Something that really annoys me-comparisons of JK to Romney!

[ObamaKerryDem]

..even if a lot of these people are mocking Romney in the process. What an insult to JK, who was unfairly labeled a "flip flopper" because of RW and MSM distortion of something he said, something that could've been put into proper context if the entire clip had been shown, not just a tiny snippet. While Romney--or "Multiple Choice Mitt" as the late great Ted Kennedy called him--is in fact a flip flopper on the issues!

I've seen this on Twitter, on the Last Word on MSNBC the other night (when Chris Hayes was guest hosting for him--I doubt Lawrence would've played into that!), and in articles like this one:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-GOPs-new-John-Kerry.html

Blah! :thumbsdown:

[karynnj]

1. I've seen it, but in a fair number of cases, I've seen them say that Kerry was "unfairly"

labeled a flip flopper. Obviously this happens less than half the time, but it is good that it happens at all - as he got no defense in 2005/2006 on this.

On ones that don't - including one in my local paper that got in as a LTTE, I have taken the time to post that what the Republicans used was not a series of issues where he changed 180 degrees, but an unfortunate shorthand where he summarized for a second questioner/heckler an answer he had just given in detail. The question was why did you vote against funding the troops. Kerry had explained that he voted to fund it - but with it being paid for by rolling back the tax cuts on the top 1% - a version Bush said he would veto. He then cast a protest vote on the Republican version that passed because it added it to the debt. Then adding a line referring to the current Republican obsession with the deficit. (Knowing the question asked, Kerry's shorthand does not immediately seem bad - and speaking 16 hours a day, he couldn't really parse every sentence for reasons it could hurt him without having seemed incapable of answering a question off the cuff. That this really hurt was partly because the media played dumb acting like this was incomprehensible rather than pretty obvious. (Even without that the wording would have led to Republican ads.)

The sad thing is that for someone in public life for 3 (or 4) decades, his positions are remarkably consistent. Always an environmentalist, always anti- corruption (which is why the current RW attacks on him holding up the money for the corrupt anti-Castro groups is completely consistent - though the Miami Herald doesn't see it that way), and his foreign policy ideas are not far from his views in 1966. Obvious there is some change, but if there were no change in that length of time, you would worry about being too rigid.

[ObamaKerryDem]

3. Exactly! And that is why it's so frustrating to hear these mistruths/misconceptions..

..still being repeated so frequently, and especially among fellow progressives who, IMO, ought to know better! But I guess some still hold a grudge against JK for '04..*sigh* Frustrating!

[MBS]

2. I heard the Chris Hayes comment

and was so furious I turned off the TV.
Romney and Kerry couldn't be more different. "Blah" is right!

[ObamaKerryDem]

4. I did the exact same thing..LOL!

:)

Really dissapointed in Chris Hayes for this. I even Tweeted him to that effect right afterward. He ought to know better!

JK deserves FAR more credit than that!

[karynnj]

5. I suspect it is because Romney fits the smear characterization created to make Kerry unlikable

They do have some things in common - they born were born into elite families, they are both tall and were blessed with better than average hair, both have a connection to Massachusetts.

But Romney does seem to have no position he is unwilling to change - while Kerry has been consistent on most positions - even a major one that does not help him on the left. (I respect that he did not turn John Edwards like demonizing the trade deals as the cause of the decline of the worker - which would have flown in the face of his more thoughtful view that explained it as a natural product of the globalization of the economy. Leading to him wanting to fix trade deals, rather than kill them.)

Romney is also superficial - at least on foreign policy. One would thing that after 10 years of the Afghan War, he would know tha the people are Afghans, not Afghanis.

Then there are values. Romney made his money at Bain Capital, which could have fit in in the first Wall Street movie. They bought troubled companies and "restructured them", a euphemism for firing most or all employees and selling off any assets. Now, he speaks of that successful businessman part of his life meaning that he can better deal with the economy. (I bet a strategy for "restructuring the indebted states and exiling unneeded inhabitants would be the equivalent.

Just looking at the fact that Romney was able to be a Mormon missionary in France (maybe because HE looks French?) instead of going to Vietnam shows which one pulled strings rather than serve his country. (In fact, the elite image for Kerry started back in the 197os as a way to try to diminish the image of a clean cut, honest, American war hero - by pointing out he really was not the boy next door, if your house was in a working class neighborhood.)

What I hope is that the fact that the Republicans were able to define negatively many things that were actually neutral or positive - that Kerry was wealthy, suave, dignified, well dressed, and could speak French, might rebound on them if Romney ends up their candidate. On these measures, it is Obama who is the less formal! Then throw in that in his case, the flip flop meme is real.

[ladym55]

6. And let's not forget

That Romney's sons were needed for his father's presidential campaign back in 2006-2007, which is how THEY "served" their country, according to good ol' dad. No nasty Iraqi sand in their shoes!

M$M is lazy and spreads its self-perceived conventional wisdom, and unfortunately, many "progressive" journalists fall into the trap of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom about JK is often mean-spirited and far from true.