Kerry's Botched Joke

Great Debates
482

Speaking as someone who is not an American and who’s relatively disinterested: It was a botched joke… It seems to me that only those who wanted to be offended were offended. The context makes improbable any other interpretation. I’m sorry, but to those who were offended, I don’t buy it. It was a dig at Bush, that’s all it was.

Is it fair game however, for the Pubbies to capitalize on this even when they know that the joke was not about the troops? Why of course. All is fair in love and politics.

483

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Interesting that you focused on the cherry on top and ignored the rest of the post.
[/QUOTE]
A cherry on top made it no less of a turd sundae.

484

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
A cherry on top made it no less of a turd sundae.
[/QUOTE]

Amost cute. I notice that you didn’t attempt to counter the points made about **Luci’s **post. Should be easy, given your estimation of its quality.

485

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You mean words like “troops” or “soldiers”? Also do not appear. Also entirely absent.
[/QUOTE]

My god, man! You have seized upon this meaningless tid-bit and clung to it with a tenacity never before observed in recorded history. Many times, in many ways, from many different angles, it has been explained to you that “stuck in Iraq” must, within context, refer to the troops. Yet you persevere. I bow to your world-class obtuseness.

My final opinion, after a couple of days of thought:
Kerry got off of Bush and onto education. He closed with a warning to his audience of students: (paraphrasing here) “Do well in school or you’ll wind up in Iraq.” That’s much like my grandpa used to warn me with: “Do well in school or you’ll wind up digging ditches.”

His audience of students, who are all probably doing well in school, laughed. Mission accomplished!

Then, after some hassle, his spin-doctors started spinning.

To claim that Kerry was talking about Bush makes no sense. “Do well in school or you’ll wind up being President of the United States” lacks something in the joke department, don’t ya’ think?

486

[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
First off, the audience laughed when he made that joke. There were no gasps of shock, just laughter. I’m betting the first time he realized that the joke didn’t work was when he heard about it in the news.
…

Third, he DID apologize. Within two days, as I recall. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done, as is evidenced by this multiple-page thread. It’s a shame that not a single one of the PRESIDENT’S gaffes have gotten this much play, isn’t it? Hell, Kerry’s not even running for anything.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, he apologized within 2 days. No, he did not apologize when he heard from the media that he screwed up. Instead, he held a press conference in which he went ballistic and vowed never to apologize. It was afterwards that he apologized.

And yes, Kerry is running for 2008, or at least that’s what all the pundits claim. And yes, Bushisms get lots of press. They don’t lead to 11 page threads because in this audience, Bush is an easy target.

487

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Just pointing that out. Again. The inference that you claim is inescapable is simply that: an inference. You cannot support the inference by direct reference to the text, all you have for substantiation is your insistence that it is so.
[/QUOTE]

The subject of the sentence was “you”, second person. Not “he”, third person, which would refer to the President. As another poster pointed out, your insistence that the lack of the letters t-r-o-o-p-s somehow proves your point is laughable.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
And as far as ignoring that which is inconvenient…I note that you are uninterested in my suggestion that the context was delivered to you, as it was to me. I suggest that said context has a bearing on how the segment was heard, even such paragons of objectivity and sound judgement as you and I.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not "uninterested’ in it. I simply don’t take issue with it. I think you’re correct. We cannot help but to be somewhat affected by how something is served up to us. Being aware of it will minimize the effects, but not strip them away completely. Except, of course, for rarities like you and I.

488

[QUOTE=magellan01]
The subject of the sentence was “you”, second person. Not “he”, third person, which would refer to the President. As another poster pointed out, your insistence that the lack of the letters t-r-o-o-p-s somehow proves your point is laughable.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

Wow. Not much more to be said. But, just in case…

If I use another person in a warning as an example of what not to do, of course the subject is you.

As in: “If you avoid sexually propositioning underage House pages, you won’t have to resign in disgrace, like some people.”

The subject is you. The reference is to Foley. Get it? Really, it is hard to imagine engaging in a discussion about potential misinterpretation of a sentence without the ability to understand these basics. There, the “you” Kerry was referring to was to his audience, and the reference was to Bush getting stuck in Iraq. Not too difficult to grasp.

489

And thus we arrive at the scary conclusion: Parsing the “joke” apparently was too hard for some people. Others probably could parse it correctly but just chose to make hay out of it for political reasons.

Can this be the last post in this thread, please?

490

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
:rolleyes:

Wow. Not much more to be said. But, just in case…

If I use another person in a warning as an example of what not to do, of course the subject is you.

As in: “If you avoid sexually propositioning underage House pages, you won’t have to resign in disgrace, like some people.”

The subject is you. The reference is to Foley. Get it? Really, it is hard to imagine engaging in a discussion about potential misinterpretation of a sentence without the ability to understand these basics. There, the “you” Kerry was referring to was to his audience, and the reference was to Bush getting stuck in Iraq. Not too difficult to grasp.
[/QUOTE]

Uh-duh. Can you point out something about gravity next? Or why it feels good when I inhale the air around me every now and then? It should be obvious that that my captious parsing of the statement was in response to one just as extreme. Sorry you missed that. If you’d like to explain where my thinking is faulty as far as my interpretation of the statement, I have more than a few posts you can deconstruct and show me the error of my ways. Until then, I’ll thank you for this valuable contribution.

491

[QUOTE=magellan01]
The subject of the sentence was “you”, second person. Not “he”, third person, which would refer to the President…
[/quote]

Your using grammar for your evidence now? Don’t you think your high school English teacher has suffered enough? (She just called, she’s out on a window ledge threatening to jump…)

So lets see if I got this right. Your watching Monday Night Football, the Chicago Nellies vs. the Pittsburgh Girlyboys, Red Roughansore is doing the play by play. And the quarterback gets sacked three times running and he says “You know, you can’t stay in the pocket too long or you get sacked.” He’s talking to you? Or, alternatively, isn’t it clear by the context that he’s talking about the *friggin’ quarterback! *

But the word B-u-s-h sure as hell does, being as he is the subject. But OK, not “troops”. “Soldiers”? “Our heroes”? “Our brave boys”? A single word, any word, that means anything remotely military! Not there. Nowhere to be found. Ergo, your insistance that he simply must be referring to “the troops” is nothing more than your inference. Nothing more substantial that your intuition.

492

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Uh-duh.
[/QUOTE]
Well said, well spoken, B. G.

Of course, I would have previously thought such things painfully obvious.

493

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Your using grammar for your evidence now? Don’t you think your high school English teacher has suffered enough? (She just called, she’s out on a window ledge threatening to jump…)

So lets see if I got this right. Your watching Monday Night Football, the Chicago Nellies vs. the Pittsburgh Girlyboys, Red Roughansore is doing the play by play. And the quarterback gets sacked three times running and he says “You know, you can’t stay in the pocket too long or you get sacked.” He’s talking to you? Or, alternatively, isn’t it clear by the context that he’s talking about the *friggin’ quarterback! *
[/QUOTE]

Did you not read what has been posted? Regardless, looks like you and Hentor will have to fight over The Statement of The Painfully Obvious Award. Congratulations to the one who wrestles it from the other.

I have not insisted that he MUST have been referring to the troops, only that I find that the much more plausible interpretation. Now, you have brought up “context” a few times. Let’s talk about that. Here’s some context that I find important:

  1. He was addressing college-age students.
  2. He segued away from his Bush Riff into"education": “But we’re here to talk about education.” Education in the scholastic sense, not the military intelligence sense, which we can see in #3.
  3. What followed the segue reinforced the scholastic education theme: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” (bolding mine)

So we have college kids getting advice concerning their education, with an admonition to work hard so they can do well and a warning that if they don’t things won’t be so rosy for them, i.e., they’ll be stuck in Iraq.

Any further explanation of my position will be redundant. If you have anything to add or question, please review my posts first and gain an accurate understanding of my positions.

494

Occams Phazer. Don’t add an uneccesary entity.
To wit:

Bush is a dumfuk
If you dont study, etc. you will be a dumfuk
And end up like Bush, for instance, stuck in Iraq

You (students), Bush, education, the state of dumfukitude. Only entitys required. The only entities introduced. Makes sense. Not very funny, but makes sense. Simply because he has started talking about education doesn’t mean he has stopped talking about Bush, he has added that dimension, but he is still talking about Bush relative to education.

Its true that there are “troops” stuck in Iraq. It is also true that Bush is stuck in Iraq. But Bush is already an introduced entity, and the “troops” are not. And are not necessary unless you are reaching for a conclusion not otherwise indicated. Obviously, if you want to believe Kerry is dissing the troops, you have to introduce the concept, because he sure as hell didn’t.

495

The argument, thus far, doesn’t seem to be about Kerry meant to say. I think most of us could agree that it was not likely that he would have consiously insulted the troops, especially in public.

However, what the argument does seem to be, is how the line, as spoken, could be taken to mean.

The Kerry supporters seem to be arguing that there is no way for anyone to be sincerely insulted by what they may have seen or read about the statement, and that they are dishonest if they are. This I can’t agree with, as I cannot ask each and every one of them (the folks saying that they are insulted) to get a bead on their mindset. I have to assume that there are some folks who are sincere in their convictions as stated.

The Kerry supporters also argue that there is no credible way for the line, as spoken, to be taken to mean anything other than what Kerry meant it to mean. While it may “obvious” to one person (the Kerry supporter), why is it so hard to consider that there is a chance that others might have seen it differently, especially as the speaker himself has stated that he “misspoke”?

(Please review my other posts on this, numbers 251 and 265, pg 6, for my current opinion.)

I am surprised that noone has budged (at least openly saying so) a bit in this thread. :slight_smile:

496

Which is why Kerry was so pissed, and rightly so. He knows he wasn’t dissing the troops. He knows he didn’t even mention the troops, someone else inserted them into the equation. Sure enough, he looks at the tv and it says “Here’s the clip of Kerry dissing the troops!”

Damn right he’s pissed! Damn right he refuses to apologize for being misinterpreted. He can’t apologize for dissing the troops, because he didn’t, and he knows he didn’t. So finally he apologizes for being unclear, regreting that he was misinterpreted. I’m sure he’s entirely sincere about that.

Only to find himself shit on for not apologizing sooner for what he never did in the first place! Its like demanding Dreyfus apologize for being sent to Devil’s Island!

Why didn’t he apologize on the spot? Because nothing had happened! It didn’t start to “happen” until the speech was seized upon and the required interpretation applied. The incident was manufactured after the fact. All Kerry knew at the time was that his joke had fallen flat, which I’m sure he’s used to.

497

The onus is on the speaker to be clear. If that speaker is misintepreted, it is not the fault of the listener.

?

Even Kerry himself said he misspoke… nothing had to be applied. As a matter of fact, to get the meaning Kerry himself later said that he actually meant to say, you had to apply words that did not appear in the sentence.

“Bush” was not in the sentence. “Troops” was not in the sentence. Either could have been infered. I believe he meant to slam Bush’s policy, not the troops. But I can also see how it could be infered the other way.

To continue to insist that all of those who are upset are lying, each and every one of them, and further, that they are being partisan hacks of the worst kind, is not being completely honest or fair, either, IMO.

Is it fair to be angry/annoyed at the pundits for spinning this out of proportion (and distracted the voters from more important issues)? Sure. That’s a good point too.

But not everyone is a pundit, and of those who are not, it’s not fair to call them liars.

498

[QUOTE=mlees]
The onus is on the speaker to be clear. If that speaker is misintepreted, it is not the fault of the listener.

“Bush” was not in the sentence. “Troops” was not in the sentence. Either could have been infered. I believe he meant to slam Bush’s policy, not the troops. But I can also see how it could be infered the other way.

Ya know mlees ,“rutabagas” was not in the sentence either and may be inserted by anyone wanting to pick a fight . You can call it “misinterpret the speaker” if you want but inserting anything into his sentence is just dishonest. He clarified his statement making it crystal clear he did not slam the troops. He did not dishonor the troops.

If you read Magellans comment
" So we have college kids getting advice concerning their education, with an admonition to work hard so they can do well and a warning that if they don’t things won’t be so rosy for them, i.e., they’ll be stuck in Iraq."

you’ll find the only meaning I’ve read so far in this thread that makes any sense.

Now if you want to discuss something strange you might want to examine why the college students laughed at his comment.

499

[QUOTE=justwannano]

[QUOTE=mlees]
The onus is on the speaker to be clear. If that speaker is misintepreted, it is not the fault of the listener.

“Bush” was not in the sentence. “Troops” was not in the sentence. Either could have been infered. I believe he meant to slam Bush’s policy, not the troops. But I can also see how it could be infered the other way.

Ya know mlees ,“rutabagas” was not in the sentence either and may be inserted by anyone wanting to pick a fight . You can call it “misinterpret the speaker” if you want but inserting anything into his sentence is just dishonest. He clarified his statement making it crystal clear he did not slam the troops. He did not dishonor the troops.
[/quote]
This strenuous denial that his comments could not possibly be referring to the troops in Iraq is amusing, from someone who has followed this thread (with only a quick contribution, pages and pages ago). He was addressing college students, telling them that hard work and being smart in school will keep you from getting stuck in Iraq. In context, it is still completely reasonable to hear that and infer it referred to the troops in Iraq. The insistence in this thread that it can only, only, only be reasonably interpreted to mean what Kerry intended (and I believe he did intend nothing insulting to the troops) is laughable.

I know people who were and are offended by this–people who will be voting Democrat, BTW–who simply are not inclined to cut Kerry any slack given his prior comments about U.S. troops. Not when a straightforward reading of his comments, without the benefit if his later explanation, can easily lead one to conclude he was dissing the troops. Do you think they are interpreting it correctly? Perhaps not (I don’t, for example). Are they being dishonest? Puh-leez!

The SDMB is often such a prototypical echo chamber of liberal thought that it’s easy for something to pass as factual, as gospel, as beyond reasonable dispute, just by virtue of rapid and passionate repetition. My advice? Take a deep breath and step out of this thread into the real world. Not everyone thinks exactly like you do, and that doesn’t make them dishonest or partisan toadies.

Don’t know what this means exactly. magellan01’s paraphrase is the “textbook” interpretation of one who did take offense to Kerry’s comment. What are the nonsensical interpretations you seem to perceive?

What’s strange? I can picture college students getting a chuckle out of either interpretation.

500

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Occams Phazer. Don’t add an uneccesary entity.
To wit:

Bush is a dumfuk
If you dont study, etc. you will be a dumfuk
And end up like Bush, for instance, stuck in Iraq
[/QUOTE]

Or, what the words actually said: You, young man or woman student, will find your person located in Iraq.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
You (students), Bush, education, the state of dumfukitude. Only entitys required. The only entities introduced. Makes sense. Not very funny, but makes sense. Simply because he has started talking about education doesn’t mean he has stopped talking about Bush, he has added that dimension, but he is still talking about Bush relative to education.
[/QUOTE]

It might not necessarily mean that he stopped talking about Bush, it just makes more sense.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Its true that there are “troops” stuck in Iraq. It is also true that Bush is stuck in Iraq. But Bush is already an introduced entity, and the “troops” are not. And are not necessary unless you are reaching for a conclusion not otherwise indicated.
[/QUOTE]

Ha! Even Kerry admits that the line as delivered was inadequate to convey the meaning he claims he intended. And what the hell does “a conclusion not otherwise indicated” mean? To claim your interpretation is one thing, to claim that the interpretation which says that he was referring to the truth is conjured out of thin air with no support whatsoever portraysnothing by sheer, blinding partisanship.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Obviously, if you want to believe Kerry is dissing the troops, you have to introduce the concept, because he sure as hell didn’t.
[/QUOTE]

No, you have to simply be on a quest for the most logical meaning. And I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t think he intended to insult the troops. It was a result of his attempt to ingratiate himself with his audience. Take intent away and a major reason for your interpretation disappears. Poof!

Luci, one thing you’ve not commented on: in order to believe that he was, in fact, referring to Bush, you have to believe that Kerry intentionally wanted to draw attention to the President’s mediocre performance at Yale, which was slightly better than his own. Why the hell would he do that? Do you really think he would?

Please answer that.

Also, please explain the logic of this supposed botch joke. Bush is stuck in Iraq because he didn’t do well? “Take that to heart kids, God forbid you graduate Yale and then get an MBA from Harvard. If those horrorible failings should befall you (just like they did BUsh), you might just wind up the most powerful person in the world. So buckle down and don’t let that happen to you!!!”

Nope. Assuming that whatever he intended to say was going to make sense, that certainly ain’t it.

501

[QUOTE=justwannano]

[QUOTE=mlees]
Ya know mlees ,“rutabagas” was not in the sentence either and may be inserted by anyone wanting to pick a fight . You can call it “misinterpret the speaker” if you want but inserting anything into his sentence is just dishonest.
[/QUOTE]

To the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any rutabagas “stuck in Iraq”.