captin, but I think they'll be able to make a pretty effective ad out of it.

You hide and watch, Christ. It's not just the word "nuisance." It's the idea that Kerry sees the jehadi threat as a law-enforcement problem. Now maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. And maybe you agree that maybe it *should* be regarded as a law-enforcement problem - that's a guaranteed loser, though, electorally, or so it seems to me. If Kerry had had more success in communicating a clear message on how he does see the threat of international Islamist terrorism, it would probably be as trivial as you say. But his main challenge in this election, by my lights, is convincing waverers that he takes this problem seriously enough. If he could do that, he'd be killing Bush everywhere. But as it stands, he's going to have to figure out a way to distance himself from these words without appearing weak or slippery, and that will be pretty tough in the face of a coordinated attack plan. If the election remains close, and if terrorism remains a major issue of concern among those who could swing it, yeah, I'd say it could tip the balance.

Actually, Frank, I believe the exact opposite of what you wrote above. While the choice of words may seem trivializing to some, I think the actual matter of what Kerry said represents a far more realistic and useful approach than all of Bush's histrionic fear-mongering. If you don't believe that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement problem, what kind of a problem do you think it is? Military? As US Intelligence has reported, our efforts in Iraq have left the region less stable and more of a haven for terrorists. Bush's one (accidental) lapse into truth over the past year was his admission that the war on terror is unwinnable. Of course, he immediately pulled back from this, and the debate became about whether or not that is what he meant because people didn't want to think about whether or not he was right. Containment is the best we can hope for here, and law-enforcement solutions seem to be Bush's biggest blind spot in the "war" on terror. He knows how to attack a country, but not how to secure ports, curb nuclear proliferation, or strengthen alliances. Unfortunately, I don't think that Kerry will stand by his words here, I expect him to also back off and try to explain how his words were misrepresented, but I believe that the sober explanation of difficult and unpopular truths is what we should want in a President.

Crap. I can see the Republicans running away with this one. To me, it clearly translates to, "We need to get back to a place where average citizens are comfortable knowing that their government and law enforcement agencies are taking care of the bad guys before they can harm us". I totally agree with this. I'm sick of Amber Alerts and other such nonsense.

More people have died from suffocating in poorly vented room lined with plastic and duct tape than by any chemical attacks in the past two years.

On the other hand, anybody that reads that out of context, which is the only way it will be served, will see, "We need ignore the terrorists...".

I hope John Kerry has already worked out his rebuttal, as I'm sure this will be addressed in the next debate. I'm confident he can find the precise words to state his view without going overboard. He has one shot left to convince Americans that what he says actually makes sense, but you have to be paying attention to get it, as opposed to George Bush, who can sometimes throw out a line with such conviction that he makes us feel like it was supposed to mean something, but it always leaves us scratching our heads wondering if anybody else was able to follow that.

Senator Kerry, you have two minutes.

Tim

Two quick semi-off topics items.

One: Is there a way to convince the "Bush seems like a nice guy" people that he alone doesn't represent this administration? Maybe he is a nice guy, but in order to dump Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Rove, the President needs to go as well.

Two: The Bin Ladin On Ice conspiracy theories are starting to pop up again. I don't believe they're true, but there's a part of me that's getting ready to tell people, "Oh yeah, I heard about that back in June", when he shows up in about two weeks.

My own Kerryitis has kicked in. I couldn't stop typing long after I had made my point and now it looks like I didn't have anything to say at all.

I'm confused here. Frank supporting Bush and going against Kerry? Ben (weaselmanor.blogspot.com) blasting Bush and favoring Kerry? I think there's something insidious going on here. Perhaps Ben and Frank switched blogs and are waiting to see who will notice?

against amber alerts? those are supposed to save children. i think that's going to cost you in the elections, tim.

re: kerry quote, i think we are far far from a tank- helmet, gennifer flowers or willie horton deal here.
let's not drop our socks just yet, kids.

"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish ... the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature." Clausewitz.

Kerry is running for Commander in Chief. He has, with this comment, offered a clear (for him) statement of what he understands the War on Terror to be. Specifically, Kerry would have us believe, it is not a war at all. This position is shared by various people of my acquaintance, vehemently so by a brilliant Lefty lawyer who insists that 9/11 was a crime requiring investigation, arrest warrants, extradition proceedings, the usual stuff. I very strongly disagree. One of us is wrong. But that is just two voters. More importantly, I will assert without any hard data at hand that a solid majority of the American voting public shares a view more akin to President Bush's that John Kerry's -- i.e. it is a war requiring military force and violent retaliation, not arrests followed by criminal trials. Note that agreeing with Bush about the nature of the war can exist without regard to how well or badly you think Bush has prosecuted the war. People can reluctantly conclude that Bush has botched some thinks but Kerry is out of touch with reality. I see a fair amount of this among libertarians, who have serious issues with Bush.

So, the good Doktor's analysis is right. If a sufficient number of people understand that Kerry said this, and what it means, it will hurt his electoral prospects. The Republicans are fully capable of making use of this comment for that purpose, and I'm sure they will do so. Whether it costs Kerry the election cannot be known. But it won't help him.

Cap'n,

Without an emoticon, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I have to assume you are.

We're three years removed now. I don't think any Amber Alert has saved any children and I don't believe they will. What they do is pop up in the headlines every once in a while just to remind people that this is a time of (perpetual) war and we have a strong wartime President standing up for us.

I too believe that this situation can easily be diffused, if the Kerry camp steps up to explain what he meant. I swear, he should hire an interpreter. They could even some people over if they could get them to read the actual article. Fat chance on that though.

I'll let you know if I'm scared or not after the last debate.

Tim

no i wasn't sarcastic. i seriously fail to see how broadcasting info about abducted children moments after it happens is pointless. do you even know how it works? i would look into it, because its not some political football, its a realized system for alerting people of child abduction. maybe its not perfect, but its something. i do believe it has helped find children. how could it hurt?

i'm thinking that maybe tim is confused with the whole terror alert system, while having colors close to amber, is not amber alert. you should google it. because i think that's the misunderstanding here. the amber alert system is a system of alerting people of child abduction, as "krunchy" says.

yeah raedy, i suspected that was the case. they're totally separate things. amber isn't a color, its a name of a girl.

well yeah duh amber is a color but that's not what it means in this case. in other words and in conclusion, amber is NOT a color on the government's bizarre, ineffective and totally uninformative terror alert system. therefore that system is not called the amber alert system because amber is not one of the colors on said system. instead amber is the name of a child and when children are lost they issue an amber alert including posting pertinent information regarding lost child online, on the tv and radio, and above the expressway (at least they do that here in chicago) including sometimes the vehicle description and even license plate number of the person who abducts that child. so there is a possibility that it could help find lost children. so i'm just SURE that is not what tim was talking about but rather he mixed up the amber alert system and the terror alert system or whatever it's called because amber is a color that is similar to those on the terror alert system but amber is not a color found on the terror alert system and therefore it is NOT the amber alert. because i am confident that tim is not a mean person who does not want lost or abducted children to be reunited with their parents. am i correct in assuming that, tim? and, yes everyone knows that amber is a color.

yes and to further clarify (if that's indeed possible), the Amber Alert was named after a girl who was abducted:

http://www.midohioamberalert.org/origin_Amber.htm

and now, over to Jim with the weather...

Putting aside politics and connotations; to me it seems like a pretty difficult statement to disagree with.

Yes, you got me. I confused the two issues.

Amber alert: Good
Terror alert level: Bad

I mistook Amber for Yellow, which is where I believe we've been for most of the past three years. Even this may be incorrect as I don't watch cable news, so this is one of the things I've been missing out on. I'm sorry this got dragged out like that.

Did we ever find out if Kobe really killed that Scott Peterson guy?

Tim

no, but the rapist is going to get killed on Dec 25th. An X-mas present for Shaq!!