Matt Margolis » Blog Archive » So Is Kerry The Dumbass Now?

So Is Kerry The Dumbass Now?

June 7th, 2005

Kerry did worse than Bush at Yale. I wouldn’t be surprised if liberals blame this on Karl Rove too.

More at B4B and GOPb.

Posted by Matt Margolis Filed in General

42 Responses to “So Is Kerry The Dumbass Now?”

qt Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 10:30 am
I’m not sure how familiar you are with schools, but there are other factors than grades that determine success. For example, it is quite possible (and probable) that Kerry took harder classes than Bush. If I get an A in wine tasting and you get a B in Chinese foreign policy, your grade is more credible.

Also, I’m sure you noticed that the difference is one point (76 vs. 77). That’s nothing in a score out of 100.

Finally, since Kerry was chosen to speak at graduation (I think that’s the oration they’re referring to), I think it’s safe to say he did very well at Yale. And…a professor who taught Bush and Kerry has fond memories of Kerry and none of Bush…Interesting…

In any case, I’m not sure why this matters!
Dadahead Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:15 am
You people are really unbelievable.

All your crowing about Kerry’s military records turns out to be the BS every sensible person knew it was all along, but you’re totally unfazed, and move along to the next smear …

Seriously: how do you look at yourselves in the mirror?
Matt Margolis Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:23 am
qt,
I don’t doubt that “there are other factors than grades that determine success.” But, you weren’t defending Bush with that argument before than were you?

Doodohead, those weren’t the complete records from the Navy I’m sure, and second, only the Globe had access… the Globe, if you’re not familiar with it, is a friendly paper for Kerry.
Dadahead Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Don’t call me Doodoohead.
qt Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Well, no one has ever called Bush “dumb” (Just for the record, I don’t think he’s “dumb”) because of their opinion of his grades in college. It’s because of his actions in office and his inability to read his queue cards during speeches…

So, no I never used this argument in favor of Bush, because it was never relevant.
Dadahead Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:32 am
And even your fellow wingnuts are telling you to give it up regarding Kerry’s military records.
Kahn Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
And W got better grades than Gore. So, the new liberal standard appears to be that being a good speaker is good enough. So, a carnie, or a slick used car salesman should qualify for any office and ignore their grades.

Just for the record - Which of these three were rags to riches stories? Kerry, Gore, or Bush? ALL three were privileged. Turns out Bush did better in school. Then, after almost going under with his oil business he turned it around and made millions. He does NOT live off Daddy’s money now. Gore still has family money and makes money talking on the hate circuit. Kerry made millions by, oh yah - sleeping with it.
ImpeachGDubya Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Well aren’t we an immature little Republican. I don’t know why you’re so excited about Bush’s success, the man’s had very little in life: he failed in MLB, oil, military, Iraq, presidency in general. But hey at least the Christians are happy. And oh yeah, if you know about Bush’s past you’ll also recollect the time he was investigated by the FBI…Something about the Saudis bailing him out of bankruptcy in the oil business…
ImpeachGDubya Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
And just for the record-Bush was certainly not a rags to riches story.
Blinky Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
No, but I think some guy named Clinton was…
Kahn Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
ignorantGDub - I just reread my post, and I said all were privileged. You really are a pip. And, exactly MY point. He had failures and yet still overcame them. FYI - The Saudi thing turned out to be bogus though didn’t it. Lets not turn accusations into fact.

I accuse you of humping your dog. So, by your standards - it must be true.

Oh and Blinky - yep. Clinton was successful. But wait, if you don’t count being Governor and President (things ALSO achieved by W, but not by Gore or Kerry take note) - then what else? Too bad he never learned to control his urges once he became a public figure. If not for that, his legacy would have been much different.
Blinky Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Of course I count it. Bush has been elected twice, even if it has been by very small margins. Good for him. What was your point, exactly? Did you have one? Or were you just slinging mud?
Matt Margolis Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Small margins?

Both times he got more votes than Clinton ever did.
Kahn Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
What mud? You said Clinton was rags to riches. OK. But really I think it was rags to power. Small point, I guess.
Jim Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Matt, margins of victory are different than total votes. A margin is a measure, a quantity, or a degree of difference. Total votes are a sum of votes cast.

Here are the popular vote totals of which you reference:

2004: Bush +2.4%, (3,012,497 votes)
GW Bush: 62,040,606
John Kerry: 59,028,109

2000: Gore: +0.5% (543,895 votes)
GW Bush: 50,456,002
Al Gore: 50,999,897

1996: Clinton +8.5% (8,203,416 votes)
Bill Clinton: 47,401,898
Bob Dole: 39,198,482

1992: Clinton: +5.6% (5,805,444 votes)
Bill Clinton: 44,909,326
GHW Bush: 39,103,882

Total votes:
GWBush: 112,496,608
Clinton: 92,311,224

Bush won both elections by a combined 2.46 million votes, suggesting that the country did not have a strong favorite in either election. In fact, he lost the popular vote in 2000. Clinton won by slightly over 14 million votes, suggesting that the country clearly did prefer him over either Dole or GHWBush.

Yes, GWBush did get more votes, I’m glad that you’ve noticed that. I’m sure that you’ve also noticed that close elections cause more people to turn out that if it is going to be a blowout victory in an important race like the presidency.

In other words, Bush has won by small margins (either in the popular vote or electoral college) in each of his elections.

Ps. I like statistics.
ImpeachGDubya Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
The Saudi thing has never been proven wrong. Also, I don’t have a dog, therefore I can’t hump my dog and that means you’re wrong again.
ImpeachGDubya Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
I thought you also might want to be enlightened with this bit of information from Yahoo News “Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 — his highest grade — in political science as a senior.”
“In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.

Bush’s highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy, and improved his grades after his freshman year, the transcript showed.”

Hmmmm that would mean Bush never got a grade higher than Kerry. So is Bush the dumbass now?
Jim Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
Impeach: Grades are lousy indicators of performance. As was sais above, in a GPA a mediocre grade in a hard class is worth less than a perfect score in a super-easy class. What you should look at are their activites during and after, since ignoring any differences in class load, they were nearly identical. Kerry gave the commencement speech, was an award-winning debater, held high honors in the Navy academy, went on to get high ratings from every officer he served under (look at the _whole report_ that you’ve cited to start this thread, Matt), earned a silver star, bronze star and 3 purple hearts along the way, became a US senator, and received the second most votes in US history. Bush had mediocre grades at harvard, ducked the draft, went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, repeatedly failed in his bisiness dealings, was helped by his daddy to become the Governor of Texas, then won two terms as the President of the United States, earning the most votes ever in the process. Who’s the ‘better man’? Your own values can decide that.
Kahn Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Oh but Impeach - I’m using YOUR standards and not mine. You have not proven it is not true. So - it must be true. The accusation is enough. You disgusting dog-humper.

In my world, it is up to the accuser to prove something. But apparently that is not the rule in your pathetic little world of seething resentment and hate.

Oh - and now that you’ve actually read something, your own arguments from this morning are out eh? Thanks for the set-up. You are the dumbass.

Jim - well, how many Perot votes do you think would have gone to Clinton and how many to Bush? You could say that more people voted against Clinton both times in both real and percentage values. And, by leaving the Perot vote out you (intentionally?) skewed the number a little bit didn’t you? I like statistics also. Of course, the electoral college is the rule anyways and total national votes is irrelevant. Nixon beat Kennedy in total votes – yet didn’t become President until 8 year later. And no-one is seriously proposing abandoning the college.
Kahn Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Jeeez Jim - you had me going with the statistics thing. “held high honors in the Navy academy”. What? So he went to Annapolis after Yale? You are a pip! Ha Ha, good joke. And here I was trying to have a real conversation with you. You also missed the point that Bush DID go to Harvard after Yale. At least he was not suspended for cheating like Teddy K. was.

The Bush AWOL charges have not been proven and most evidence shows it is not true. Again though, the accusation is enough isn’t it? The attempt to foist obvious forgeries on us led to Dan Rather entering retirement. Remember that? Honestly, Eugene McCarthy would be at home in the modern Democratic Party.

You could also say that his continued struggle in business was perseverance. Oh, and that part about his “daddy” getting him into the Governors chair is crap. Are you saying Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, and Roosevelt didn’t come from families of privilege? And LBJ was such a sweet-heart. W was also the only governor in the 20th century to be re-elected to the governor’s office in Texas. Did he buy that also?

You guys should really get busy studying for exams next week.
Matt Margolis Says:
June 7th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Jim, do you actually believe what you’re trying to pull?

For one thing, in 1992, Ross Perot got something like 20 million votes — which mostly would have gone to George H.W. Bush had Perot not been on the ballot. In 1996, he got around 8 million. So in 1992, a clear majority of Americans voted for someone other than Clinton, and 1996, Clinton got closer to half the votes cast- but still not a majority.
Jim Says:
June 8th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Yes, Perot got 19.7 million votes in 1992 and 8 million in 1996. The numbers remain the same, as the percentages and vote tallies were of all votes cast for all cadidates in each year, Nader, Perot, Buchanan, whoever.

My point, which I’ve obviously made clear, was that given the election results that actually occurred, Clinton won my greater margins over his nearest opponent. I was challenging your interpretation of “margin” and “total votes.”

Debating whether Perot’s votes would have gone to either candidate is silly. The fundamental nature of the race would have changed: different issues would have been raised that may have colored people’s opinion of either candidate. Comparing a race without Perot to one with Perot isn’t sensible, especially since Perot was such a large factor.

As for my intentionally inflammatory summation of Kerry’s and Bush’s pasts you seem to miss this: I stated that Bush went to Harvard and that Kerry went to Annapolis. There is no point to be made showing the intelligence of eith man. Harvard and Annapolis? Kudos to both, not easy. My point was that Bush had mediocre grades while Kerry had high marks at his respective institution (I respectably refer to his recently released report). Directly comparable? Of course not, but useful for showing generalized scholastic aptitude and infuriating people with factual evidence.

Bush’s failed business dealings could indeed, as you point out, be called preserverence. Let’s compromise, and call it both “repeatedly failing” and “preserverence”, since it was really both. In his Texas governor’s race, I encourage you to look at the FEC expense filings and media coverage (I used the Houston Chronicle, primarily). Look at who raised money for him, who campaigned with him, who did stump speeches, and who used his influence in the GOP to secure a weak Republican primary. Then decide for yourselves if he was not helped by his father, as I claimed. As for his second election to the Texas governorship, I never said that he bought it, you inferred that on your own. I merely said he had help, which he did. I also never said anything about Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, or Roosevelt, and certainly never claimed that they didn’t come from families of privilege. Clinton, however, whom I did mention, did not come from such a background.

In your reply, please do not put words into my mouth or relate unrelated facts to the debate.
Jim Says:
June 8th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
sorry, typo in my 2nd paragraph: My point, which I’ve obviously NOT made clear
Kahn Says:
June 8th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Jim,

First - I usually catch my worst typo’s the instant I press “say it”.

John Kerry did not go to Annapolis. That is why I’m having a hard time taking your post seriously. You are saying things about his record ther - it must have been in the Twilight Zone. Nor did he go to Harvard. It was Yale and then into the Navy. Kudos for him.

After the Navy he went to Boston College Law School. Since then he has always worked for the government or been in Politics. His money came from a succession of very rich wives. So, is that being successful? I guess so.

George Bush. Yale. Then Harvard. Then the Air Guard. Fighter Pilot - difficult gig that calls for aggressive people. He did good, was described as a good and competent pilot. The AWOL crap is crap. An unsubstantiated accusation made over and over. The liberals look petty making these charges. Oil man - saw some rough times. U.S. Grant and Harry Truman failed at business alo. Come to think of it, so did Henry Ford a few times - but I digress. Then into politics. Did his family help him? I would expect so - the families Gore, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Byrd, and others helped them. He did a good enough job to be re-elected - again the only person in the 20th Century to achieve that in Texas. Then, he DID win the Presidency - Twice. I can tell you that my Secret Service neighbors who won’t give ANY details say they like the Bush’s, thought Gore was an ass, and think the Clintons and the Kerry’s were very similar in the way they ran things. I don’t think they liked the Clintons or the Kerry’s as people.

Clinton - good story. Smart Guy. Probably the best education credentials of the three. Jimmy Carter might give him a run though - Navy atomic engineering program. Clinton always seemed to me to be the consummate politician. Very liberal at heart - but also extremely pragmatic. If he didn’t have the sexual harassment habit, he would be much better thought of.

Perot. He affected those elections much more than Nader did the Gore-Bush contest. I saw it as a bleeding away of the conservative base from Bush. Most analysts did also - and they didn’t see it as the mystery you apparently see it as. Clinton never actually won a majority of the people who voted. You can’t ignore that.
Jim Says:
June 9th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Kahn,

You confirmed many of the things I said, albeit in different language. One difference is that I consider a 20 year Senate career a success, while you consider the amount of money accumulated a success. Different opinions, different vaules, I respect that. Before you imply that I don’t think Bush is a success, I will say that he is remarkably successful as a politician.

Not sure what your point was about the opinions of your ‘Secret Service neighbors’. You should be careful about what you say about them. By their job contract they are not supposed to say anything about their protectees, and outing them like that could get them in serious trouble with the Department of the Treasury and the probably FBI. It’s pretty remarkable that their protection rotations allowed them to protect all for of the key candidates in this conversation. When my former roomate was part of the Secret Service (he only lasted 2 years before they assigned him oversees so he moved to the CIA), he only got to cover Gore for 3 weeks before he was rotated. Actually, I think you made up your ‘Secret Service neighbors’, but I really have no proof of that. Call me skeptical.

Moving on to the 1992 Clinton-Bush-Perot election. I’m not sure which analysts you speak of, but the election would have taken a much different track had Perot not been a factor. Maybe Clinton would’ve pulled a Dukakis and try to prove himself a military expert by riding in a tank (I love that commercial). Maybe Carville would’ve repeated the clip of Bush say “Read my Lips…” to a point where he wasn’t trusted on anything. Maybe Bush’s handling of the economy would’ve hurt him even more in the campaign with the issues that Perot brought up. Maybe Paula would’ve come forward if there was more focus on Clinton’s governorship. Maybe half those people wouldn’t have voted at all. My point is: no one knows. That is why arguing that all, some, or none of Perot’s votes would’ve gone to either candidate is foolish.

Lastly,I don’t ignore that Clinton never won a majority of votes. I’ve said it, and in fact backed it up with the raw numbers from the NARA. Please look at post #15 above.

I think this whole debate was started my Matt’s assertion that a margin of victory was the same thing as number of votes. I won’t be able to respond past now because I’m on my way to Chicago for 4 days of Windy City bad hair. Cheers.
ImpeachGDubya Says:
June 9th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
I never said GPA and I was only using that argument because the republican’s were usng them for Bush so I figure I’d show them they’re wrong once again. Obviously not wrong in their perveted minds:
“You have not proven it is not true. So - it must be true. The accusation is enough. You disgusting dog-humper.

In my world, it is up to the accuser to prove something.”
So since you’re accusation is of me humping my dog, prove it.
Kahn Says:
June 9th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
So - everyone who “claimed” to have read these records. FYI - Kerry still has not signed the forms to release his military records. He signed forms to allow the military to release his academic records.

I mean honestly - it’s been how many months since the election - what the heck is up with this guy? I don’t even really care about him all that much - why won’t he release his full records? I don’t get it.

Now - to be honest - it looks like Gore, Kerry, and Bush had very similar college records. All three have been successful in their own right. But that is not the way GWB has been portrayed and is still being portrayed by the liberal left and the liberal media. That is the issue. A few points either way is not important. The left ALWAYS portrays the senior Republicans this way - as stupid. It is hateful, false, and it is getting old. Point?

I just happen to strongly dislike Kerry and Gore and most of the hate spouting current Democratic leadership. I believe that the Dems never really psychologically recovered from losing control of Congress and that they don’t know how to be the loyal opposition. Gridlock started when they lost control. The hate has escalated ever since. With Dean and the current Congressional leadership running things now, it does not look like its going to get better any time soon.

And Jim - my neighbors never speak about incidents or facts. But they do tell me who they like and don’t like. Surely, that is acceptable?

White Christian Conservative - Kahn
Yoona Says:
June 12th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
WHAT?

“If I get an A in wine tasting and you get a B in Chinese foreign policy, your grade is more credible.”

In college each student is required to take a mix of courses for general education, electives, and major core classes. So am I not correct in saying that Bush and Kerry’s graduating averages were equally weighed? It’s not like one of them majored in wine tasting or dog grooming.

You can’t graduate with a degree without taking the required core.

The real question is: Did YOU go to college?
Kahn Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
But Impeach Dubya - you have no proof Bush dodged anything and you keep using it like its fact. Are you too stupid to read that I was using YOUR standards of proof and not mine?

Oh wait - I guess you are.
qt Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Yoona: Yep, went to college, graduated, went for a master’s degree…graduated. Did YOU go to college?

Let me help you out. I was using an extreme example, but some classes ARE easier than others. Most colleges do not specify exact classes that need to be taken for a degree. They specify subjects that you need to hit. So, for example, you have to take an American history class for a history major, but they won’t specify which american history class. So, many will take the one with the easier professor to get the higher grade.

So…my point was that you can’t make the assumption that Bush is smarter, just because of his grades. It is possible that he took easier classes.
Matt Margolis Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
my point was that you can’t make the assumption that Bush is smarter, just because of his grades.

The thing is qt, many many many many on the left assumed Bush wasn’t smart because of his grades.

I couldn’t agree more that it’s not all about grades… grades are a one way to gauge intelligence, but not the only way.

It still doesn’t change the fact that for four years we heard every joke in the book about Bush and his intelligence, in response to his grades and his oration abilities. Now that Kerry’s grades show he did slightly poorer than Bush, it’s like the entire standard has been rewritten, solely for the purpose of keeping the notion alive that Bush isn’t smart. So, the left are changing the standards to conform to their beliefs…

I graduated summa cum laude in an engineering technology program… yet, I’ve had liberal college dropouts, high school dropouts etc. etc. tell me I’m stupid primarily because of our political differences. It comes down to the fact that the left couldn’t argue on facts or policy, so they resorted to calling Bush stupid in order to undermine his presidency.
qt Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
People don’t consider Bush “dumb,” because of his grades at Yale. That’s silly.

It’s because of the way in which he speaks and the things he says…

I personally don’t consider him dumb. I think he needs to read more to be more well informed, but his natural intelligence does not appear to be too lacking, in my opinion.

Whether it’s true of not, Bush comes across as the Republican “puppet,” which is why people don’t give him credit for thinking. That’s the reason people criticize his intelligence…not his grades at Yale.
Matt Margolis Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
qt, i disagree. for one thing, as i said, i graduated summa cum laude… i’m hardly a good pubilc speaker. the ability to communicate is not as good an indicator of intelligence as what you communicate. Adolf Hitler was effective as a dictator because of his ability to speak and convince people to follow him.

if anything you have to have less trust in the people who can sell refridgerators to eskimos and trust more the people whos ideas have to sell themselves.
Kahn Says:
June 13th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Matt - excellent arguments. I think you nailed it. They also like to call Republicans liars.

The left used the same tactics against Bush when he beat Gore. The headline in the Washington Post the day it came out that Bush’s grades were also better than Gore’s? “Gore’s grades almost as good as Bush’s” - I swear.

And- who says Kerry is a good speaker? Have you ever listened to him?
“Whom among us doesn’t love NASCAR?”????
“I actually did vote for it before I voted against it.”???
“I don’t own ANY SUV’s, my family does.”???
He is an awful speaker- based on content, not pronunciation. Though GW does admittedly mangle words sometimes.

For the record. I went in the Marines after High School and afterward graduated Magna Cum Laude with a BBA in Strategic Management while working full time. Haven’t seen the use for a Masters - as I’ve done very well and lived all over the world doing technical and sales type jobs.
Yoona Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 2:16 am
qt,
I more than understand that you were using an extreme example. But you are missing my point which is that you cannot graduate college only taking easy or hard classes. And yes, at most colleges you can take differing degrees of history and math {etc.} but at ivy league universities even the easiest math course is demanding and difficult. Knowing many students who graduated from Princeton and Stanford, it’s impossible to BS your way through at an institution such as Yale.
qt Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Yoona, now it’s your turn to be extreme. No one said classes were “easy” or “hard.” I said easier. One class is easier than the other. They can both be hard, but one is easier than the other. No matter what university you go to, there are easier classes than others. And everyone knows which classes are easier within a few days of being in that school.

Also, you should know that not all classes at top universities are challenging. I went to a top 20 MBA program, and while we had mostly grueling classes, there were a few that were known for being unusually easy. Business Law: you never had to go to class. Project Management: you never had to open a book. Negotiations: it’s all about getting along with people in this class. See…there are always easy classes. And they are known by everyone!

So, it’s possible to take the easier classes and get through the program…

So…back to my original point. You can’t make the assumption that one person is smarter than the other, solely based on grades, because some classes are easier than others…
qt Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Matt & Kahn, I’m not sure why you brought up public speaking…Bush is fine at public speaking (although he does muddle some words)…But it is how is says things and what he says that messes him up. When he speaks, he uses as few words as possible and appears quite rehearsed. This makes him come across as a puppet…like the other Republicans told him exactly what to say at that press conference or speech.

When people ask him questions, he answers the ones he’s expecting in one obviously rehearsed sentence, with some catch phrases following. Then, when someone asks him a question he didn’t expect (remember is one? “What mistakes did you make in your 1st term?”), he appears so confused. It’s like he doesn’t know how to handle questions that he didn’t rehearse the answers with his fellow Republicans.

It’s very obvious when Bush speaks that he doesn’t read much. That’s why people insist on his lack of intelligence…
Matt Margolis Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
qt, i mentioned it because you said, “It’s because of the way in which he speaks and the things he says…”

regarding your “rehearsed” suggestion, all politicians do that… some are just better at it than others.
qt Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Ok, as you now know, “the way in which he speaks” wasn’t referring to public speaking…

And yes…all politicians do rehearse (and their speeches are written and revised by their staff)…That’s my point. Bush is one of those that doesn’t do it well. He shouldn’t sound rehearsed, because people see right throught that. Clinton never sounded rehearsed…

Hey, I’m just telling you why other people consider Bush “dumb.” You don’t need to overanalyze it. It’s just the way it is. I personally don’t consider him “dumb,” but I can see why others might…And it has nothing to do with grades!
Kahn Says:
June 14th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
qt - Yes. GW does drive me crazy with his speaking. But, his content is right on.

I live in a very interesting area in Northern Virginia. The people that I know that have met him say he’s very smart and definitely in control. I have neighbors who work one or two levels below him (some have bosses who are direct reports to W and some have another layer). He is also described as personable and a great conversationalist. (He has led an interesting life.)

Didn’t the left also call Reagan stupid? And he was a GREAT speaker. They called Bush’s dad stupid, and Dan Quayle, and on and on. It is a tactic. It is a mean and pessimistic way to minimize the Republican Party and it’s positions. The problem is, that the Democratic party has no positions.

Dems voted for the war - and are now against it? The are against the Republican Social Security plan - even though it closely resembles the Clinton plan? The examples go on. What is their vision? I couldn’t tell you. All I ever hear is vile hatred and slander from them. After a while, I tuned it out.
Jeff Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Who gives a shit? One guy can’t formulate a sentence without stuttering for 5 seconds and the other claimed his favorite Red Sox player was Manny Ortez during the height of the playoffs.
Kahn Says:
June 20th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Nurse - Jeff skipped his meds this morning.

So Is Kerry The Dumbass Now?

June 7th, 2005

42 Responses to “So Is Kerry The Dumbass Now?”

Recent Entries

Currently Reading

Five Recently Read

Books On Hold

Books Bought

Three Future Reads

Favorite Reads

My Book

Pages

Categories