If Kerry Renounced His Socialist Leanings, would You Trust Him?

Lileks in THE BLEAT today:

” I donÂ?t care what Kerry said 30 years ago; I care what he says today about what he said 30 years ago. In other words, what he said 30 years ago is of interest to me if he still believes it.

What would be wrong with someone actually saying you know, “I used to hold that opinion, but I’ve changed my mind.” It would be refreshing”

Perhaps.
But the question then becomes, would the voters trust such a shift?
I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, because all we’ve gotten out of him on about ANYTHING is in the evasive mode.

Secondly, because one does not suddenly shift 30 years of left- leaning. Would the voter, for example, trust a similar Jane Fonda claim, were SHE to run for office? I think we can find evdience they will not. More, I think we can find evdience in the way of words and actions that more than suggest she has not in fact changed her mind. Indeed, she embarked on a campaign to reclaim her ‘good name’ some years ago, and was roundly rejected by Ma and Pa America.

Similarly, Kerry has lived enough of his life in the public eye and the public record that patterns can be and are well established, and fairly well known. I suspect any attempts to change that pattern now would be rekected.

Thirdly, there’s another problem as regards Kerry; Nobody will ever set up such a question to him. The test, in the words of the poet, cannot be made. 

And again,as a subset of that, the question comes up of would we trust a ‘changed’ response….Even if he said: “UN? Are you kidding?” Nobody would trust him; there’s too much of a record there, even recently. He and his party have just spent the last two years bitching that we didn’t submit to the UN as regards Iraq. so clearly, anyone in the center or right wouldn’t trust him.

Another angle…

Let’s assume he was to say such a thing… and denounce his past positions… would he enjoy the support of the Democrat voter? You know he wouldn’t.  the reason is one I’ve mentioned before…. His positions of 30 years ago… the anti-American, pro-one-world, pro-socialist agendae, are in fact the heart and soul of the Democrat party of today… to go against that would be a political poison pill for Kerry. Neither side would vote for him.

The most obvious conclusion of all of this is, he’s not changed his positions at all since those days.

Lileks in THE BLEAT today:

” I donÂ?t care what Kerry said 30 years ago; I care what he says today about what he said 30 years ago. In other words, what he said 30 years ago is of interest to me if he still believes it.

What would be wrong with someone actually saying you know, “I used to hold that opinion, but I’ve changed my mind.” It would be refreshing”

Perhaps.
But the question then becomes, would the voters trust such a shift?
I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, because all we’ve gotten out of him on about ANYTHING is in the evasive mode.

Secondly, because one does not suddenly shift 30 years of left- leaning. Would the voter, for example, trust a similar Jane Fonda claim, were SHE to run for office? I think we can find evdience they will not. More, I think we can find evdience in the way of words and actions that more than suggest she has not in fact changed her mind. Indeed, she embarked on a campaign to reclaim her ‘good name’ some years ago, and was roundly rejected by Ma and Pa America.

Similarly, Kerry has lived enough of his life in the public eye and the public record that patterns can be and are well established, and fairly well known. I suspect any attempts to change that pattern now would be rekected.

Thirdly, there’s another problem as regards Kerry; Nobody will ever set up such a question to him. The test, in the words of the poet, cannot be made. 

And again,as a subset of that, the question comes up of would we trust a ‘changed’ response….Even if he said: “UN? Are you kidding?” Nobody would trust him; there’s too much of a record there, even recently. He and his party have just spent the last two years bitching that we didn’t submit to the UN as regards Iraq. so clearly, anyone in the center or right wouldn’t trust him.

Another angle…

Let’s assume he was to say such a thing… and denounce his past positions… would he enjoy the support of the Democrat voter? You know he wouldn’t.  the reason is one I’ve mentioned before…. His positions of 30 years ago… the anti-American, pro-one-world, pro-socialist agendae, are in fact the heart and soul of the Democrat party of today… to go against that would be a political poison pill for Kerry. Neither side would vote for him.

The most obvious conclusion of all of this is, he’s not changed his positions at all since those days.

Lileks in THE BLEAT today:

” I donÂ?t care what Kerry said 30 years ago; I care what he says today about what he said 30 years ago. In other words, what he said 30 years ago is of interest to me if he still believes it.

What would be wrong with someone actually saying you know, “I used to hold that opinion, but I’ve changed my mind.” It would be refreshing”

Perhaps.
But the question then becomes, would the voters trust such a shift?
I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, because all we’ve gotten out of him on about ANYTHING is in the evasive mode.

Secondly, because one does not suddenly shift 30 years of left- leaning. Would the voter, for example, trust a similar Jane Fonda claim, were SHE to run for office? I think we can find evdience they will not. More, I think we can find evdience in the way of words and actions that more than suggest she has not in fact changed her mind. Indeed, she embarked on a campaign to reclaim her ‘good name’ some years ago, and was roundly rejected by Ma and Pa America.

Similarly, Kerry has lived enough of his life in the public eye and the public record that patterns can be and are well established, and fairly well known. I suspect any attempts to change that pattern now would be rekected.

Thirdly, there’s another problem as regards Kerry; Nobody will ever set up such a question to him. The test, in the words of the poet, cannot be made. 

And again,as a subset of that, the question comes up of would we trust a ‘changed’ response….Even if he said: “UN? Are you kidding?” Nobody would trust him; there’s too much of a record there, even recently. He and his party have just spent the last two years bitching that we didn’t submit to the UN as regards Iraq. so clearly, anyone in the center or right wouldn’t trust him.

Another angle…

Let’s assume he was to say such a thing… and denounce his past positions… would he enjoy the support of the Democrat voter? You know he wouldn’t.  the reason is one I’ve mentioned before…. His positions of 30 years ago… the anti-American, pro-one-world, pro-socialist agendae, are in fact the heart and soul of the Democrat party of today… to go against that would be a political poison pill for Kerry. Neither side would vote for him.

The most obvious conclusion of all of this is, he’s not changed his positions at all since those days.

Lileks in THE BLEAT today:

” I donÂ?t care what Kerry said 30 years ago; I care what he says today about what he said 30 years ago. In other words, what he said 30 years ago is of interest to me if he still believes it.

What would be wrong with someone actually saying you know, “I used to hold that opinion, but I’ve changed my mind.” It would be refreshing”

Perhaps.
But the question then becomes, would the voters trust such a shift?
I doubt it, for several reasons.

First, because all we’ve gotten out of him on about ANYTHING is in the evasive mode.

Secondly, because one does not suddenly shift 30 years of left- leaning. Would the voter, for example, trust a similar Jane Fonda claim, were SHE to run for office? I think we can find evdience they will not. More, I think we can find evdience in the way of words and actions that more than suggest she has not in fact changed her mind. Indeed, she embarked on a campaign to reclaim her ‘good name’ some years ago, and was roundly rejected by Ma and Pa America.

Similarly, Kerry has lived enough of his life in the public eye and the public record that patterns can be and are well established, and fairly well known. I suspect any attempts to change that pattern now would be rekected.

Thirdly, there’s another problem as regards Kerry; Nobody will ever set up such a question to him. The test, in the words of the poet, cannot be made. 

And again,as a subset of that, the question comes up of would we trust a ‘changed’ response….Even if he said: “UN? Are you kidding?” Nobody would trust him; there’s too much of a record there, even recently. He and his party have just spent the last two years bitching that we didn’t submit to the UN as regards Iraq. so clearly, anyone in the center or right wouldn’t trust him.

Another angle…

Let’s assume he was to say such a thing… and denounce his past positions… would he enjoy the support of the Democrat voter? You know he wouldn’t.  the reason is one I’ve mentioned before…. His positions of 30 years ago… the anti-American, pro-one-world, pro-socialist agendae, are in fact the heart and soul of the Democrat party of today… to go against that would be a political poison pill for Kerry. Neither side would vote for him.

The most obvious conclusion of all of this is, he’s not changed his positions at all since those days.

Peter Tork is 62 today.

If you don’t know who he is, you didn’t live through it, and won’t understand it, even if I explain it to you.
For the rest of us……(Creak, groan)

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution is running a story with Hanoi Jane Fonda defending John Kerry.

Keep talking, Jane.
Please.
Keep talking.

ShortNews has something that sounds strangely like a Richard Pryor joke:

” A woman in Italy had the largest possible implants fitted to her breasts and shortly after the 2 hour surgery disappeared from the Rome hospital without paying her £5000 ($9500) bill. 

Investigators are hoping that her unnaturally large mammaries will make her easy to find. “
I’d comment, but I’d get myself in trouble, here.
Well, OK… I’ll venture one such comment: The last line is a classic.

MSNBC is reporting:

“FORT LEWIS, Wash. – A National Guardsman was arrested Thursday and accused of trying to provide information to the al-Qaida terrorist network, the Army said. “

I’ll be watching this with some interest, particularly as regards his stated motives. According to the artcle, he IS a Muslim.

Oops. Wasn’t supposed to say that, was I?

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.

The Telegraph is running a story on this Kerry blow up today. In it, they reveal the Democrats are already trying to play the blame game, in their own lying fashion:

“Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican ‘dirty tricks’. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush”

Does nobody actually check this stuff? Let’s be honest here. This is a Republican op only if you think Weasely Clark is a Republican this week. And he’s a Republican only if Bill Clinton is a good role model. Speaking of which I’m willing to bet the Clintons had their hands in this one.

In any event, for all the credit Drudge deserves for running the story, the fact is, it’s not his story, really. This story was being shopped around for months, and has been in blogdom for the last month.

Sorry, no sale, here.