Update on Ruben NAVARRETTE

[UTUSN]

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33734-2004Jan20.html

Back in the distant past -- okay, it was 25 days ago -- Dallas Morning News columnist Ruben Navarrette wrote that John Kerry "must accept the fact that the game is over. . . . The last time John Kerry was engaged in this hopeless a mission, he was dressed in fatigues and running around Southeast Asia." ....

Navarrette, whose piece declaring that Kerry "doesn't have a prayer" was reprinted in The Washington Post, asked yesterday whether a reporter was "calling to rub salt in my wounds." But he dug in his heels, saying of Kerry, "I still don't think he wins the nomination," and in that case "the column's fine." ....

********UNQUOTE*******

The original offensive column:

******QUOTE*****

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/rnavarrette/stories/122603dnedinavarrette.ab974.html
.... Let's speak plainly: The last time Mr. Kerry was engaged in this hopeless a mission, he was dressed in fatigues and running around Southeast Asia. ....

...willing to put his wife's money where his ego is. ....

...the current occupant of the White House, who spent the late 1960s logging time in the Texas Air National Guard.

As someone who spent those years in diapers, there are a lot of things I don't get about baby boomers and their various hang-ups over Vietnam. But I gather from eavesdropping on my elders that, when it comes time to dole out respect, there is thought to be a big difference between those who went into active duty and those who served as weekend warriors. ....
For those Americans who still are queasy with the United States using military force to right wrongs and save lives, the choice seems to be Howard Dean. For those who understand that this is precisely what history asks of the world's leading nations, there is George W. Bush. So, where does that leave John Kerry, who voted for the war, then opposed it, then got turned into a rhetorical pretzel by Saddam Hussein's capture?

I'll tell you where – bringing up the rear to a flamboyant preacher who, like Mr. Kerry, doesn't have a prayer.

*****UNQUOTE****

My rant back then on NAVARRETTE:
NAVARRETTE's headline writer succeeded in getting me to read the column, "Kerry may be facing the second quagmire of his life," in which he not only disses a distinguished senator and veteran, but also Vietnam vets and the whole Boomer generation.

NAVARRETTE is another one of those Affirmative Action dudes who, like Clarence THOMAS, emerged from their Democratic-sponsored hand-up apparently traumatized and self-hating, therefore committed to lashing out at anything Democratic and favoring every wingnut position.

Ostensibly, the angle that hooked NAVARRETTE is that Hispanics ought to be free agents, not be "owned" by the Democratic Party. The wee problem with this is that the alternative is to "belong" to the wingnuts, who just want Hispanics to be their (literal) yardmen and houseboys. Yep, there's something wrong with Affirmative Action, since those "Liberal" colleges turn pod minds into wingnuts. The suspect mechanism for teaching this supposed "independent thinking" is the devil's advocate gimmick, which tends to make the pod mind think it is very, very smart--smarter than the evidence supports.

In 2002, he was lecturing the Democratic Party on "loyalty" to Victor MORALES, the MORALES who later refused to support the Democratic nominee in the general election. I don't remember his opinion of the other MORALES, the one who openly turned coat and endorsed Governor Goodhair and who is now in the pen, but Dan holds a lesson for "independent" houseboys.

NAVARRETTE is a lesser version, in the bottom tiers, of wingnuts, never to be so big as HANNITY, who also likes to give advice to the Democratic Party--and certainly not in the class of intellect of PAGLIA and BUCKLEY, the masters of the wingnut pretzel trick: Twisting themselves into rhetorical convolutions about wingnut scoundrelism only to emerge ALWAYS on the wingnut side of things, the way BUCKLEY would ALWAYS end up blessing NIXON. In a lesser way, NAVARRETTE pretzels himself only to come down, miraculously, against every traditional position of his home minority group and on the side of Shrub.

In his spewing about KERRY, he plays a lesser, no wit and intellect, Maureen DOWD, and only shows himself as just mean---and LYING ("wife's money" and Shrub "logging time"----"HIDING OUT" would be a better description). He's also insufferably irritating on the subject of the Vietnam experience, managing to lash out at the whole Boomer generation. This dude is on NPR and in the Washington Post as, you know, one of those INDEPENDENT members of a minority group. Once again, as with the AA deal, he manages to parlay Liberal sponsors into tools for his wingnut houseboyism.

NAVARRETTE should get a clue: AA gave him a chance at a better, more groundbreaking career than just to be a shill. But think of the irony---the more he pretends to "independence", the more he is owned.

[Capn Sunshine]

1. Navarette was influenced by Kerry's lack of money

for starters. Pollling miserably at the time he went to Iowa, something happened withthe party structure that bolstered his confidence.

Now the question is, is he up to a 50 state run at things? Deans superior firepower in the funding game seems to be discounted greatly by the pundit-prone, but really, when you're going for 50 states, the money makes it go.

If you recall Kerry had to mortgage his house just to fund the buses and helos in Iowa.


His funding leans towards corporate, not mom and pop; one wonders just how badly the insiders want to keep their status. With kerry, they are assured safety.

[UTUSN]

2. My Focus Is More on NAVARRETTE

Who sells out the Dem side of things at every turn. Also, his flippant remarks about Vietnam vets and the Boomers as a whole are obnoxious and ignorant. The only reason he has a career in punditry is that he is "different," a minority member who takes the wingnut side of things. As for the word "pundit" - it has a connotation of being "learned". NAVARRETTE has no profound source for his opinions, either from his education or his experience. On Edit: "Opinionast" is better for describing these know-nothing blowhards than "pundit".