Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 138
Doorbelling
I went to 61 houses over a few hours on Saturday, asking the people within to vote for Rossi and Bush. We went to mostly "friendlies," houses with people who identified somewhat with the GOP or Bush, because as you've all heard, this election is largely about getting the base out. We had dozens of people in the county going to dozens of precincts, and hopefully it helps.
Wrong Number
I got an automated call asking me to vote for State Senator Don Benton. But I am not in his district. I am about 200 miles from his district. There are at least six districts between his and mine. He should ask for some of his money back, if he's paying by the call.
$200,000? Really?
John Kerry was asked in the second debate, "would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?" Kerry answered, "Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes."
The problem is that his own economic plan calls for increasing taxes on people who make far less than $200,000: it would "restore (the) top two tax rates," and the second highest tax rate begins at $143,500 for individuals and $174,700 for married couples.
Maybe to Senator Kerry those numbers are close enough, but the people who get stuck in between who he says, and who actually, will get increased taxes probably disagree.
Also, note that Kerry also claims that "middle-class taxes will go down" if he is elected, despite the fact that there is nothing at all in his plan that would lower middle-class taxes. He has some tax credits for children and education, but those do not apply to the middle class specifically, and many in the middle class won't get those cuts at all.
Don't believe what Kerry says about taxes. OK, don't believe what any politician says about taxes, but especially Kerry.
The New York Times Editors are Stupid
The New York Times, in an editorial recently, wrote, "Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right."
This one paragraph just shows how drastically unintelligent the paper's editors are, or how little they think of their readers.
First, Bush was not awarded the Presidency. This is a bald-faced lie, and anyone who believes it should spend more time reading newspapers instead of writing them.
Second, being elected is a mandate, by definition: it is authorization from the electorate to act. He was given a mandate by the people, period, when he was elected. There is no reasonable sense in which was not given a mandate.
Third, and perhaps worst, they imply that if there is a lack of mandate, a representative should therefore act how he thinks people who voted against him want him to act. But an elected official is obligated to act in what he thinks are the best interests of the country, not how he thinks other people want him to act, whether they voted for him or not. That the Times thinks Bush should not do what he thinks is best for the country makes no sense on any level.
Fourth, to imply the right-wing views of the President are "radical" is to say that the majority of the people in this country who agree with most of those views are "radical," which strips the word "radical" of any useful meaning.
Look, like the President, don't like him, whatever. But don't be stupid about it.
Families
A couple of weeks ago, John Edwards was asked a question in the debate about Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter, who is homosexual. Edwards responded, complimenting the Cheneys. The following week, John Kerry was asked a question about homosexuality, and he responded by bringing up Mary Cheney out of the blue, when she had not been mentioned, and trying to co-opt her feelings to provide his answer.
Mary's parents, Dick and Lynne, complained, as most parents would. Some people have said this anger at Kerry is feigned, but the panelists on The Chris Matthews Show this weekend got it right: pro-gay-rights conservative David Brooks said this is not about homosexuality, but about using the child of an opponent to score political points; moderate Bob Woodward said that there should be a rule in politics that children are off-limits; liberal Chris Matthews agreed. On This Week, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) said it was a mistake. Pundit after pundit, Democrat after Democrat, have said Kerry made a mistake.
I wasn't going to bring this up, because while Kerry really blew this one -- and in my opinion, the reason he brought her up was to hurt Bush with far-right voters who might be offended at the fact that Mary Cheney is gay -- it's not a big issue in my mind. There are so many more important things to talk about, like, say, the economy and war.
But two things changed my mind. First, Elizabeth Edwards -- wife of John Edwards -- attacked the Cheneys and said she thinks they are ashamed of their daughter. The wife of the VP candidate is not a huge deal, but building on that, this morning on Fox News Sunday, Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart attacked Lynne Cheney, calling her "intolerant" for saying in response to Kerry's remark, that Kerry "is not a good man." On Meet the Press, Kerry advisor Bob Shrum echoed Lockhart's sentiments.
These people clearly Do Not Get It. They do not get that family is sacred (not in the "protect marriage from gay homosexuals" sense, but in the aforementioned and widely recognized "my family is off-limits to you" sense). They do not get that you don't get to decide if the line has been crossed, only the family does. They do not get that if you cross the line, the mother is going to come after you with her righteous anger, and that you have no defense against it, so you better just shut up and take cover. They do not get that attacking the mother in return is fruitless, because the mother is always right, period.
The Kerry position is that he was not trying to do anything wrong. I think he's lying, but I would be willing to drop it, forget about it, and accept that as a pseudo-apology, if it weren't for the fact that his campaign is continuing to attack the Cheney family, even through this morning. And I wonder what this says about the real family values of the Kerry campaign.
Yes, that's a low blow, but is it not well-deserved?
Other Low Blows
And I wonder if this is not a sign of Kerry's desperation. It's not just the family thing: for example, there was Edwards' recent statement that Kerry would cure diabetes and Alzheimer's and make the lame walk again. He is manipulating people, giving false hope to victims and their families. But what do we expect from a trial lawyer?
Then Kerry said this week that a draft would be more likely under Bush, despite no logical evidence supporting this. He said, well, Bush wants to use the military everywhere, which means we need more troops, which means a draft is more likely. But Kerry is talking about increasing the troop numbers more than Bush would, which necessarily means by Kerry's own logic -- that 'increased troop needs' == 'draft is more likely' -- that a draft is more likely under Kerry, not Bush.
Of course, a draft is not likely under either one. The Pentagon does not want it, the people do not want it, the Congress does not want it, and the Presidential candidates don't want it. There is literally no one with any power who wants it to happen.
Further, the military had hundreds of thousands more volunteers in it a couple decades ago, and there's no reason to think we can't get back to that level if necessary, if there's a real need, without a draft. This is just scare tactics from Kerry.
Not that the Bush campaign hasn't engaged in some scare tactics of their own, most notably the Cheney remark about how another terrorist attack might be more likely with Kerry as President. I didn't interpret it the same way many people did, but most people seemed to.
But if Kerry ever had any high moral ground in this campaign -- which I never believed to begin with -- he's tossed it in the garbage now.
Draft (Score:2)
Re:Draft (Score:2)
So how would Kerry do it? Don't be daft.
Re:Draft (Score:2)
Re:Draft (Score:2)
Re:Draft (Score:2)
Re:Draft (Score:2)
First, no, it does not clearly need to be done, and second, he is not talking about it, but that doesn't mean he isn't doing it. The fact is there are current efforts to increase enlistment etc.
Second, you were talking about how to get troops we might need to go into Iran *right now*. And when you answered, you talked about how to get troops a year or so from now.
avoiding the need for a draft later
Plea
Re:Draft (Score:2)
It seems clear to me. And I should have mentioned that the real problem is not in enlisting the low end soldier. It's at the high end where after an enormous training outlay by the military and a few years on the job you've got special forces flipping to private security because it pays 4x as much. When the mis
Re:Draft (Score:2)
You just admitted people might volunteer, and you're still sticking to the lie that a draft would be necessary?
Re:Draft (Score:2)
I'm playing the odds - yes I believe it's the most likely scenario. My original post ended with who is more likely to need a draft, Bush or Kerry -- can you give me your opinion on that? Or are you not even willing to concede that it's possible that our military will need a draft?
Re:Draft (Score:2)
I am saying if there is a need, it would only be because of some unforseen crisis, and the need would hit both equally. Most likely, if there is a need, we will have enough volunteers to not need a draft at all. Volunteers are better than a draft. They supply everything a draft does, plus a lo
Re:Draft (Score:2)
Gotcha - point taken. I totally agree that conscripted soldiers are not nearly as good as their willing counterparts. As it stands the reserves and national guard are being conscripted into longer tours of a
Re:Draft (Score:2)
If you know they signed up for it, why do you say they were "conscripted," which means they were forced against their will?
I don't think that a draft would hit Kerry the same as Bush becaues Kerry wants to do more to prevent the need for it.
That is irrelevant to your initial statement, which is how to get more troops *right now*, since his meas
NY Times Bush Bashing (Score:2)
"Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo."
The NY Times then spendt 1½ paragraphs praising Kerry, 16 paragraphs ripping on Bush, and then only 4 more praising Kerry again. To go from claiming that Kerry's strength is
Re:NY Times Bush Bashing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NY Times Bush Bashing (Score:2)
Re:NY Times Bush Bashing (Score:2)
But for now, I'll take comfort in knowing I have the highest moderated comment in the entire thread. =)
Remember this? (Score:2, Informative)
Remember that joke? The media is so firmly in the right wing's pocket that it would not even print it at the time. Remember that next time someone tells you the press is jumping on Kerry because sex sells and it can't resist unwise comments about lesbian children.
Oh, and in a demonstration of gallantry that apparently is now passe, Bill Clinton forgave [msn.com] McCain, and Washington, so
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
Again, I am not defending the press. I do think the press is making too much of this.
Bill Clinton forgave McCain
McCain apologized. Kerry did not. On the contrary, he sent his spokespeople to attack the family, not apologize to them.
A Senator mentioned the Vice-President's campaign manager, not unkindly, in passing.
He mentioned her because she was h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
I don't give a damn what he is saying or what his intentions are. DO NOT TOUCH THE FAMILY.
That said, it seems clear to me, and agreed upon by many people of both sides of the aisle, that Kerry's purpose was to hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with far-right voters. It's typical Kerry-Edwards strategy: pretend to compliment you while I stab you in the back. Like sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
So you believe Kerry was using his opponent's daughter as a political pawn, which amounts to the same thing I am criticizing.
Mary Cheney,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
If nothing else, because he identified her as Cheney's daughter, not as a member of the campaign. Stop wasting our time.
"Fuck you"?
Did I stutter?
First you have the audacity to suggest that abusing children - real children, people under 18, people with no consent, who cannot rightly be regarded as part of a political process - is somehow not as big a crime as making a positive comment about an opponent's daughter
In the context I am referring to, yes. I know you
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
No.
I understand using the word in phrases like "Cheney's child", but not out of that phrasing.
That is the only way I have been using it, and since it IS THE POINT, I will continue to use it.
But drawing attention, positively, to someone who's voluntarily put themselves in the public eye, who continues to do so, and who, at 31, is certainly old enough to have made the decision herself, is hardly comparable.
Yes, in this
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
If I mean she is his child, I should not write that she is his child? Uh
Ok, you and I clearly have different value structures if you think that humiliating non-consenting children in public is somehow "better" than mentioning an adult public figure who happens to be the daughter of an opponent.
It was worse in a certain way, in its *purpose*, which was to score political points.
The latter is fa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
I already distinguished it in the comment you are replying to. Do not respond as though I didn't.
And was Kerry's point to score political points or to cut off the possibility of Bush or Cheney appealing to certain groups who cannot control their base prejudices?
Yes.
Why would these people vote Republican in the first place? Spell it out of me.
No. It is completely beside anything I am talking about. The fact is they do
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
I was reading and with you (well, not 'with you', but 'respected the comment') until I got to this point. If I had mod points, I'd mod you as a troll.
Can't see why it had to get nasty like that...
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
Because focusing on this offhand remark is insane. The President of the United States of America, in that same debate, lied about whether he is concerned about catching the guy who murdered three thousand Americans on September 11th. For the media to pay more attention to the Senator's comment about the director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign being a lesbian is a sign of a deep national sickness.
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
Politics (now-a-days, anyways) is about showing you the wrongs of the opposing party and sidesteps the wrongs of your own party.
Once you realize it, you know there is no point in arguing. You aren't voting for Bush, and pudge isn't voting for Kerry. Neither of you are going to change the other's mind. I guess arguments are healthy, but I just don't like to see'm g
Re:Remember this? (Score:2)
And as I said, I was not going to bring it up, except Kerry's own people kept it alive by attacking the mother.
The President of the United States of America, in that same debate, lied about whether he is concerned about catching the guy who murdered three thousand Americans on September 11th.
You are incorrect. He was wrong about whether he SAID he was concerned, not whether he is actually concerned.
For the media to pay more attention to the Senator'
Tax brackets (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the Republican Party, bravely standing up for the little guy earning $175,000.
You know that n
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
If your so concerned about the uninsured, find someone without insurance via your church, school, salvation army, whatever, pick them up and take them to a local insurance provider, and pay their premium.
It's grassroots and doesn't rob Peter (me) to pay Paul (Joe Uninsured), I'm all for it. John Ker
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't, of course, actually think that. You recognize that taxes are the price we all pay for the enormous, absolutely necessary services that government provides. You're just looking for some rhetoric that might save you a couple of bucks. But when you exaggerate, you lose credibility.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Ye gads Mr. Privatize the Fire Department. You stop paying any more Social Security after $60,000 and Medicare/Medicaid goes to 1% with matching at that level of income +.
And if you want to take that check away from the elderly, good luck to you.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
I've been trying to figure out how Bush's Social Security fix works. I don't get it. He wants to allow young workers to keep part of their Social Security payroll taxes for themselves in their own private retirement accounts. However, he insists that there will be no change in benefits for current retirees or near-retirees, despite the drain on funds from reducing the contributions of young workers.
How does he plan to pay for it? He insists that there will be no increases in Social Security payroll taxes.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
There's a few ways this can work. One is by having only a portion of the money go into the private fund. Certainly, many people won't put it in a private fund. And another way is by paying for any shortfall from the general fund in the interim.
Furthermore, why do we need to privatize Social Security anyway? Why not just fund i
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Currently, X dollars are paid by workers in Social Security income taxes. Under the Bush plan, roughly the same amount, X, is split between personal accounts and the general fund. Privatization is not a magic bullet that increases X. There will be losers as well as winners. Some money that would've been available for the general fund will be siphoned off into the private accounts. The biggest winners are well-to-do upper-middle class workers. The greatest losers are the most needy, such as a worker who bec
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Right, it does not increase the input (contributions), it increases the output.
The greatest losers are the most needy, such as a worker who becomes disabled at age 40.
That's FUD.
The result is a situation in which those who could contribute the most taxes are partially off the system, while those who are most needy remain in the system. The increased burden on the system will force an early change to the benefit structure or taxes.
That's required
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Social Security works by having the current workers pay for the retired workers. So, in essence, everyone born after X date would be paying for everyone born before X date, and they'd all be screwed, paying into a system they'll never see a return on. Great plan. There is no fair way to stop Social Security. None.
Nope, it's not fair at all, but that's exactly what's going to happen. Social Security as we know it is headed for a train wreck and there's really nothing we can do about it.
Why? Demographi
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Good luck, and have fun when you get there... the roads most likely suck, I wouldn't eat the beef, make sure to have personal protection as the police force will suck and disputes may spiral into violence (as courts aren't likely to be funded). Also, don't drink the water unless you have chemical treatments for it which can be quite expensive and aren't very efficient.
There are a host of other thing
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Give the maximum to charities and take the deductions.
You would be surprised how giving 15-25% of your income to your church, and/or organizations like
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
You are completely making that up.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Taxes are not only too high, their spending by our government is mismanaged.
I can list a PRIME example of how our money is mismanaged... Prop 1A (Los Angeles). If a city council member (Gloria Molina) h
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
I mispoke before about saying that people that do give don't seem to
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Better question - why not stop complaining and take some responsibility? Just lower your witholding to match your estimated tax. As a matter of course, you should do that at the start of every tax year.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Careful...Faith Based Initiatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Everyone who talks about taxes uses taxable income. So you are saying Kerry is lying by not talking about taxable income? Either he does not mean $200K of taxable income, which means he is lying through omission, or he is exaggerating the number, which means he is lying.
And since Kerry has publicly stated that he plans to lower taxes on the middle class, t
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
In his plan, he says specifically that he wants to "repeal tax cuts benefitting those earning more than $200,000 while expanding middle class tax cuts". I read very clearly to mean expand the 'middle class' tax bracket to include people with incomes up to 200k and repeal the tax cuts in
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
He has never come out and said that. You are speculating. Everyone else who has commented on this reads "while expanding middle class tax cuts" means renewing them when they expire (which has already been done for the bulk of them anyway).
You're putting words into his mouth. If you can show me one place where he actually says he will expand the
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Search and ye shall find -- last week a spokesman for the campaign clarified the position [washingtontimes.com]:
Kerry himself did not say it - but I'll accept his spokesman because that's what spokesmen do. Anyway that's where the "middle-class taxes will go down" comes from.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Anyway that's where the "middle-class taxes will go down" comes from.
It's a complete and total lie.
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
It says that the "tax cuts will be extended to every tax unit up to 200k". So lets recap the Kerry campaign statements so far: he's going to roll back the cuts in the top two brackets and extend cuts up to 200k. Yes the language could be more specific - but it could only mean one of two things: move the line between the 2nd and 3rd brackets, or create a new bracket between them. Either way it means
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Which is just repeating the lie that the tax cuts apply to them when they don't. I require seeing something specific that says they will change the third bracket to include those people.
it could only mean one of two things: move the line between the 2nd and 3rd brackets, or create a new bracket between them
You forget the third option: that it is a lie.
I've given you evidence to prove it
You have not. You have given me evide
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
It's only a lie if it's intentionally misleading. He's said what he wants to do (rollback the tax cuts on the top two brackets / top 2% / whatever else he's said), and then wrapped conditions around it (only for those families with incomes higher than 200k). The two are not mutually exclusive. The only reason you say it's a lie is because he hasn't shown exactly how he's going to do it. That does NOT make it a lie. I'm sure he wants not only to be electe
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Yes, so it is a lie.
The only reason you say it's a lie is because he hasn't shown exactly how he's going to do it.
Nonsense. I refer you to his economic plan [johnkerry.com], page 8, where he lists what he is going to do. Under "offsets", right at the top, he talks about Bush's tax cuts, and he says "restore top two rates." That means he will make those two brackets what they were before Bush lowered them, and there is no mention of shrinking the second bracket/widen
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
The Kerry's 177B and Bus
Re:Tax brackets (Score:2)
Hello... Pot. (Score:2)
This is almost too funny. I wonder why this same rule wasn't applied for McCain when his daughter's (who is adopted) race was used by the Rove machine to imply McCain's infedelity and knock him out of the Primaries when Bush ran the first time? This is a completely BOGUS argument from
Re:Hello... Pot. (Score:2)
That never happened. It just didn't. It's another Democratic lie that you've been hoodwinked into believing.
It is true that McCain was attacked over his daughter. It is not true this had anything to do with Rove or the Bush campaign.
Further, I acknowledged that the right sometimes plays dirty; did you not read my post? My point there was that the Democ
I think you are neglecting something (Score:2)
This was in a time without the promise of perpetual war (ie when does the "war on tahrror" ever stop). Sure when had hundreds of thousands of troops volunteering when the chance of getting their legs blown off or dieing from and IED attack was pretty remote.
Re:I think you are neglecting something (Score:2)
If there is a need they believe in, they will volunteer. That's how it always works.
Context on number of troops needed (Score:2)
Re:Context on number of troops needed (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. That's nonsense. It's a related but separate issue. The fact is we are there and have to deal with it, and there's no requirement to ponder why we are in that situation to discuss it, unless you're considering changing it.
Re:Context on number of troops needed (Score:2)
That's why I'm voting for Kerry. He's going to change the situation--he'll get us out of there. Oh, wait. He won't? He will do the exact same thing Bush will do.*
Parental outrage (Score:2)
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
If nothing else, the focus on the politics of homosexuality and homosexual unions has shifted to a
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
I don't care if Kerry was talking about baseball cards. "I know Mary Cheney collects baseball cards, and under my administration, baseball cards will be tax-free!" Do not use the child of your opponent to score
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
Maybe it wasn't national news when that backwater paper the Chicago Tribune first reported it but it certainly has become so. I can't find a case of it but I assume some reporter somewhe
small correction (Score:2)
A) "unrelated" rather than "unrelating"
B) I shouldn't have written it at all because the two things don't have to be completely unrelated, the tactic is intented to create or reinforce a specific association.
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
Do you have any sense of context? John Kerry is running for President, and very well might win. Alan Keyes is running for Senate in Illinois, has no chance of winning, and most other Republicans don't even like to talk about him. Yes, in this context, Keyes is very minor.
Maybe it wasn't national news when that backwater paper the Chicago Tribune first reported it but it certainly has become so.
No, it hasn't. In Blogfuckistan it was big news, but outside of that and Illinois, n
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
Kerry is using the daughter of his opponent to score political points. The parents are speaking out about how wrong this is.
OK, so you're saying they're upset not because Kerry brought up their daughter's gayness but that he mentioned her at all. Let's say Mary is a member of a union and keep in mind that a lot of people don't like unions. Even better, she's not just a member but a union leader. Now let's say Kerry was talking about
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
You really don't get the point here. The point is it is wrong for politicians to bring their opponents children into the discussion. Period. Just because some facts about them are widely known doesn't mean they don't deserve priva
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
Say Chelsea Clinton had been overweight.
You really didn't read my whole message. Being overweight (like me) is almost universally held to be a negative so bringing it up would be picking on a child (and unlike Mary, Chelsea actually *was* a child in 1996) with an unfortunate condition. Based on previous statements, neither John Kerry nor the Cheneys believe homosexuality to be an unfortunate condition.
Please respond to my "union leader" thought experiment, I think t
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
Regardless
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
He read that, I'm sure. But you don't get that this is entirely irrelevant, on two levels. First, many voters favoring Bush do think it is unfo
Re:Parental outrage (Score:2)
I stated facts, and only facts. That you disagree with facts is pretty sad.
OK, so you're saying they're upset not because Kerry brought up their daughter's gayness but that he mentioned her at all.
Not that he mentioned her, but that he was using her to gain points for himself. Yes. Duh.
And why wasn't Cheney an "angry father" at his debate when Edwards mentioned his daughter?
Two reasons. First, because Edwards didn't bring
This is interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
I agree, a major
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
It's interesting that you would believe that web page shows that.
It intentionally leaves out many of the people who are "most for the war" who did put their ass on the line. And note that it leaves out the many Democrats who did put their ass on the line and supported the war, and left out the Democrats against the war who didn't.
Again, it's interesting that you would think this selective inclusion a
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
And after Vietnam, it was far less, maybe 1 percent. (Note that Hannity was born in '61. Vietnam was over in before he hit puberty.)
Also note that of the vets I do know, they overwhelmingly support the war in Iraq. I know some who don't of course, but about 95% do.
So I don't find it interesting at all, personally.
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
Sure my father, a vet and 20 year career military, has shifted to supporting the war. I respect his point of view more than some pompous windbag who knows nothing, personally, about the sacrifices of people in uniform. I disagree with my dad, but we hash out our differences. Sean and those guys can blow it, especially considering their reconrds.
It might
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
Of course.
I find it interesting, especially among the most hawkish of pundits, that they didn't serve in the military.
But since the postwar military at its height was about 1 percent of the population, it is not extraordinary to me when people don't serve.
But hey, knock yourself out.
I would love a more comprehensive list... if you have one, let us all know.
Like I said, I don't find it interesting. I won't go looking. However, to note the obvious but p
Re:This is interesting (Score:2)
And it calls Rumsfeld an "instructor": he was a pilot, and if his unit was called up, he would have flown combat missions in Korea. I know it is usually understood that if you are a flight instructor you are probably a pilot too, but given the other omissions and emphasis, and knowing the bias of the site, I don't give it the benefit of the doubt, and I assume he means to de-emphasize Rumsfeld's service.
While I think Rumsfeld is a very bad man, I did make the connection that he was a pilot as part of be
Looks like Cheney outed Mary first... (Score:2)
In Davenport, Iowa, on August 24th. A partial transcript:
Re:Looks like Cheney outed Mary first... (Score:2)
This fact has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said on the issue. That you think it does means you are not understanding me.
Timothy Noah hits it on the head:
I won't dispute that Kerry was using Mary Cheney to score a political point.
That should be the end of the story right there, for anyone not too biased to deny it. Kerry used his opponent's child to score political points. He was therefore wrong.