http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/28/ambassador.swift.ap/index.html
I suppose he will, anyway, for some other other reason (or pretext). Payback is a bitch. I guess my question is, could he properly or ethically vote against a Bush ambassadorial nominee just because that person gave to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in '04?
Sure he could. I’m sure there are many reasons other than the money he could find to justify his negative vote. If he votes solely because of the money, then he is less of a man than I give him credit for.
Sure, people block the advancement of their political rivals all the time. It’s how the system works.
Add that to the fact that contributing directly to the Swift Voters doesn’t speak well about a man’s character, and there’s plenty reason here to not vote for this guy.
He would be an absolute fool NOT to vote against a man who helped financed the organized smear effort that kept him out of the White House.
Voting against the nominee is more than acceptable.
Persuading the rest of the committee, (or the Senate if it gets out of committee with a recommendation), is also legitimate.
Openly using his own personal anger as the jumping off point for questioning was a bit silly as it will play into the hands of the Right wing media machine. (It would have made much more sense to feed his questions to one of his fellow Democrats to ask so that it was not so blatant–or, better yet, dig up some different dirt on which to challenge the nominee.)
Have fun reading a partial transcript between Kerry and Fox during the hearing.
I think giving to the Swift Boat Liars For Bush is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote against a nominee. 527s and their politics of destruction have been a major negative force in American politics in recent years, someone that contributed to the scummiest of the lot isn’t fit to represent the nation.
I’m a little disturbed by the precedent that it sets, though. Would a donation to the RNC be off-limits next? They had things to say about Kerry as well.
The issue shouldn’t be personal. I really don’t think John Kerry helped his case much by leading the charge here. As always, the man is fighting the last war.
He felt that he didn’t respond to those charges in time last time, which is fair, I suppose, but by leading the charge this time around, he risks looking petulant, which is a reputation he kind of has anyway.
Another Democrat ought to be carrying the water for him on this one.
Thank ghod the Republicans never acted this way when they were in charge.
Republicans have made more effective use of dirty tricks than the Democrats over the last 25+ years.
Republicans have gone personal far too often in the same period.
Do you have an example of a Republican openly challenging a nominee based on personal conflict?
Should the Democrats (or any Democrat) stoop to the level of Rove and Robertson?
If the Democrats are going to wage personal vendettas, would it not make more sense for them to do it less stupidly?
Anyone know if there is a conservative blog or something commenting on the exchange between Kerry and Fox?
-FrL-
Is anyone here going to boycott Meade telescopes, Rhino pressure washers, or Goo-Gone over this?
In what world does voting against a political opponent “set a precedent”?
Assuming that it’s okay to vote against a man who did something ethically rephrensible, it should be okay to vote against a man who did something ethically rephrehensible to you personally. Should Kerry vote *for * him just to prove he’s the bigger man?
Absolutely. This is politics at the highest level with the stakes at the highest level. For me it’s always about what will work. If that means someone goes to the hotseat then it does.
Nope. But someone with a reputation for being thin-skinned should try to play this perception down, which is why Kerry ought not to be leading the charge on this particular topic.
Besides, the mere fact that he was a donor to the group isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of this argument for me. There were things about John Kerry that could be legitimately attacked and opposed. Now, I think the Swift Boaters went too far in what they did, but they had the right to oppose him.
When were the donations made? Was it before or after the more damning or disprovable charges? And what control did Fox have over the leadership of the group? These are questions that I’d be asking, not simply dismissing the guy.
Why? It’s not as if Kerry’s going to be running for president anytime soon. Pretending he doesn’t feel the dude’s a worthless bastard for the media won’t win him any friends among those who like to see a little honesty in politics occasionally.
You can see the whole Kerry thing at the following link.
While personal Kerry did make the guy seem like a fool of the highest order. He did it well I have to say.
Well the way he answered the questions wasn’t very good. He said he disagreed with them but still gave them money as he was asked to by someone. He couldn’t remember who asked him though. He was all over the place. Not very impressive at all.
Like you are really concerned about his reputation. If he goes one way, you get to call him “thin-skinned”, and if he goes the other you get to say he’s “pandering” or “two-faced”. You’ve already decided to attack any decision-in your world it doesn’t matter what the decision is.
That observation is not really consistent with the comment
that appears to be saying that the question is legitimate but it would be better, politically, for Kerry not to be the foremost questioner.
::: shrug :::