JK on Larry King tonight?

[Noisy Democrat]

Thanks to Firespirit for mentioning this in another thread. I would never have seen it, though, if Luftmensch hadn't e-mailed it to me to get my attention. The CNN site doesn't yet say that JK will be on; if anyone sees confirming information somewhere, could you post it?

[karynnj]

1. They had a little mention on CNN - I think at the end of his show yesterday

[MBS]

2. here it is, on CNN TV schedule. ..

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/
9:00
p.m. ET
6:00
p.m. PT
Larry King Live: Reality TV star, "Duane "Dog" Chapman talks about the legal trouble he's in for catching a fugitive rapist. Plus, Sen. John Kerry on his Iraq joke gone wrong.

[Firespirit]

3. You beat me to it.

Dunno where the summary came from, I assume it must have been CNN that wrote it. Of course it'll be mentioned, but expect discussions of Iraq itself to be on the agenda.

[beachmom]

5. Okay, thanks. I hope that's the case. n/t

[beachmom]

4. Oh, great -- why can't it be: John Kerry and an Iraq War

gone wrong.

That is not a good indication of how it's going to go down tonight.

[rox63]

7. Yeah, it should be about Iraq

But he's also got to take care of some damage control. Certainly, it's RW-media created damage, but damage nonetheless.

[Firespirit]

8. It's CNN doing what it does best lately

being a bunch of pompous, condescending asses.

The JK who was on Fox will not let them turn the interview into that. He will own it like he owned the FNS interview -- or, as we young folks say, "pwn3d."

[wisteria]

11. They haven't been worthy of my attention for weeks now. They have

been as you say, "pompous, condescending asses". The political team seems to have a Hillary affiliation somehow, and they just drool over McCain.

[TayTay]

6. There it is, in a nutshell, what's wrong with this country.

A US Senator with important things to say about the fiasco in Iraq and the moral obligation of this country to sensibly end our involvement in the quagmire has to follow a guy named Duane Dog. (And he has to talk about a joke from a month ago that isn't even topical anymore.)

Some day historians are going to review the events and social climate of the early 21st century in the US and come upon stuff like this and spend hours and hours puzzling out how we all managed to dress ourselves every morning and figure out how to make coffee. Honestly, this is really, really, really idiotic.

Dear Senator, this too shall pass. I deeply regret the moronic culture that puts you after the guy named Duane Dog and makes you talk about trivial stuff. Are you really, really, really sure you want to lead a country that does stuff like this?

[wisteria]

10. Larry King is usually fair though, and it is possible he will have Kerry on first.

Also, they can't possibly talk about that "joke" for more than five minutes.

[rox63]

13. Wallace managed to talk about it for 20 minutes

And Larry King is a close pal of the Bushes. So who knows what he'll do. I suspect the questions will be split between the "botched joke", and the Quinnipiac poll. Maybe they'll let Kerry sneak a little something about *'s disaster of a war in there somewhere... :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

14. He's usually very easy to control - Kerry controlled

Chris Wallace fantasticly when he was on to speak about North Korea and extremely well when the topic was the joke and Kerry needed to politely address it.

I would imagine that King will give him the chance to show more of who he is as a person. (King did a fantastic interview with Kerry's daughters after the election and he was clearly impressed by them and their love and respect for their dad.)

[wisteria]

9. Should we post this in GD-P?

I don't want to froth up the DU-anti Kerry mob. Gosh knows they have just settled down.

[TayTay]

12. Hmmm, interesting.

Let's check the media log and see who else is on TV tonight.

Then we can include it.

Or we can make up a satirical thread letting the 'Kerry Worshippers' know that there is a Holy Moment of Obligation tonight and they are requested to attend, for religious reasons.

I don't know, I'm torn which one to do.

What do you think?

[Firespirit]

15. I like that.

:evilgrin:

They don't know how to respond to humor.

Or maybe something about the Cult. The acolytes must pay homage tonight, or something.

[TayTay]

17. How this?

Discussing Iraq. Kerry on Larry King tonight.
Post title

Main message:

Sen. John Kerry, 3rd Ranking Democrat on the Foreing Relations Committee in the 110th Congress that convenes in January, will be on the LArry King Show tonight (11/29) to discuss issues around Iraq, the release of the Baker Commission or Iraq Study Group report and other issues.

These are some recent statements from the 4 leadings Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as they pertain to Iraq. Some of this might come up in tonight's interview, unless Mr. King decides to question Sen. Kerry about his decision not to take up Stand-Up comedy as a profession.

Joe Biden

http://biden.senate.gov/issues/iraq.cfm Not updated since 11/05

“As the Baker-Hamilton commission deliberates its recommendations for Iraq today and in the coming days, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to generate a bipartisan way forward in Iraq. The responsibility is to make the hard choices required to turn Iraq around.

“I advocate – and have advocated directly to the Baker-Hamilton Commission – the need for a political settlement among Iraq’s major groups. The best way to get there is through federalism: maintaining a unified Iraq but decentralizing the country and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions. A central government would remain, responsible for the distribution of oil and border security. We would get Sunni buy-in by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of the oil revenues and we’d bring the neighbors in to support the political settlement. If we do all these things, we can withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, with a small residual force to focus on counter-terrorism.

Chris Dodd

http://www.chrisdodd.com/issues/iraq

On October 12, 2006, in a speech at Providence College, his alma mater, Senator Dodd called for a new direction in the United States’ policy in Iraq.

He believes that America’s fighting men and women are doing their job in Iraq with extraordinary skill, commitment, and courage.

He also believes that the best way to honor their service, and better provide for the security of our nation, is to set a new direction for America’s policy in Iraq. In his speech at Providence College, Senator Dodd calls for an end to America’s open-ended commitment to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Instead, he believes that the time has come for the Administration to begin to reposition troops to safer areas within Iraq, as well as to Afghanistan and other areas in the Middle East where they can serve other pressing national security priorities. He also called for measures to encourage peaceful, constructive political engagement within Iraq and among Iraq’s regional neighbors and the larger international community. In addition, he called for the international community to redouble efforts to rebuild Iraq and create the conditions for sustained economic development, which is so critical to that nation’s stability and success.

These steps would be in accordance with a law passed by the Congress and signed last year by the President that 2006 should be a period of ‘significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq . . . .’ These steps would also help ensure that the United States has a sufficient military presence in other nations and other regions where our vital interests are at stake – including especially our interest in combating terrorism.

John Kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=29

Kerry: Administration Has No Iraq Plan

“The President is working overtime to change his rhetoric on Iraq when we need him to change his policy. Our heroes are paying the price for the President’s pride and stubbornness.

Today’s performance was another attempt two weeks before an election to convince the American people he has a plan for Iraq. But the President can’t sell what he doesn’t have. One day President Bush invites comparisons to Vietnam, the next day Vice President Cheney says Iraq is going remarkably well, and every day the civil war intensifies and young Americans continue to die.

Iraq is in the middle of a civil war because there has been too little pressure on Iraqi politicians, not too much. Today, the President expressed confidence in the Prime Minister, even as Maliki rejected the toothless timelines the Administration was selling yesterday. All the President’s guarantees that he’ll ‘stay as long as it takes’ have given Iraqi politicians permission to take as long as they want. President Bush needs to change course and tell the Iraqis that no American soldier will be sacrificed because Iraqis refuse to settle their political differences. President Bush now acknowledges we need a political solution in Iraq even as he prepares to continue the failed course of trapping more troops in a civil war.

The President who has had a stand still and lose policy in Iraq and a cut and run policy in Afghanistan has no credibility raising the specter of Iraq becoming a terrorist haven when it’s the war in Iraq that our own intelligence agencies say has weakened us in the fight against terror.

“We have to get tough on Iraq with deadlines to get Iraq and its neighbors to do the diplomacy necessary to achieve a political solution. And we need to make clear that American troops will be leaving within a year to force Iraqis to make the tough compromises. Only then do we have a chance to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home.

Russ Feingold

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/11/20061114.html

FEINGOLD CONTINUES PUSH FOR A TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT
Feingold Introduces Measure Requiring Vast Majority of U.S. Troops to Redeploy from Iraq by Mid-2007
November 14, 2006

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The legislation, which builds on an amendment Feingold authored earlier this year, would allow for a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

“Redeploying our troops will pressure the Iraqi government to get its political house in order while allowing us to re-focus on global terrorist organizations and trouble spots that threaten our national security,” Feingold said. “It simply doesn't make sense to continue devoting so much of our resources to one country while ignoring the growing threats we face around the world.”

In August 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to propose a target date for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Earlier this year, Feingold cosponsored an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have required the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. In September, Feingold also introduced a resolution addressing the need to strengthen our efforts in Afghanistan so as to prevent that country from again becoming a key staging ground for terrorists.

End of main post


First reply:

Notice to Kerry Fans, Worshippers, minions, sycophants,


hangers-on, suck-ups, Friends, Kerry Quakers (you know who you are), and other adherents of The Faith:

Services tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern on CNN. You know what to do. Mind the candles and the altar clothes. We have told you countless times to make those altar coverings out of flame-proof material. There was a memo. Geesh.

Minions, prepare to man your posts. You know what to do. Implement plan Alpha Beta Amore 12v.

[whometense]

18. Love it.

Here's mine: http://toughenough.org/2006/11/listen-to-elias.html

Kerry will appear on Larry King's show tonight, presumably to answer the 17,000th question about his fabled month-old joke. Sigh. The man has fortitude. Dare we hope that King might also squeeze in a question or two about a subject of much less general interest - say, IRAQ???

[MBS]

21. perfect!! n/t

[Blaukraut]

19. Oh, this is just perfect!

I love it. Kill them with humor, because they do not know how to deal with that :rofl:

[TayTay]

20. Okay, I did it

for you guys. Cuz you know what it's like to need that Kerry 12 Step program.

[wisteria]

16. I think we should alert our fellow Kerry worshipers. n/t

[Noisy Democrat]

22. I agree

That's why I made this a thread in its own right. I was really lucky that Luftmensch had time to read long threads late last night and sent me an e-mail. I would never have seen that JK was on Larry King -- I only had 2 minutes to glance at e-mail before I left for work. (Actually, though, I've made this group my homepage, in hopes of catching more alerts when I'm in a hurry.) So if you know anyone else to alert...

[MBS]

23. email Larry King with questions for Kerry

There's a link at

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

that allows you to email questions for Sen. Kerry. A way to keep the discussion to issues that matter!

[globalvillage]

24. OK, how about this

Senator Kerry-
Don't you get tired of the media constantly hounding you about your Iraq plan, your work in the Senate and your investigations of Iran Contra and BCCI, and wish they'd throw you a softball question every once in a while about a joke gone wrong or maybe what water sports you enjoy?
Thanks.
GV

[karynnj]

27. Perfect question

I would have LOVED to see his face, if that question were asked. I assume the smile would be worth seeing.

[globalvillage]

25. Sen Kerry did a great job on Larry King.

I think he stated his case on Iraq very clearly and handled the questions regarding the 'joke' "I botched a joke, they botched a war" and the poll "I would have voted myself last at the time" well.

There is some other commentary at the JK blog.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/11/greetings_at_a_holiday_party.html

[TayTay]

26. Agreed.

Go tell the Senator what you thought on the blog. (Well, it's only polite, you know.)

[sandnsea]

28. I thought he did okay

Not his most powerful interview, but a nice "you gotta' be kidding me" and a redirection to ending the war. I thought he made it clear he had a plan too, so that was good. I think as it continues to become clear that he's the only first tier Dem whose plan is actually centered around getting our troops out of Iraq, he'll gain all his support back and then some.

[Island Blue]

30. I thought it was a very good interview (on JK's part)

considering the fact that LK only had two questions on his mind. (Well three if you count the obligatory "Are you going to run again?" question.) IMO JK was in full command throughout the interview, using humor (whaaaa?) when appropriate to answer some of the more silly questions.

[wisteria]

29. I thought he did well too.

Humble, friendly, good remarks on bipartisanship and best of all IMO, he started talking about what he has done for the troops and how much he supports them and said, he has been calling Iraq a civil war for a while now. I liked that he layed the blame on all of this as being politics, but added the administration knows he never would say anything against our troops.

[karynnj]

31. I agree

I really liked that when he spoke of his admiration for the troops he said that he loved them. It sounded sincere and real - and I doubt there is another politician who can say that without looking phoney. THe things he does for them are the proof that he does care - small things get no attention, but likely affect leif so mush.

I remember in early 2005, when he had gotten letters from the vets, soldiers and their families and read some on the floor of the Senate when he brought up some small things he wanted added to the defense allocation. I was struck by how quietly he explained that people had told him that being able to stay in military housing longer would help them in the dreadful time a spouse had died. That concern with something that would get almost no attention is special - and shows he cares.

[ginnyinWI]

32. agree--a good interview

He was more relaxed than with Wallace--and for good reason! That interview was an attack. He likes and trusts King to be just what he is--a guy who asks soft questions and gives you time to answer. I liked how he started with JK rather than the other guy, and that he talked about Iraq first, not politics.

King may be a friend of Bush, as stated above, but he is a Democrat, according to what I heard when Charlie Rose interviewed him. Not highly partisan or anything--just a New Yorker who grew up as a Dem. He doesn't inject his own views that much on the show, which is better than the likes of Chris Matthews who always has to interrupt the guest with his own pontifications.

[Inuca]

33. Am I the only one...

.... to be EXTREMELY annoyed by the banner at the bottom of the screen that throughout the interview kept alternating between first prime time interview after being placed last in the popular politicians poll and first prime time interview after "botched" Iraq "joke" (the quotes are not mine, that how it appeared on the screen)??? I found it annoying the first time I saw these two examples of low class self promotion, but as they kept repeating it over and over and over, I could not believe my eyes! Annoying? Actually i think that insulting is a better word...

[sandnsea]

34. Oh no you are not

I missed the first 30 seconds after I turned it on because I was SCREAMING!!! They may as well as had Drudge's flashing red siren on the screen. Just incredibly juvenile and ridiculous.

[beachmom]

35. Yep -- they're once again overplaying their hand, and looking

like idiots. Like a subliminal message: don't listen to the man on the screen as he has nothing meaningful to say since he botched that joke!!


Luckily, we have the internet. Since KG has the transcript, we should use quotes from it, which DO NOT have that annoying message on the screen.

[karynnj]

37. I think we all were - it was mentioned by at least one person

on the JohnKerry blog.

There are many ways to label Kerry - starting with the obvious Senator John Kerry, (D, MA) or 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee. Heck, even man who asks "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" is fairer - because that WILL be a part of how he is seen when history is written - not a poorly designed poll that clearly had some problems from an outfit that did the WORST job on the last 3 NJ races.

The way the media reports or doesn't repeat poll results is fascinating. In 2004, the media ignored the polls throughout February and March - and spoke first of a Kerry/Dean fight - when Dean had clearly imploded already. Then after Wisconsin, when Dean conceded, they spoke of a Kerry/Edwards contest - even though to overtake Kerry Edwards would have had to win all the remaining contests. At that point, the polls from CA, NY and MA had Kerry ahead by more than 30 points.

This is not just revisiting 2004. Last Sunday, I scanned EE's book in Barnes & Noble. While I found most of the "falsely sweet with a hidden jab" comments less bad than I expected from what I read, I was disturbed by her re-writing history on the race. She wrote of Howard Dean preferring Edwards "who could win, while Kerry couldn't" and she laments that he didn't pull out and endorse Edwards before Wisconsin. She points out that Dean's votes plus Edwards would have given Edwards Wisconsin. (She also thought Edwards would have won more states if Clark had pulled out - I guess when he only tied Edwards in NH (which she doesn't admit. Again she assumes that all Clark's votes would go to Edwards - even though I assume many Clark voters were voting for experience.) The point of EE writing this is to make people see the 2004 primaries as close -and they weren't.

She also repeats an anonymous Kerry staffer says that given how Edwards was suging in Iowa, he would have won if the caucus were 2 weeks later. This ignores that Kerry was surging too - and you can't just fit a straight line through the Edwards growth and assume it would have continued at that rate - especially as doing the same thing with the Kerry numbers that were srging too - would lead to completely impossible results - you can't get over 100% in total. The Edwards surge was likely a bump due to the positive press and the Des Moines Register endorsement.

Now, EE was a lawyer and in fact chose a specialty (bankrupcy) that involves more mathematics than most. She is not incapable of understanding the polls or the actual primary votes - so she knows that even if 100% of the Dean people would have voted for the man endorsed by Dean - that would simply have given her husband Wisconsin which was with Iowa one of the few states he lost where he even came close - it wouldn't have given him NY, MA, or CA.

Prosense has a thread with the polling numbers - from February on, Kerry was more dominant than Hillary was a year ago. (consisder at the time of the primaries Kerry was that far ahead - yet compare the media coronation of Hillary - 2 to 3 years out versus the scramble to suggest alternatives in 2004.) Here's a link to the Prosense thread with the primary polls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2991049&mesg_id=2991049

The other disturbing thing is that EE does explicitly fan the idea that Edwards wanted to fight Ohio - but Kerry didn't. I think we need to push the MSM to ask Edwards - point blank - if he would have contested Ohio - and if he says yes, what he would have based it on. My problem is that they are saying one thing on the blogosphere and in a puff piece EE book and are not saying it where people would deride or contest it.

[beachmom]

36. I thought Senator Kerry did an excellent job.

Here's where I thought he scored points (and, as a supporter, this really raised my spirits, as he took an approach that surprised me in a very, very good way):

KING: We’re back with Senator John Kerry.

Senator, Quinnipiac University took a thermometer reading about people rating their feelings about 20 U.S. leaders, a scale of zero to 100. A poll was done two weeks after the November elections. Rudy Giuliani won. Barack Obama was next. And you were last.

How do you react?

KERRY: Oh, I would have voted myself last when it was taken.

Look, you know, I left out a word, one word in a joke that was intended to call the administration and the president to account for not doing their homework.

Obviously, I misspoke. The White House knew I never intended to say anything negative about the troops. You know, I’m a combat veteran. I simply wouldn’t do that.

I know we have the smartest, most capable volunteer army we’ve ever had. I respect them. I love them for what they’re doing and their sacrifices. I just wouldn’t do that. And the administration knew that and they, nevertheless, chose to exploit it. It’s politics. I think it’s time to move on.

What’s really important is, you know, I botched a joke. They botched the war. And we have young men and women today who are at risk because our policy in Iraq is wrong. And that’s what really matters, I think, to the people of our country.

We’ve had an election. We won, incidentally. And I think now we have an opportunity to move the country in a new direction and that’s important.

That answer sort of took the poll question off the table, didn't it? What's Rush Limbaugh going to do with that, other than make a joke about how Kerry doesn't even like Kerry. It'll just come out making the Senator looking good -- like, okay, I f***ed up, so what are you gonna do about it? But also in there was the time frame. He's saying -- hey, in that time frame, he was not going to be liked much.

I thought it was brilliant.

[karynnj]

38. I agree with your analysis

He had said all the latter part before - but prefacing it as he did with the comment that HE would have voted himself down changes the entire tone. He is really 100% taking responsibility for the screw up - but then puts it in perspective. It's interesting that he uses an asset he has - he tells the truth.