Kerry calls Romney "naive" and "wrong" on Russia

[politicasista]

http://www.boston.com/2012/05/25/kerry/GbOxIwgcNwz92RfOrbDk3O/story.html

While "naive" and "wrong" are good, some staunch POTUS supporters felt like "ignorant" and "stupid" would have been better, if not hard hitting. Guess if the POTUS/VPOTUS are attacked, then it's someone else's fault, but it would be cool if they would realize that Kerry is actually helping, not hurting Obama here.

http://twitter.com/symmetry11/status/206099165934137344

[Mass]

1. Good for Kerry.

As for the comment, it is not a criticism of Kerry. It is just the ranting of somebody who thinks they know better. Happens all the time, even to the president.

What is more shocking is that the Globe article was fairly positive. I guess they can only criticize one dem at a time. Right now is time for Cherokeegate (sigh!)

[politicasista]

3. Ok. True

Haven't been the most Kerry-friendly poster of late, but it is sorta bugging, but it is worse with the POTUS.

Don't read the Glob and have stayed out of MA politics (out of respect for the good people of MA ), but guess they ran out of fluffy Brown pieces (we wish!), and the Cherokeegate thing seems endless (totally dislike the silly season).

November can't come fast enough.

[ladym55]

2. And Kerry would be spot on

And he also said, "I think that candidate Romney has been breathtakingly off target."

And Kerry would be correct there as well. Romney's foreign policy statements are even scarier than his comments on the economy and education.

[Luftmensch067]

4. I just love the way JK expresses things!

"breathtakingly off target"! To me, that one phrase just OBLITERATES Romney. JK speaks with such authority -- the authority of intelligence, of experience, and of someone who's lived an ethical, truth-telling life. He truly is a matchless weapon in defense of the President.

Also, totally agree with you, ladym55 -- Romney's foreign policy statements are absurd and dangerous.

[karynnj]

5. Agree completely

Even in 2004, I noticed that Kerry.s gentlemanly demeanor coupled with the intelligence and specificity of his comments allowed him to make far more devastating attacks than others - many of whom enchanted those wanting attack dogs.

The first I noticed was the 2003 when he spoke of outsourcing the effort to get OBL to Afghan warlords allied with the Taliban only weeks before. I saw this criticized as wordy, but every word is needed and at a later point, the media adopted (the not obvious) use of the word "outsourcing".

That sentence defined accurately what Bush did on what should have been the top Bush goal - getting OBL. The comment on the previous alliance was needed to let people reach their own conclusion that they do n0ot seem to be the most reliable allies.

On an even playing field, this comment would have been a concise condemnation of Bush policy - not by saying it was "bad" but by defining it as a pretty foolhardy endeavor

I am sure the WH knows the value of having Kerry as a surrogate - and I doubt they would trade this credible, articulate, knowledgeable man for someone who would call Romney "stupid", when he isn't and no one really thinks he is. He has many weaknesses, that's not one of them. .

[MBS]

6. you said it

. . or, actually, HE said it. Perfect description. Thanks, JK.

In today's WaPo, EJ Dionne
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/give-em-hell-barry/2012/05/27/gJQASckGvU_story.html) compares Obama-Romney race with Dewey-Truman, making the point that while Dewey and Romney both poised themselves for general election as "moderates", Dewey really WAS a moderate, "trying hard not to be ensnared in the agenda of the GOP congress." Romney on the other hand , "has largely endorsed his congressional colleagues' agenda".

More..

Obama’s task is to argue that whatever moderate sounds Romney made during his career in Massachusetts politics, these are irrelevant to how he would govern with the GOP likely to be in the congressional saddle.

Of special relevance here. .

And if Republicans wish to argue that Obama’s vigorous anti-Romney campaigning is un-presidential, they have to answer for George W. Bush’s unashamed attacks against Democrat John Kerry in 2004. Sara Fagen, an adviser to Bush in that campaign, recently told Peter Baker of the New York Times that Bush “almost never mentioned” Kerry, “certainly not this early.”

The truth of this depends on what the meaning of the word “almost” is. In February 2004, for example, Bush mocked Kerry — he referred to him as “one senator from Massachusetts” — as being “for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it.” The next month, Bush accused Kerry by name of being “willing to gut the intelligence services” with a “deeply irresponsible” proposal to cut intelligence spending. There is no record of Republicans complaining that these political assaults were beneath a president.