I hope you're familiar with this story .

Anyway, Mrs. Kerry basically tells a reporter to "shove it" when he's trying to understand what she meant when she had earlier commented on the need to clean up politics since the process had become un-Pennsylvanian and had some "un-American traits". Later when asked by a reporter what she meant by, "un-American", she responded that she hadn't said that. She later returned to the reporter after learning that he was from a conservative newspaper and that's when the famous "Shove it" occurred.

I'm not quite sure why she reacted that way since the reporter was asking for her to clarify what she meant.

The thing that's bothering me about this is afterwards when she and her husband were asked about it, they defended what she had done and attacked the reporter's motives. I don't care that she said, "Shove it", but that the incident itself has become the story and she has yet to clarify herself.

I would have rather heard her say something like, I was under a lot of stress or distracted, I didn't hear him correctly or misunderstood his question, I did say that and here's what I meant when I said "un-American traits." It could have been a great opportunity for her to explain what she meant, get her message out to more people and really come across as a professional, humble servant of the people.

I think she missed that opportunity.

Last edited: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 4:10:18 PM

Yeah, I have to agree that it was kind of dumb move to say the whole "shove it" thing, rather than just explain her point. I'm sure she had a point to her remark, or else she wouldn't have said it. It would be best if she just made statement about the whole incident, so it won't get blown out of proportion.

Yeah, she should have said, "BITE ME!"

Last edited: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 4:22:12 PM

Or, or mr cheney's "F**K OFF!"

Last edited: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 4:44:17 PM

Or perhaps, something like "up your nose with a rubber hose!' XD

Or perhaps she shoulda just stuck her tongue out.

Or maybe she could have just pulled up her shirt then grabbed the guy by the back of the head and rubbed his face in her breasteses.

I shall be the next to insult here.
I'm DEF. Not voting for her husband now!

After looking at the latest ABC poll, I don't know if Kerry can ketchup after all _{the squirt} . XD

Or maybe she should learn to control her temper.

I'm glad to see she's got some spunk. Laura Bush is like an empty-headed, prom queen who's never quite sure what she should say.

Or, or, "HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"

AND HE DELIVERS THEM ON HIS BICYCLE.

@44 - Here's what I don't get. I've heard other people mention the "spunk" feature. Sure, spunk is fine, but not when its used to be a bully. Doesn't it bother anyone that she said the political process had some "un-American traits" then denied that she said it? Isn't anyone the least bit curious about what she meant by that? Not that it matters that much, but why doesn't anyone ask her again what she meant? Are they afraid she's going to tell them to "Shove it" as well? What's THAT do for the political process?

"She's got fire! She's got spunk!"

Well, seems like she's got short-term memory and a sharp tongue too. Not that it matters, I just don't like how she skirted the question.

PS Added - And I don't care that Kerry toured NASA in a "space suit". In fact, I think its cool and wish I could do the same. :)

Last edited: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at 11:51:47 AM

You guys keep messing up what having spunk means.

You've got to be joking Rabban. Her comment could not be more insignificant. Most of the country rants and raves about the way our news organizations sensationalize or take a strictly partisan view of the world. Now that somebody tells a reporter what the rest of us are thinking you have a problem with it? It's purely campaign propaganda at it's finest. If she did say that the current tactics used in a politics are "un-American" she's right. Our current partisan political system is no more than modern day McCarthyism.

One thing that really pisses me off about Bush is how he has brought religion to the political dinner table and won't eat without it being there. You just can't do that in a society which contains dozens of religions with varying views of right and wrong. That's not America, that's called Iran.

How about Slick Willy the other night? He has one thing that Bush and maybe Kerry will never have, charisma. You could have the potential to be a great leader but if you lack charisma you will most likely fail. Bush obviously lacks this trait and it is made evident by the world's current view of America. This characteristic is essential for a President to have. If you don't have it you will fail all of us, as Bush has done, in the eyes of the "Global Community." No wonder Clinton was banging everything in sight, it's that damn charisma. Hell, even I wanted to do him the other night.

Last edited: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at 12:27:16 PM

Orange Alert! Orange Alert! Orange Alert!...

For a more sobering view of how our political process can be "un-American" one might read David Cay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else"

As Molly Ivins so succinctly put it, "Those far more detestable are the congressmen who sneak special tax advantages and exemptions into the law in exchange for campaign contributions and then lecture the rest of us on patriotism."

Preach on, Brother Rogue. If Slick Will were running against Bush...well...bluntly, he'd win 70/30.

OK, great, fine. I don't care that she said it, just that she denied it and told the reporter off instead of explaining what she meant. Who knows? I might agree with her as well.

And speaking of un-American, why is John Ashcroft so bent on taking away more of our freedoms?

Slick willy wasnt as bad as he got made out to be. Sure he got it wet but I cant blame him. If I had the weight of the world on my shoulders I would have a line leading to the oval office all the way to the white house lawn.

B

@Rabban

You make a good point. She did skirt a legitimate question. But, she got fired up after she realized who was asking the question and understood why. That reporter was a notorious, ultra-conservative Kerry basher and she knew he was probably trying to tee her up for some perceived unfair criticism.

She put two and two together and went right at him.

Was it diplomatic? No.

Was it first-lady-like? No.

Was it good use of judgement? No.

Did the Kerry campaign like it? No.

But, I respect it. Much like I respect somebody who stands up to a Bully and isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe. She is smart. She is sharp. And she clearly won't take shit.

Can she learn to tone it down and restrain herself? No doubt...especially after she sees how the media ran with her outburst.

Again, I'll take that kind of first lady over an empty headed, trophy wife any day.

If Clinton wants to make some real money he should get into religion and start his own church. Become Jimmy Swaggert. Preach every Sunday. I'd watch. I'd send money. Might even put on some Nikes, track a comet, live in a compound in Waco and drink some Kool-Aid if he told me it was the right thing to do.

Last edited: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at 8:40:29 PM

Ahh... The Cult of Personality lives on...

;)

Fart....

Oops excuse me but I farted...

John kerry rulesssssssssss, lol......after kerry wins, America will be 10 years ahead again, engineers will have real jobs rather than engineering burgers....lol. Who is a democrat here? And yes the most important thing is we will have a literate president.

"Fool me once........... , shame on you;..................................... Fool me......................--you can't get fooled again!"
By: Mr. Bush

This is the drunk apollo13 speaking.

I am really curious what Kerry intends to do for this country. Everything he bitches about goes away. And Gore...talking about the environment? Wazzup with dat? Talk about living in the 90's.

Politics is all turned into bullshit anyway. I can just see one of the first GOP commercials....first cut has Edwards saying "You ain't qualified Mr Kerry" and then the second cut...let than 10 days later....has him standing on a podium grabbing Big John's package (by the testicles for you younger folk)...talking about how "qualified Mr. Kerry is."

You may think I am kidding, but that "This land is your land" video that's running around really hits the mark.

As far a Mrs. Kerry's concerned.....I think she's as full of shit as a Christman turkey. Bottom line. They may pull that shit in France, but we expect more out of our potential First Ladies over here. Even Hillary wouldn't have pulled some shit like that.

And as far as Laura Bush is concerned...I guess you want the wife of leader of the free world to be Oprah? Hey man, dunno if you are married or not, but trust me when I say this: I guaran-f'ing-tee you either you are, or will be, in a situation where the woman you love makes sense to no one but you.

@ 44

When you say...."she got fired up after she realized who was asking the question and understood why. That reporter was a notorious, ultra-conservative Kerry basher and she knew he was probably trying to tee her up for some perceived unfair criticism.

She put two and two together and went right at him."

Are you condoning pre-emptive attacks? I.E. Iraq?

(I'd like some bacon with that waffle....please sir) XD

@UFChief

Please tell me you're comparing a decision to tell a reporter to "shove it" with a decision to send 900 Americans to their death. Is that really the comparison you're making?

If I'm waffle, you're a froot loop.

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 9:25:32 AM

@44 - OK, maybe, but you can't pick and choose your reporters. And while she may have felt he was going to misrepresent her, that's no reason to insult him. She should have at least waited until after he unfairly criticized her.

Of course, you comment could also be a prediction of how the country will react to the political polarization of America. This whole business with Bush and Kerry is getting too personal. People don't just disagree with the candidates, they hate the opposition.

So are Democrats only going to talk to reporters sympathetic to their cause while Repubs only talk to their guys?

I can agree that the process is becoming un-American when the ideas of democracy and republic are lost in a sea of smear tactics and personality contests. I think it is becoming more and more about power and who has it rather than really serving the best interests of the People.

BTW, Saddam's Secret weapons....

Those are Monster XL and CPS 2000 Mk. 1 super soakers next to him :)

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 11:32:36 AM

Man! What's that smell in here?...oh, just politics. Thanks for the fresh air Vash.

Yeah, like when Aaron Burr ran for governor of New York, one of the newspapers at the time ran a story claiming Vice President Alexander Hamilton had a bad opinion of him. Burr lost the race, challenged Hamilton to a duel and shot him to death. At least he waited for the story to run. :)

Politics have become too civil. XD

Rabban:
Nobody hates Kerry yet.
As far as the first lady goes, who the hell cares? Laura is a doorknob, but who criticizes her? Nobody, because nobody cares. Kerry's wife gets criticized by republicans because she speaks 5 languages and is smart. Ooo boy, says dem red staters, les keep dem smart peeple out da white house so wes can go on ridin da backs of da poor and disenfranchised.
I await the debates. I await gb answering intellectual and policy challenges with jibes and smirks, replies without substance. Preemptive quote: "Sure he didn't sound that smart, but his reply to _______ sure was funny."
Did any of you actually watch the dnc last night? Are any of you planning on watching it tonight? You tell me how the repubs are going to counter the energy and optimism of the democrats.
With every line of dialogue that goes into answering the nonsense shove-it comment, the republicans win, because issues { all of which are giant pimples on GB's nose like the one I woke up with this morning } do create quite a stench around him, and it's better not to discuss them.
day after day of death in iraq? Leaky borders? National deficit? Shhh.....
shove it? SHE SAID WHAT?
www.moveon.org

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 2:47:25 PM

@ 44

LOL.

I think the term "sending 900 troops to their deaths" is straight outta the DNC "talking points". Those guys are over there for a good cause, and it's kinda funny how when liberals are faced with this fact they end up coming back with the fact that those guys have been over there for over 18 months and experienced a rate of loss that is ONE QUARTER of what the murder rate is in New York City. Oh...by the way...last time I was in the Big Apple I don't remember anyone walking around with AK47's. And speaking of pre-emptive, let me also say that if the people of Iraq didn't want us there, they could kick our asses out forthwith...if there were a true uprising, I can assure you less than 100,000 combat soldiers (that's right - the other 65% are support and logistics, civil, etc.) wouldn't stand a chance against the MILLIONS of Iraqis that are capable of picking up a weapon.

How did the 900 die? They died bravely, in defense of this country, while fighting TERRORISM. I would much rather they kill them in Baghdad than Kansas City.

RE the waffle comment

It's strictly a theoretical "black and white" argument. Nothing more.

@ Tally

Kerry had no choice put to pick Edwards. After months and months of "doom & gloom" campaigning (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) the Kerry camp had no choice but to bring in Edwards. The problem now is that Edwards is having to restrain himself in order to keep from overshadowing Kerry...thereby a lot of the qualities in Edwards that the Kerry camp were counting on to make Kerry "more appealing" can't be brought to bear.

It's actually a very interesting study in national politics. Bottom line: it's unfortunate that Edwards entered the race (primaries) so late as it is my opinion that it may have cost the Dems the White House this year. With less than 100 days to the election, the "optimism" may be too little too late.

Chief
Did you see him speak last night?

Edwards? No I didn't....I missed it. I TiVo'd it though and plan on watching it later today.

I did read that he gave a good speech. Problem is that the conv is over tomorrow and there is a whole lot of campaign left to go. No way Kerry's camp let's him do what he's best at until....I'd say mid-October. That's usually "oh shit" time for losing candidates.

Sounds like the argument of a pre-determined mind.
Watch it before you make conclusions.

Predetermined? No.

Hopeful? Yes.

;)

Thanks for the constructive debate - have enoyed it.

@Tally - So the Dems think they're smarter than the rest of us? Somehow, that explains a lot.

And sure, we can all say how stupid Bush and what not, but that's because he's doing something as president. What's Kerry done? What's he known for? He and Edwards both skipped out on the FMA vote. Why? Because they didn't want to take a position. Why not go on the record and show America what they stand for? Too risky. All they have to do is sit back, do nothing silly and take shots at the president.

As far as Dem Momentum, seems like Kerry is losing points according to the ABC poll .

So instead of a surge, he's loosing points (except with the conventioneers).

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 4:09:50 PM

@ Rabban

RE: the poll

First time I took the time to look at the details and scales.

OUCH. That's gonna leave a mark. Maybe John-John will do an extra Botox injection.

(Sorry - couldn't resist)

(wazzup with the sudden fat tanks?)

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 4:17:42 PM

Rabban
"@Tally - So the Dems think they're smarter than the rest of us?"
Where did I say that?

"And sure, we can all say how stupid Bush and what not, but that's because he's doing something as president."
I don't know how to respond to that. I don't know what it means.

The following is a pull from that ABC poll:
July 26, 2004 The critical convention season begins with John Kerry losing momentum at just the hour he'd like to be gaining it: President Bush has clawed back on issues and attributes alike, reclaiming significant ground that Kerry had taken a month ago.

Um, woops? If you notice that first bit, it says July 26. Your post implies the message of the convention, the convention itself is somehow bolstering republican support. Today is the 29th. The poll was taken before the convention started.

Yawners, dog.

Last edited: Thursday, July 29, 2004 at 4:52:46 PM

In her defense, that specific reporter does have a history of maliciously attacking her and her family in his publications. I'm sure she was being abrasive with him because of bad experiences she's had with him in the past.

Funny how they exploit this to their benefit, but nobody really cared when Bush's daughter stuck her tong out and flipped off a reporter that was trying to interview her about getting arrested.

I bought off abc poll yesterday with old reruns of FRIENDS episode...

Now the abc poll will say, "Vash is now leading the race".......ha ha, ho ho, he he.

No new taxes people.

@ Vash

TT for everyone and you have my vote...only if you do something about the lag too.

"@Tally - So the Dems think they're smarter than the rest of us?"
Where did I say that?

Red states would be the Republican hicks I suppose you're trying to imitate?

Perhaps my tongue was buried a bit too deeply into my cheek, as the point was missed, which was:
If I have to choose between two people for office, one of whom is mocked by the other for his intelligence { see: bush/gore, forthcoming bush/kerry debates }, I'll choose he who is mocked rather than the mocker.
As an aside: in general, and in the specific: I will never say any one group of people is __________ [adjective of your choice] than another group of people. Jumping to that conclusion is and jamming those words in my mouth is not valid, logical, appropriate, etc. So, whereas I would not say "Republicans are idiots," I would say "George Bush is an idiot."
I have cowardly deleted the rest of my post.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but the conventions seem to be particularly useless nowadays. What, is it going to be a surprise who the states nominate for president??? %) To me it seems to serve no purpose other than to pose and make p(r)etty speeches for 3 or 4 days straight.

One thing I never hear about in the coverage of these events - the states that Kerry didn't win, do they nominate whoever won them? Or is the whole thing so scripted and asinine that they cave in and give their votes to Kerry as well? _{Please note - this is not Kerry-bashing. This is politics bashing.}

Ya mo, I think in the past, the conventions have been much more dramatic; they've begun without a clear-cut candidate and the vote therein was the actual decider. There is only a fraction of dissenting minority this year.
someone knows better I assume.

Perhaps my inattentiveness may have missed this point, but didnt the current prez call a reporter a "jackass" and I'm pretty sure his vice-prez threatened a senator or two, not that they dont need it, but it seems to be leaning towards a double standard here. Is it okay for "W" to say something like that because he's a conservative "buttwhooper"? At least heinz said what she wanted to the dude's face rather than going the passive aggressive "oops was my mike on?" route. Neither comment is warranted in my book, but I think we need to check our own 2*4's before we go out starting to build our retirement homes out of someones else's plywood. (interpretive license)