Decision ‘08

The Non-Apology Apology

How do you apologize when you don’t really want to apologize? Why, you apologize that others misunderstood you, not for your own comments. Confused? Let John Kerry show you:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

Oh, crap, I give up…the man is incurably stubborn and this is as good as we’ll get. But to resort to the weaselly “I apologize that I was misunderstood” formulation is classic Kerry arrogance.

The White House is apparently satisfied:

White House Secretary Tony Snow, in response to Kerry’s apology, said, “He did the right thing, and the important thing is that servicemen and women understand that America is behind them and want them to complete their mission successfully.”

Fine, fine…God knows there are more important things to talk about; still, I want to once again thank the Senator for bringing back those heady days of the 2004 election. I forgot how fun Kerry-bashing can be…

24 Responses to “The Non-Apology Apology”

1 too many steves Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 5:29 pm
But that is as much of an apology as you will ever get from a politician. This is just the “misuderstood” rather than “misspoke” apology.
2 Rich B. Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pm
He refuses to apologize last night and again this morning, but then apologizes after 20 odd hours of being the new Democratic punching bag. I just don’t understand the Democratic leadership and how they go about making decisions. You allow the Republicans to get two or three days worth of tv and newspaper stories, because you refuse to see how in the soundbite era a terrible soundbite could be used against him. Everyone in his own party is telling him to apologize and yet he can’t get himself to do it until he sees a picture of soliders in Iraq with a sarcastic sign. I still can’t believe this is a guy who was able to run for President and they want to say that Bush can be hardheaded.
3 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
It’s over.

The damage? 2 days of complete momentum kill. This story occurred on the last tuesday and wednesday, before an election.

I’m sure it will be easy to go back to the same stories now.
What was everyone talking about before this?

The danger is the tightning of races, which I think was only natural, will favor the gop, might now be wrongly ascribed to kerry’s statements, which might keep it floating longer than necessary.

The ability of kerry to ask bush to ‘do as I say, and not as I do’…
hubris, and bad advice.
4 Chris J. Breisch Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I actually don’t have too much of a problem with this. Most politicians (most public figures, for that matter) typically give the non-apology apology. That’s why I gave Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt earlier this year. The only real apology I’ve heard from a public figure in quite some time.

If he’d said this on day one, or even first thing on day two, then it’s no big deal.

After two days of saying “I apologize to no one”, though, it’s too little and far too late.

I always enjoy translating the non-apology apologies.

“I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted”

I am sorry that there are idiots out there who misunderstood what I was clearly trying to say. I really wish you people weren’t so stupid so I wouldn’t have to be making this statement now.

I think that’s a fairly accurate translation. But, as I said, most public figures issue this type of apology, and that’s a fairly typical translation, so I won’t get on John for this one.

His indignation at the press conference is still the most infuriating thing to me. “This is typical GOP”. As I said, the GOP may have helped him chew, but he put his foot in his mouth (again) all by himself. Being mad at others for pointing out that you’ve done something stupid is the height of arrogance.
5 Fargus Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Dude, four of your last eight posts are about this non-story.

Was Kerry stupid for saying what he said? Obviously. Did he misspeak? Obviously. Did Democrats jump on GWB like this when he said, “Our enemies never stop thinking about ways to harm the United States, and neither do we”? No. He obviously misspoke. It was stupid, but not at all worth the kind of wall-to-wall attention that this stupid Kerry thing has gotten.

Jeez, Mark. There’s a lot of stuff going on in the world. Not least of which is that the US military pulled out of Sadr City and the search for a kidnapped US soldier, on the orders of al-Maliki. Is that less important than what’s occupied 50% of your last 8 posts?
6 Fargus Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Not to mention, the President recently said, flat out and as directly as he could, that a vote for Democrats is a vote for the terrorists. Any outrage about that, about the President slandering a large portion of the population, and about the debate being coarsened?

Yeah, didn’t think so.
7 Fred Fry Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:31 pm
The only thing that bothers me about this is that it now gives the Democrats an excuse as to why they failed to regain the house next Tuesday. They didn’t need his help to lose, but now he will be hoisted out as the cause of their loss.
8 Mark Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Fargus, I don’t appreciate the President’s rhetoric in this case, and Cheney has been known to do the same…but there was plenty of outrage in the lefty blogs.

Translation: Kerry brings out the partisan in me. As I’ve said before, he’s the politician I love to hate.

Nevertheless, if you read my posts, you’ll also note that I cautioned against reading too much into the story and said it would blow over in a day or two…

I don’t think I devoted too much space to it…look at the number of comments on my other posts, and the number on the Kerry posts…obviously there’s a hunger there.

As for what happened in Sadr City - dude, I’ve been complaining about Maliki being in bad with Sadr for days on end now - AND I blogged on the event that you speak of.

It’s far more important, it’s depressing, and it makes me angry…so I bash John Kerry and fell a little better. You should try it sometime, it’s great therapy…
9 Dmac Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:43 pm
“Dude, four of your last eight posts are about this non-story.”

Funny, but I don’t seem to recall your outrage over the Foley scandal being chewed, masticated and basically worried to a pulp by the Dems and the MSM. Can’t complain about this being redundant to your obvious dislike - we’ve already suffered prior 24/7 coverage of incidents that don’t exactly scream of National importance. What’s good for the goose…
10 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:51 pm
It’s over fargus, the dems are the ones who will keep this going for another 24.

A wound that could quickly scar over, will be picked at by the porkgressives wanting to play doctor/psychoanalyst, to prove their political skills. If it survives another cycle, its not the fault of the gop.
11 Thomas Jackson Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:54 pm
I love Kerry, he’s the gift that keeps on giving. He was for the joke before he was against it. Kerry is a coward and a idiot and to my knowledge the only vet who never spent a day in hospital despite three purple hearts.

I hope this reminds descent people what the Democrats think not only of the troops but the ordinary working stiff.
12 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 10:01 pm
but then kieth o broke away from his top story tonite, where he asked how fineman much longer the gop would milk this, to cover his second top story- mark foley to remain in rehab past election.
13 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 10:05 pm
take your mind off kerry, watch the florida debate…

katherine harris+ 2 totem poles+half a bottle of bollinger…let the fireworks begin.
14 Fargus Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Right, dmac. This and the whole Foley thing are absolutely equivalent. Go on thinking that. It smacks of the desperation I love to see in your ilk in these days close to the election.

Just like the comments that are so assured that the Democrats are going to lose big on Tuesday. Especially mtl’s assertions that somehow Santorum is going to pull a win in PA out of his backside. It’s been especially informative to read your comments so that I can more readily identify confidence borne of denial.
15 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 11:20 pm
not a win, but he has a shot…

he’s working with 45%, despite the polls. I’d be shocked if he finished worse. Throw some salt on me then…

confidence borne of denial?

rove 3-3. your confidence must come from something other than history.
16 mtl Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I did call a steele victory…just hopeful for rs though.
17 Scrapiron Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 am
What is the count of the versions Hanoi John ‘was supposed to say’ up to now. Last count was four different versions from the same democrats. It seems that the only correct version must have been the insult he threw at every person to ever serve in the military. He is not alone, this a a total democratic party attitude. They hate the average american and the military with a passion.

I’ll take Hanoi John’s words in 1971, 2004 and 2006, all of which slandered every person ever to serve as an indication he is a total moron.
18 Anonymous Liberal Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 am
Oh, crap, I give up…the man is incurably stubborn and this is as good as we’ll get.

Is the referring to the man who led us into a botched war and refuses to admit that anything has gone awry, even though every sentient being in the entire world can plainly see that Iraq is a disaster? Is this a reference to the man who refuses to fire Rumsfeld despite a record of manifest and mindboggling incompetence.

No, it’s a reference to a guy who waited one day (one day!) to apologize for a statement that came across in a way he obviously didn’t mean. Yes, the real outrage is that our junior Senator from Massachusetts is “incurably stubborn”.

Mark, forgive my snark, I know you’re not the chief member of Bush’s fan club, but I kind of feel like Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to criticize Democratic politicians for their stubborness so long as George W. Bush–aka “the Most Stubborn Politician Ever”–is in office.
19 Dmac Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
“It smacks of the desperation I love to see in your ilk in these days close to the election…”

Right - except that I didn’t vote for Bush in the last election, which I have mentioned many times in the past - but gosh, you just know so much about me, it’s like you’re actually inside my brain, you know?

“Just like the comments that are so assured that the Democrats are going to lose big on Tuesday…”

Whose comments are those, pray tell? I’ve made no such claims, and in fact have stated on numerous posts that I think the Dems will take at least one House come November. Do you even read my postings, or do you just throw crud up on the wall to see what sticks?

Coming up next, we’ll watch Fargus split atoms…with his mind.
20 crawlinkingsnake Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Mel Gibson was in a drunken rage and apologized profusely. Everyone still thinks he hates jews. The media covered it for two months. Kerry was giving a speech. All is forgiven three days later…lets put it all behind us. How are Americans making their decisions? On principle or someone elses political or financial agenda? The hipocracy is getting rediculous.
21 Mark Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 am
Anonymous, no doubt Bush is stubborn, I won’t argue that…sometimes it’s good (we didn’t need a wishy-washy doubter in office on 9/11), sometimes it’s bad (I’m on the record in saying that I think Rumsfeld should be out the door - though I prefer by his own volition)…
22 Chris J. Breisch Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:39 am
I’ll clarify (once again) why the Kerry situation is worse than the Foley situation. It’s all about impact and how it was handled.

Foley did something rather revolting (and by itself, far worse than what Kerry has done…that is undeniable), was caught and resigned. Public outrage was everywhere and immediate including from the leadership of the Republican party. The page was over the age of consent and no physical contact occurred (I bring up this last because it’s interesting to compare the Foley “outrage” to what happened with Studds). Since a) no laws were broken, b) the Republicans responded immediately and didnt either try to protect him or remain silent, and c) he resigned immediately, this story has low impact. Big story, but only really affects a small number of people, Foley’s family, the page’s family, and Foley’s constituents. Had he stuck around or had the Republicans not come out against him, this would be a far bigger story with bigger impact. Now, yes, there were hints for some time that Foley’s behavior with the pages was inappropriate. Did Hastert et al. make a mistake by not following up on this sooner and more directly? Yes. Unfortunately, we all tend to give our colleagues more benefit of the doubt in situations like this than they deserve. You see this same thing all the time when there’s an alcoholic in the family and the family members make excuses for them. They’re too close to the person and the problem to actually see it. Hopefully, the leadership has learned from this, and won’t miss it in the future. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that though, and not because they’re Republicans or Democrats, but because they’re human. As I’ve said before, this story should’ve have a lifespan measured in hours, but since it was damaging to the Republicans it was mentioned hundreds of times and even getting the lede over significant stories of the day from Iraq and elsewhere.

Contrast to Mr. Kerry.
Kerry either misspoke or not, and frankly it’s immaterial whether he meant what he said or not. This should’ve been a tiny issue, and far smaller than Foley. But the Democratic handling of it was repugnant. Kerry on day one, or at least the morning of day two should have given his non-apology apology, or better yet, a slightly better written one along the lines of “I was attempting to make a joke, and I realize now that my choice of words was poor and could be interpreted to be an unintended slur against our troops. I apologize to anyone I hurt or offended by my poor choice of words. That was certainly not my intention.” It’s a very similar apology to the one he gave, but is more of an admission of fault. Anyway, if Kerry had done that quickly, the story would’ve been over. He did not. Instead he acted as if he was the one who had been insulted. That coupled with his history of denigrating the troops made it larger. Now, what’s the impact of this story? Instead of a few people in Florida, the insult (imagined or not) hurts every single military person and their families around the world. That’s a large group to be hurting. The fact that it took so long (yes, in this day and age 36 hours is long) for anyone of consequence in the Democratic party to condemn this statement in any way made it larger. The fact that even when they did condemn, most couldn’t go farther than saying it was “inappropriate” made it larger. The fact that Democrats are constantly battling the opinion of the Right that they don’t trust or appreciate the military made it larger.

This wasn’t just one self-inflicted wound by the Democratic party, but a series of missteps by people who should know better.

Is what Foley did worse? Yes, and no. He hurt one person very badly, and a small group of people to a lesser degree. Kerry didn’t hurt anyone as badly as Foley did, but his hurt expanded to a gigantic number of people. People he has a long history of hurting and who deserve far better from him.

The Kerry story is and should be of far bigger interest to the press and the general public. The mistake that Kerry made is all about one of the central issues of this campaign season, and the mistake that Foley made is all about one person being a sleaze.

Interestingly enough, words of his from 1972 mirror what he said the other day: “”I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown.” Still implying that the armed services come from the disadvantaged and that it’s something that can be avoided by bettering your station in life. Not so different from his botched joke from a few days ago.

Mark, I apologize for being so long-winded.
23 Mark Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Not at all…comment away!…
24 Andy Says:
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
Dean can thank sKerry for saving his bacon. If election results turn out to be less than stellar for the Donks, Howard will simply point to the bonehead and say, “we had a sure sweep of both the house & senate until the junior senator from Mass opened his mouth. Yeeaaargh!!!”

Interesting to watch which Dems came down on sKerry and which are still covering for him. I think those who came down, ie cHillary, Ford et al will see neglible effect on their polling — by cHillary, I’m referring to ‘08, in which sKerry has all but self-imolated. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how Casey fares for sticking with the Lurch thru it all, it is bound to benefit Santorum. PA has a lot of folks deployed and I think whatever edge the Dems had is in freefall.

Another interesting metric would be to see where the various contenders campaigning on virtue of being OEF/OIF vets stand?