Thursday, September 09, 2004

A Challenge

One of the first thing that comes up during an ‘Anybody but Bush’ conversation is ‘he’s dumb’…How do they know he’s dumb? Well he doesn’t pronounce some words right. He had never been out of the United States before he was President (which isn’t true, btw). He didn’t know who the Prime Minister of Some-Country-No-One-Has-Ever-Heard –Of is (mind you that many Americans don’t know who the Vice President is now). If you push them they go on to say that he was a ‘C’ student and that he only got into Harvard and Yale because of his name. Keep questioning and the conversation ends right back at ‘he can’t speak’…

WARNING: The next time someone says this in front of me—I will be forced to call them out...

Sound harsh? If it does, you are not the mother of a child with a severe articulation disorder. Over the past two years Mason has heard on television, from family friends and even from the JibJab movie, that people that don’t speak perfectly are dumb (“Mom, I no say nuklar eiver”). This is a ridiculous statement as many children with autism are smarter than any of us and will go on to work at NASA –with limited or no words.

This got me thinking and I spent over two hours on line the other night looking for Kerry’s grades, SAT scores…anything. We hear how smart he is –how nuanced…but we also know that he didn’t get into Harvard and Bush did (and I am assuming that FORBES is a better legacy name than Bush). There is nothing. Rumors of low C’s…but nothing official. We knew Bush and Gore’s SAT scores a year before the 2000 election. Not a record released from the nuanced one though.

The other day at a fund raiser “John Kerry took a rare shot at Bush's school smarts, something he had diligently avoided during the campaign because many Democratic politicians are aware that Al Gore turned off some voters in 2000 by appearing dismissive about Bush's intelligence. He made the comment at a Tampa fund-raiser, where Kerry noted that both he and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, sitting nearby, had attended Yale University, as had Bush. ''Bill and I share the same institution of higher education -- at least for some of us," Kerry told the $1,000-a-plate audience of about 500, some of whom chuckled at first, then laughed louder and applauded. Kerry, looking a bit sheepish, said in a low voice, ''No, uh, be nice." Now if the Beltway rumors are true –and he is out there questioning the President’s intelligence while he too was a low C couldn’t-get-onto-Harvard-student…Hmmmm… Now, why hasn’t the Fair and Balanced press dug up this story—found the SATs—talked to Professors…?

We know all about Bush’s SATs and grades, but here is something that hasn’t been widely reported, “

The records also show Bush made a grade of 88 on total airmanship and a perfect 100 for flying without navigational instruments, operating a T-38 System and studying applied aerodynamics. Other scores ranged from 89 in flight planning to 98 in aviation physiology” (AP 9/7/04).

After hours of searching and reading anything I could find about Kerry’s academic prowess…I realized that we have never known less about a candidate then we do about this man. We have no academic records –and we don’t have medical records. This would help to clear up this Purple Heart debate, but also answer questions about the prostate surgery he had. I also read Beltway rumors that he may have a growth disorder –it seems neither of his parents are tall and neither have the elongated chin, arms or legs that he has. I believe that both Bush and Cheney have there medical reports made public.

Geraldine Ferraro’s husband was forced to release his taxes to the public, and she was only the Veep candidate…Theresa H. Kerry still hasn’t released hers and she is the spouse of the Presidential candidate. I want to know where this woman’s money came from, where it goes (especially how much she has given to charity) and what it’s being spent on…it’s only fair.


The left is so anxious to oust Bush they are working to elect someone they know virtually nothing about. The election is in 54 days –when will the serious vetting of this man begin? Does the Forbes/Heinz power ticket get absolved from what all other candidates are required to disclose? If he is so smart –why wouldn’t he be hanging the grades for all to see? If he is healthy and the Purple Hearts are justified –why wouldn’t he dispel the myths? If all THK does is on the up and up –why the blackout?

Inquiring minds want to know…

So before you cast aspersions on the President about his ‘intelligence’, provide for me the background on your alternative. Before you talk about his oratory shortcomings, think about who may be listening. Before you vote out of anger, find out who the hell you are voting for.


…and remember, if you are to speak ill about those who may not speak as ‘normally’ as the rest of us –make sure I am not there…


Be afraid, be very afraid…



76 comments:

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
leftyjones said...

I know a guy with an 8th cousin who may or may not live on one of those little islands in the middle of the Mississippi River, who suffers from a growth disorder-the kind that has caused his arms,legs and chin to grow a bit longer.
Yet this fine man has managed to row out to the Island, establish a residence and then officially declare in a sparsely attended news conference that his island has seceded from the Union and will no longer be recognizing the United States.

When pressed, he did admit under fierce questioning from a vicious local free newspaper reporter that, " He probably would actually recognize the United States, you know, if he was sitting on his island and someone rowed up, unfolded a map and said,
What country is this?
He would probably feel compelled to be truthful and admit that he recognized it as the United States."

But that's not the point really.
The point is that this man is quite possibly the leader of his own country and has achieved his success in spite of the fact that some cruel people make fun of his chin.
With that being said,
… remember, if you are to speak ill about those who may not have a chin or limbs as short as the rest of us –make sure I am not there…

I couldn't agree more that it is unfair that people would speculate about your son or anyone like him simply due to the fact that his speech is not clear at the present time.
I'm sure he will overcome both the articulation disorder and the idiots who would say unkind things.

I can agree that public records should be available. You know, things that would tip us off about jail time, prescription drug shopping and abuse- (*note to Kat-smiley face- :), charges of attempting to sell a warhead, etc.
To include tax records is fine as well.
But I've never understood that people think they deserve the right to see anyone's medical file.
Did the public peruse Washington's file? Lincoln's? How 'bout FDR? Many Americans didn't even know he was in a wheelchair when he was President and his polio didn't seem to stop him from doing a good job.
I don't believe that if your son ran for President 40 years from now that it would be anyone's business as to whether he fought his way through articulation disorder or some type of surgery between now and then. Along with that, I don't believe Bush or Kerry should have to give up medical records to the public. If there is one thing that should be able to remain private it would be a person's own medical history.

I'm not sure what in the world you posted that crazy rumor about Kerry having a growth disorder for.
Even if it were true, what difference would that make about him being able to lead? Or his prostrate surgery either for that matter? From the sounds of it you want to have access to every physical detail of this man's life and are willing to imply that he may " be too tall to lead??? have too long of a chin???? had his prostrate removed??? to what end? to call him unfit to lead?

Meanwhile, you don't want to hear Bush's verbal gaffe's even joked about and YOU CORRECTLY do not want to hear people with a different disorder, articulation disorder, be diminished or unfairly have their capacity questioned.
Doesn't seem fair and balanced.

At the very least, I think you owe people with long limbs and long chins everywhere an apology.

( notice to Kat: smiley face coming.....:)...<---there it is!!!

Be consistent, very consistent.....

ALa said...

The aforementioned ‘spindly leg and long-ass chin’ growth-disorder was brought up because it causes and abrupt end/shorter life span (don't recall the name as it was long and strange) --as does cancer, hence the prostate surgery. There are also the STD rumors reported on by the Globe... That is why medical records are important. We should know of the man is about to kick the bucket and we will end up with a 12 yr. old trial lawyer as President. More important I want the SAT scores and academic records!

Tom said...

Lefty:

As far as medical records go, maybe you don't want to know whether or not a guy is going to survive the four years in office. Most people do. The constitutional process governing succession is intended for unforeseen circumstances. I don't hear anybody arguing whether Edwards or Cheney will make a better president in the event Kerry or Bush buy the farm while in office.

"Did the public peruse Washington's file? Lincoln's?"

This is silly. The depth of medical knowledge we have today was unheard of when those men held the office. The public didn't have the choice to 'peruse' their files. Who knows whether they would have had the same level of information been available?

"How 'bout FDR? Many Americans didn't even know he was in a wheelchair when he was President ... "

Maybe 'many' didn't, but most did. And technically, he didn't 'have' polio when he was president. His inability to use his legs (that stupid scene with Jon Voight in Pearl Harbor notwithstanding - no pun intended) was a result of a bout with polio. While suffering with the disease that left him crippled, FDR was bedridden and pretty much incapacitated. The public accepted the fact he was crippled, which was something they could see and judge for themselves whether that had any bearing on his ability to fufill his duties, as opposed to an internal, invisible illness that couold impair him. Whether he did a good job or not is a defferent issue.

"I don't believe that if your son ran for President 40 years from now that it would be anyone's business as to whether he fought his way through articulation disorder or some type of surgery between now and then."

Heart disease, say, as a result of rheumatic fever as a child. Important, you think?

"Along with that, I don't believe Bush or Kerry should have to give up medical records to the public. If there is one thing that should be able to remain private it would be a person's own medical history."

If you want 'privacy', don't run for office, and especially don't run for an office the requires physical stamina as well as mental acuity.

"I'm not sure what in the world you posted that crazy rumor about Kerry having a growth disorder for.
Even if it were true, what difference would that make about him being able to lead?"

Is it a potentially debilitating disorder?

"Or his prostrate surgery either for that matter?"

Again, he had cancer. What's his prognosis for survival?

"Meanwhile, you don't want to hear Bush's verbal gaffe's even joked about and YOU CORRECTLY do not want to hear people with a different disorder, articulation disorder, be diminished or unfairly have their capacity questioned. Doesn't seem fair and balanced."

Well, I think you're misreading what she said, which was liberal media has an insatiable curiosity when it comes to Bush's health, and SAT scores, and college grades, and speaking ability. They are also quick to judge his "fitness to serve" according to how well he pronounces some raghead's name from East Bunghole, Kissmyassistan. When it comes to Democrats like Kerry, all of a sudden, the press thinks the public's 'right to know' is limited. Doubt the double standard? Go back to the 2000 primaries and compare the press's evaluations of Gore's various education debacles and C averages with Bush's.

"Be consistent, very consistent....."

Doll face draws a clear distinction between what she feels privately and what she thinks the public is entitled to. You're just not reading her piece very closely.

And I promise I'll buy you a glass of single malt scotch of your choice at your favorite bar if you don't use the silly phrase "Plucky Tom" in your response.

sierraric said...

As for Kerry's not surviving four years in office, hmm... that just might make him a more attractive candidate.

Tom said...

One can imagine President John Edwards threatening to sue al Quaeda. Scary.

On a somewhat related note, thoug, never underestimate the importance of a vice presidential running mate. What do you think kept Bill Clinton in office after his impeachment? The thought of President Al Gore.

Say what you want about the Zipper ... he planned ahead.

Jericho Brown said...

I don't know why Lefty and Tom are even addressing your line of questioning, ALa. This is yet another example of Republican smokescreen and diversion. You did a great job pointing out some of the flaws We Who Hate Bush have cited, but just because there is no comparison for Kerry doesn't absolve Bush of any of the many charges We Who Hate Bush frequently level at him. Basically, you've admitted he's a dumbass and are now saying that you want to be able to compare and contrast Kerry's intellect. Look, it's obvious that he doesn't hold a candle (melting candle face or not) to Bush's intellectual shortcomings. Your son might have some kind of speech impediment but there's a big difference between a pronunciation issue and the frequent MISUSE of words. It's apples and oranges and, hate to break it to ya ALa, but you've already shown yourself to be too intelligent to have me believe that you think it's the same thing. C'mon. Somebody--Cig Smoker or 91 Ghost or Disco Stu or even big AND MEAN...shit, I'll even take Wild Bill. But somebody needs to step up and answer for the discrepencies in--shit, pretty much everything Bush has done and stands for. The man has a drunk driving conviction for God's sake. He's an ex-cokehead. I'm so tired of the pussy-ass Democrats cowering and acting like they have to leave some stones unturned, leave the man in power with some of his dignity. It's time to fight fire with fire and not once NOT ONCE have I seen one rebuttal of the many CITED accusations leveled at the sitting president. It's all, "Oh, yeah, well--look at the other guy." And you know why? Because you people might be stupid, but you're not that stupid and you know that when the charges are directly addressed, the candidate that you have thrown yourself behind, the one that has led the country into war on scurrilous circumstance, the one that took a record-setting surplus and in a period of less than two years turned it into a record-setting deficit, can't stand the heat. He's a real paper tiger. And yet, through a revived culture of fear, a new Evil Empire, he has turned you into automatons, mindlessly following his every whim because he has you convinced that if the other guy wins, it's only a matter of time before everything you hold dear is in the dumpster. But sometimes you have to take a stand. Sometimes you've gotta give up the sure thing in order to stay true to your morals (you KNOW this, ALa). It's time to take a risk. It's time to get this guy out of the White House because he stands for everything that the common man is not. He IS big business. He IS war profiteering. He IS a draft dodger. Anybody can wage endless war if they have the fear of the people and an endless supply of funds behind them. A truly great leader navigates with more substance than that. Maybe Kerry's not that guy, but he's gotta be worth a shot. If not, we can try somebody else in four more years. Oh, and BTW, what about Cheney's 18 heart attacks? He was a pretzel choking away from the White House.

cheeky monkey said...

JB-- You rock! Thanks for mentioning that little heart problem of Cheney's, the misuse and frank disrespect for a) the English language and b) knowing policy and c) intellectualism. I'm not fond of the movement that credits stupidity as folksy and lack of policy experience or understanding as "in touch with the people." I want brains! Pehaps Kerry's long face means he has more brains.

As for the drunk driving, ex-coke head, military goof off, business bankrupting, S&L benefitting... you hit the nail on the head. Any talk of a left wing media bias goes up in smoke when you see how W has gotten off scott free. No investigative reporting, no real explanation of his past. The press just glosses over it for fear of being labelled liberal.

Personally, I'd like a smart, articulate, thoughtful leader who takes war seriously and thinks of leading a country, not leading a private country club for rich twit friends.

~Jen~ said...

Off topic -- Hey Ala71! I sent an email to you and Rose on your yahoo accounts. You're going to freak!!!!!!!

ALa said...

Cheney’s heart problem is exactly why I think Kerry’s records should be released –Cheney had to release his, as he should…but we should know the health of those running for the highest office.

If you want brains –you should be calling for Kerry’s records more than me –especially if the rumors are true and Kerry’s grades were lower than Bush’s.

I can’t believe you would say all those things about Bush when I would bet that you voted for Clinton both times…the pot-smoking, coke-head, womanizing, raping, illegitimate baby-having, draft-dodging, Bin Laden-bungling radish nose….

W has hardly “got off” on all these things you mentioned, as they have been in the news and thoroughly vetted…when we have yet to see one SINGLE grade (even a pass/fail) of Kerry’s.

P.S. John F. Kerry (F –does not really stand for flip-flop…it stands for FORBES)…he is the RICHEST candidate…1.3 BILLION. He is a Massachusetts liberal…who do you think has richer country club friends? Is Georgy Soros poor? Bill Gates? TAKES WAR SERIOUSLY? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssseee!

cheeky monkey said...

Wow! Bill Clinton is a rapist AND had illegitimate children. Nice one.
I think he has major problems about power and women--happy ot admit to that (again, do Republicans have any problems ever... never heard you once admit a defect on your team). But your post (once again) crossed the line between truth and Insanitized (like the pun?!)

As for Kerry and his wealth, I did not say he is poor. Read carefully. I said he looks out for people who are not poor and has more voices at the table than the most powerful heads of corporate America. Big different. Money isn't evil. it's how you use it.

ALa said...

How has Kerry ever looked out for the poor? How many of the 'poor' no longer have to pay ANY federal income tax under Bush's plan (answer...a whole hell of a lot).

The allegations of rapist are well documented (Juanita Broderick) and groping, and hard drug use, and McDonalds overload and, yes, also the illegitimate child of a black prostitute from Arkansas. You can find it all in a book by Christopher Hitchens called "Bill & Hillary"...he was an editor of Time magazine, an editor at People Magazine, and worked for the New York Times --not exactly a 'right-wing' resume. He has written biographies of many top political figures and if you research him on line you will see that he is well respected for never printing something that he can't independently verify with at least three independent sources...

I never said W didn't have a drinking problem when he was young (who didn't)...I have no problem that Magical Me smoked pot...

You have Sean constantly on your mind –anything you want to confess (he is quite cute)...

~Jen~ said...

I think Sean is gorgeous. I love that salt-n-pepper hair.....*happy sigh*

Bigandmean said...

I went back over the post of JB just to make sure there was nothing coherant contained in it. I was right. It's completely devoid of any logic...just filled with profane infantile accusations that sound like they may have been overheard at fifth grade recess.

He can't be more than 11 or 12 years old. Maybe he'll grow up.

In the meantime JB, just stand back and stay out of the way. The adults are in charge and we don't mind doing the heavy lifting for you.

Bigandmean said...

Jen and Ala71,
I would guess that you know about page B1 of Thursday's Wall Street Journal.

~Jen~ said...

Yup, sure do Dad. Was that cool or what?!?!?!?

ALa said...

...I hope all this attention doesn't get him in more trouble!...

~Jen~ said...

Same here. Sounds like it is already pretty bad.

Did you love the picture? LOL!

Paul G. said...

Do you really want FULL medical disclosure?
Including the use of powerful anti-depressants?
Even those administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb?

I knew there was something different about GW's swagger.

Jericho Brown said...

AL:

You did exactly what I said you were going to do. Remember? Let's think back. It was in a post I left just a few hours ago...what was it? Oh, yeah. Here it is: "It's all, 'Oh, yeah, well--look at the other guy.' And you know why? Because you people might be stupid, but you're not that stupid and you know that when the charges are directly addressed, the candidate that you have thrown yourself behind... can't stand the heat." But fine, you wanna play, I'll play. But then you gotta play by the same rules. None of this,"W has hardly “got off” on all these things you mentioned, as they have been in the news and thoroughly vetted" B.S. That's a cop-out and you know it! If it was all so thoroughly vetted and all concerns were neatly laid to rest then there wouldn't be the giant divide in the country right now cause we'd all think what you think it is you know: that W. is just a great all-around guy.

Now to your accusations about (sigh) the other guy(s). Clinton has never been proven to have had an illegitimate child. Period. I don't care how many independant sources Hitchens supposedly had. Ann Coulter said she had sources and we all know how discredited she is. You can get "sources" for anything. Maybe after he dies it'll be one of those Strom Thurmond deals and it'll come to light. All I'm saying is that if it was such a provable accusation it wouldn't have stayed locked up in that book. We'd all know about it. It wouldn't just be a rumor. There has never been any kind of allegation (credible, anyway) regarding Clinton being a hard drug user. If he was, great. That shouldn't be the point anyway. He showed far better leadership during his time in office than Bush has. The nation saw unprecedented prosperity under him. And as for trying to pin the failure to nab bin Laden on him, Bush was in office for nine months before 9/11 when he could have been trying to nab the fucker himself. But he didn't. Because as we all know now, his administration wasn't concerned with terrorism (8th on the priority list)until it was too late. Both sides fucked it up. Period. The 9/11 report says as much.

As for your assertion, "How many of the 'poor' no longer have to pay ANY federal income tax under Bush's plan (answer...a whole hell of a lot)", your straight up WRONG. That's more smoke and mirrors. And your buddy Al Franken directly addresses said mirrors and smoke in chapter 35 of Lies and the Lying Liars, entitled "By Far the Vast Majority of My Tax Cuts Go to Those At the Bottom." Evidently you lied to me when you said you read this book. This chapter is opinion-free. It's straight up fact about how the tax cut, in fact, goes mainly to the wealthy. Example stat: the bottom 60% of the country get 14.7% of the tax cut. There's fifteen pages of evidence-documented statistics. Call him Stuart Smalley all you want, it doesn't change the fact that he somehow got undeniable proof into his book that the tax cut is mainly benefiting the rich. Rush Limbaugh admits to this, but blows it off by saying that they worked hard for their money and therefore deserve a break. So answer this direct accusation ALa, someone, anyone. Answer any of them. Respond to this posting without so much as mentioning the other guy(s). I dare you. In fact, I'll bet you can't even tell me why Bush is so great. What has he done for you or anyone aside from the richest 20% of this country that someone else couldn't do? Please, sell me on him.Tell me why he's great without so much as mentioning anybody else but him...do you hear that?

That's what I figured. Now you've successully changed the subject to cute boys. How debonaire.
P.S. SMALLANDINCONSEQUENTIAL(bigandmean): I bet you wear women's underwear.

~Jen~ said...

ROFL!!!!!

this we'll defend said...

This was a silly post, and JB's out of control.

I don't dislike Bush because he has trouble with his native language, I dislike him because he makes really bad decisions consistently.

And you keep going on about Bush getting into Harvard without addressing two things: 1) Bush wouldn't have gotten in to Harvard if he didn't pull strings, and 2) Kerry got into LAW SCHOOL. Don't compare getting an MBA to getting a JD and conclude the MBA guy is better educated. That would be like concluding we should invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 because of 9/11... oh.

BTW: Bush was rejected from UT Law school. I don't think that makes him more or less qualified to lead us. I think his stunning history of pure mediocrity and inachievement does though. He wouldn't have been dogcatcher if he wasn't born into a powerful family. He is another great example of why we overthrew the monarchy and decided against inherited wealth and privilege. But apparently we are done with that little idea. Are titles of nobility next?

Bigandmean said...

Jericho,
Did I say 11 or 12 years old? Let's make that 8 or 9.

TWD,
Your claim that Bush was rejected by UT Law is the first time I've ever heard that. I have heard that Kerry was rejected by Harvard Law but have no confirmation of that either. Can you verify either of these claims? I've also heard for years that Ted Kennedy had problems in law school with allegations of cheating but have never seen actual verification of that one either.

Speaking of monarchys, what about Camelot? The Kennedys have enjoyed the royal treatment for four generations now.

MrMalcolm said...

Jericho,
You are one whacked out litle whiney girly-man. I swish when I walk and my lisp can start a sand storm but I can still whip your spindly little butt and make you squeal like a Radio City Rockett.

I dress like Elton John's feminine older brother Kerry John but do have a fighting outfit that makes me look more like Hulk Hogan on steroids. One flex of my biceps and you'd be screaming for mercy like Elton John's ultra feminine younger brother, Edwards John did in the 5th grade when bullied by the kindergarten toughs.

God, you are so wacky and warped I'd bet you were in the publishing business. Let me guess; Comic books right?

this we'll defend said...

B&M: from US News & World Report (http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225): 1971 WINTER/SPRING: George W. Bush's application is rejected by the University of Texas Law School. He begins a job as a trainee at Stratford of Texas, an agriculture conglomerate led by a former business associate of his father. (From the March 3, 2004 US News & World Report - "A Year For the Record Books - 1971 a look back")

From freerepublic.com (in a typically slanted hagiography of our Savior George W.): "he applied to the University of Texas Law School and was rejected. Eventually he applied to Harvard Business School." Found at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6a33aa508f.htm

I've heard the rumors of Teddy Kennedy's cheating in law school too, but I don't know if it is true or not. I know that it would be likely to lead to dismissal today, but perhaps times were different back then. And I only know my school's policy on cheating (which is pretty much execution by firing squad - I like that) and don't know how it was for Teddy if in fact he did cheat.

And I don't like that having Kennedy as a last name helps in politics either. I am against inherited wealth and power, I prefer a meritocracy.

ALa said...

TWD: I knew that you would totally miss the point...
YOU may not use the speaking thing to talk about Bush but that is what 90% of the Bush haters say first...
I actually have read that Harvard's MBA program is no joke and I doubt someone who is dumb could get a 100% in applied aerodynamics and a 98% in aviation physiology. I am sure BC has a good law program, but being a lawyer doesn't automatically mean you are a genius...I have met some pretty shady ambulance chasers...in cheap suits.
Anyway...I want Kerry's grades...and you have ignored the fact we don't have them...

Jericho Brown said...

First off let me say to TWD that I apologize for the underwear comment. It was said for the sole purpose of pissing you off and now that I know you're Jen's dad I feel bad about it. I don't know why that makes me feel bad it just does. So I'll try to be nicer to you from now on. Republican AND old is probably the best excuse I know. BUt honestly, sorry for the comment. Anyway, I knew none of you would answer my post the way I dared you to and I guess that means I was right. There's no way you guys can back up the sitting president without attacking the other guy. That speaks volumes doesn't it.

But my main gripe here is with TWD. TWD, you write some of the most lucid and intelligent comments I've read on these issues, which I've actually commended you on before, and yet for the second time you've said that I'm "out of control." I admit the underwear comment to B&M (Bowel Movement? J/K) was over the top, but how you can, with such an easy wave of the hand, write me off like that? I'm seriously hurt over here. I thought we were for the same cause. I never said that Bush didn't deserve his job simply because he can't talk right. But for someone with a Harvard MBA he must have been asleep during the class that taught how presentation is one of the most important parts of selling yourself. He has horrible presentation, that's all I was saying. The real issues go far deeper, as we both agree on. Anyway, try not to be such a condescending fuck. This is a time for unity against the common enemy. After Bush is outta the White House then we can go round and round.

free0352 said...

I hope if I ever run for office someday, no one looks up any odd blog entries I've posted to check for spelling and grammer. LOL

Why on earth should either candidate need release thier medical records? I think a simple doctor's note from either side will do it for me. Who cares, really? You can make the argument for tax returns, but the first lady or perspective first lady's? Why should the wife have to turn over diddly squat, she's not running?

To tell you the truth, I could care less about a candidates grades. Quit recoiling in horror leftys and think about all the really intelligent people you have known over the years who's grades were so-so. I'm not hiring Bush for his first post colledge job. I voted for him for his record as governor the first time, and I'll vote for him a second time for his contrast of Kerry, and over all, dispite some strong disagreements, I respect Bush's will to do what he thinks is right. Now I know Leftys say "Thats the point, we hate what he thinks is right!".....But we don't agree on how the world works, do we? While I wouldn't do things exactly like Bush, I can't figure out what Kerrys trying to do, or if he's trying to do anything but stick his finger in the wind and say what he has to say to be president.

As far as records go, I'll say this because it's hard to dispute. Kerry's record in the Senate is one of tax increase (ON ALL economic demographics.) Kerry likes BIG government, gun controll no matter what he says, he's pro-abortion, and I drastically disagree with all 16 million "nuanced" sides of his plan for forign policy. I think Kerry has a shallow grasp of the middle east from his own statements, and I think his record on Defense was deplorable. So while I do not across the board think Bush is the next Abe Lincoln, Kerry has a snowballs chance in hell of getting my vote. I'm an ex-member of the libratarian party, so small government is part and parcel to how I think politically (Bush wants to make it too big for me) But I will say, Bush's strategy for the War is right on, he's made some mistakes sure, but so did Lincoln and Rosevelt as well. He's a better alternative than Kerry hands down in that department. My experiance with Dems is they hate Bush so much...they'd vote for a Dem muppet if that's who was running.

~Jen~ said...

Hey Jericho, in your first paragraph did you mean to say BigandMean instead of TWD?

TWD is not my Dad.

*grin*

Jericho Brown said...

DAMMIT! Jen, you're right. TWD is not your dad. I can't believe I made that error when I was writing the posting. Yeah, I totally meant B&M. Hear that bigandmean? I was apologizing to you. Not TWD. All the initials flying around here get a little confusing sometimes. Speaking of, what does ROFL mean, Jen?

~Jen~ said...

Too funny Jericho!

LOL = laughing out loud
ROFL = rolling on the floor laughing
LMAO = laughing my ass off
ROFLMAO = rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

It's all internet short hand.

Tom said...

You gotta to love the logic libs engage in. They huff and puff that Bush was a coke snorting, draft dodging, AWOL going, company bankrupting loser, but he's president, therefore there's no liberal bias in the media.

Everything they whine about,particularly the AWOL nonsense, was reported in 2000. And they conveniently forget the DUI reported one week before the election. With all of that going against him, he still managed a tie with Snore, which only goes to show what loser he was, not Bush.

No doubt, when Kerry loses, you'll blame it on the "right-wing media", despite the fact all of the bullshit about Bush reported in 2000 is being repeated.

Three days for Kitty Kelly on Today. How many days did John O'Neill get.

CBS went crazy trying to locate and 'authenticate' its forged documents trying to prove Bush didn't fulfill his guard duty. How long did they search for corroboroation of the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations?

Nah, there's no liberal bias in media.

If left wingers weren't so damn funny, they'd be scary.

Tom said...

Hey, Jen, how about kneejerk shorthand:

FTP: For the Poor
TBFWF: Tax breaks for working families
RSHS: Racist sexist homophobic society
IATWIIBSTT: I'm against the war in Iraq but support the troops
BIAN: Bush is a Nazi
MMIG, GIMM: Michael Moore is God, God is Michael Moore

marijka said...

I guess you must have not been listening that Kerry and Bush were in the same Yale secret club -- just a few years apart - which btw -- remember yale was Bush's undergrad school -- where he got a 1.8 cum... if Harvard took him on to get his MBA--well that sure does not say much for getting into Harvard... i always did hear they were into grade inflation--- guess for some people they lack any grade evaluation...

what you miss is understanding--- that school and grades from years ago--- have nothing to do with what he's done with his life since--- take a good look at the difference between the two candidates--- one went to war, one didn't--- one served in the senate for the last 15 some years... while the other said do you know who i am-- the president's son --- owner of the Texas rangers--- that's quite a contribution--- that makes me feel really good about his policy decisions--- oh and yes, of course-- he reports to the higher father ... that father tells him what to do -- for some people.. that's all they need

this we'll defend said...

Jericho: You and I both support Kerry, but other than that I don't think we have much in common. You say we have "common enemy" in the Republicans. You are Tom of the opposite party, and I don't like either one of you. Republicans are NOT my enemy, they are my fellow citizens and I can disagree with them without attacking them.

I think you should realize what Tom does not: both parties are human. That means they are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and both have something to offer. Free explained that well above. He and I disagree that Bush is effective in the war on terror, etc., but we both agree that our form of government is the best, that we love the USA, and that we want the best for all Americans. Mr. Cheney doesn't think like that, Tom doesn't think like that, and you don't seem to think like that. You seem to see the other party as the enemy. Thus I think I have more in common with Free, right-wing conservative republican, and you have more in common with Tom, right-wing conservative republican.

I hope you can avoid insults and such in the future. People stop reading and skim your comments or ignore them altogether when you start with the rabid partisan insults. If you have something to say then say it in a civil, respectful manner and you will see B&M, me, ALa71, Lefty, etc. read and discuss what you post.

Bigandmean said...

TWD,
Bravo. Well said, although I don't agree with your assessment of Tom and certainly don't think he even begins to approach the infantile behavior of Jericho. I think Tom is just an avid and relentles partisan...no different from a lot of the other contributors who stop by. Jericho, on the other hand, is immature and crude and has a mean streak.

leftyjones said...

Ok Tom,

First off, I'll take a high grade Tequila over the Scotch if you don't mind....It's my poison of choice.
And since you've spent some time here in Philly....we'll go to Dirty Franks and bring a little culture to the natives.
(sigh....used to love hanging out at that dive)

Anyway, your point by point dissection wasn't really necessary for a comment that didn't rate to highly on the serious scale.
I do feel though that there is a point that is being missed between both sides as we go digging for information and facts and dirt.

Just because we could have access to medical records doesn't mean it's our right to have them.
But before I go on with that argument in the present day, I want to address the leaders of our past.

Prominent leaders such as Washington, Lincoln, the Roosevelts etc. certainly had doctors they dealt with and I don't imagine that it's too unlikely that from at least the time of Lincoln on they probably had medical records or files of some sort with their doctors. Press people could have dug around for them, they just didn't do those kind of things then.
But what if they had......
Washington was known to suffer from horrible pain and headaches caused by his bad teeth. There is a reasonable chance that when he had teeth pulled that he may have also suffered from infections as well.
Now, if the public had been led to believe that these illnesses may have caused him to have a short temper, be unable to work or possibly not live through his service....perhaps he would never have been elected.
I wonder what our country would look like now if that had happened?
Lincoln was certainly as long and gaunt as Kerry....he appears to be much more so. What if his medical records indicated this sort of " elongation" problem....should the people not have elected him?
Lincoln's wife was also always rumored to suffer from depression and to be mentally unstable...even more so after their son died. In today's world, he would be considered a liability for having her madness so close to the presidency.
So maybe no Lincoln either.
Teddy Roosevelt certainly exhibited traits of today's disorder of the month...A.D.D.
With a doctor having diagnosed this and having released the records, Teddy may have been left to roam the fading Wild West as he would have been deemed too risky for office. And on and on and on.......

And let's suppose a candidate had an good record of health. We can learn from President Clinton's diagnosis last week that even with exceptional medical supervision there are no guarantees that a leader may not die.
Cancer, Aneuyrisms, Heart attacks, stroke.....they can happen at anytime to seemingly healthy people.
Knowing that, I think it's a horrible mistake to go about vetting our leaders based on non-leadership issues such as these.
Besides, the post of V.P. and the idea of the modern day "ticket" is a built in insurance policy for circumstances like these. Trust me, anyone who would be screaming about Edwards becoming Prsident is someone who didn't vote for Kerry anyway. The same would go for Cheney and Bush.
My end thought on this is that life is not about making the safest choices and life is not guaranteed. Vote for someone because of the leadership you feel they offer and if life (or their death) get in the way.....regroup and find your next leader.

Lastly Tom,
you said, "If you want 'privacy', don't run for office, and especially don't run for an office the requires physical stamina as well as mental acuity."

As much as I disagree with almost everything you say I believe that you are bright enough to agree that part of the reason we seem to be so lacking in quality leadership in this country is because the people who could help us most are not willing to subject themselves to the ridiculous public scrutiny. I mean....it seems crazy when you think about it. We have people in this country who have been successes their entire lives, fought through every obstacle in their path and achieved greatness while honing their leadership skills along the way....but were they to run for office their "prostate health" or their snappy temper etc. will be bandied about and used as fodder to argue their qualifications as a leader by a a large populace that wouldn't know what true leadership was if it hit them in the face.
It's almost insulting that the lowest common denominator is left to make decisions such as these.
Anyway...you may not agree but that was my thought on the matter.

Bigandmean said...

m.a.c.,
When you said that all Bush has done is say "do you know who I am? I'm the President's son". You left out that part about being elected twice as Govenor of Texas and once to the presidency.

Bush's religious faith is not something he has touted. Neither does he answer to the dictates of religious leaders or doctrine. He does pray for guidance which doesn't seem like such a bad thing. I do it myself.

Bigandmean said...

Lefty,
I find myself agreeing with both you and TWD on the same day. I need a drink.

If either you or Tom ever get to the Houston area, let me know and I'll treat you to some real Tequila. The worm they put in this stuff refuses to die...he lives on, swaggering like W, wearing a sombrero and sceaming "badges? we don't need no stinkin' badges"! Now that's some good stuff.

Jericho Brown said...

Once again, TWD, you are wrong. We do not both support Kerry. I support who ever is most capable of getting Bush out of office. Kerry just happens to be the stiff who happened to luck into the Democrat's nomination. As the man said, I'd vote for a ham sandwich over W. It's disheartening to see that intelligent people such as yourself are content to fire back and forth about your perspective ideologies without actually changing anybody's mind. What does that accomplish? Nothing. And in the end, those who are content to accomplish nothing will do just that. Since you are the face of the Democratic party I can only say that you guys are going to have four more years of sob-stories coming up here. If only we'd have done this. If only he had said that. As much as I dislike most of what Republicans stand for I admire the way that they put themselves behind their beliefs. You guys are content to speak and let the chips fall where they may. Pretty pathetic, really.

Tom said...

Lefty:

I know Dirty Franks well. Spent graduate school+ years there. I was born and raised in Philly. I've since moved out, but I'm in Center City every Saturday afternoon. Set a time and I'll buy you the Tequila.

Now, on to the boring stuff ...

When you say, "Just because we could have access to medical records doesn't mean it's our right to have them," I think your misconstruing what is an expectation in modern voters engendered by the modern media, not a sense of 'constitutional entitlement'. The press performs the journalistic equivalent of a digital rectal examination on candidates. The press has established release of everything from a candidate's kindergarten grades to number of bowel movements per day as the standard by which we judge his fitness for office. The people have gone along with it.

My original point was whatever records, if any, were kept back in the days of Washington, Lincoln, etc had to have been very limited in the amount of information they contained since medical knowledge, particularly with regard to internal medicine, was extremely limited. I think if the history of "human knowledge" teaches us anything, it is that the the public's desire for information rises commensurate with the amount of information that is available. Newspapers didn't grow from single to multiple broadsheets because people had limited interest.

Your hypotheticals concerning Washington, Lincoln (it was allegedly Marphan's Disease, by the way), etc. are well taken, but the point is moot. The modern justification for examining the health of a candidate is not that his election rides entirely on his medical history, but that it is one element of many voters can use to make an informed choice. As I said before, the voters of the past did not have access to such information, so we can't say with any certainty how they would have processed it and applied it when they cast their ballots. So, as far as the notion, "Just imagine all of the great men who would never have become president if their medical conditions were known to the public," this is by no means a certainty.

As an aside, I find this to be a very interesting argument coming from liberals who I assume are pro-choice. Perhaps you would like to imagine how many great women and men have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Let me know if this makes you rethink the 'right' to an abortion.

"And let's suppose a candidate had a good record of health. We can learn from President Clinton's diagnosis last week that even with exceptional medical supervision there are no guarantees that a leader may not die."

Of course. But how this serves as an argument against release of medical records is a little beyond me. The jet you take on your next vacation could crash diespite the fact its maintenance history is spotless. I guess you don't want to know whether the jet you're climbing on has passed its last maintenance inspections.

The unknowables you talk about are the reason the constitution allows for a line of succession and that vice-presidents are elected.

Physical health impacts one's capacity to lead. Ask Mrs. Woodrow Wilson. It's definitely a leadership issue. Okay, WW had his first and only stroke while in office, but you're telling me you wouldn't want to know whether a candidate for the office of president had one? I'm not saying anyone is obligated to vote against that candidate, but they have the 'right' (if you want to call it that) to make an informed choice. Cheney's a perfect example. He's had heart attacks. Voters had every "right" to weigh that when considering that he was going to be (pun intended) a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I don't "agree" that we lack in "quality leadership" across the board. You feel that way because the leaders you would prefer are not leaders right now. It's all a matter of perspective. The person not willing to subject himself to "public scrutiny" while having the nerve to ask the public to esconce him in a position of power is a fucking megalomaniac, and we're better off not having him run. He should have the balls to make his case irrespective of what the "record" shows. This is what's wrong with Kerry. He wants his past to totally define his present, but turns into a whining baby when someone challenges that past. It's the people's choice, not the candidate's. That is a democracy, no?

Tom said...

TWD:

It's not that I'm not flattered by your attention, I just don't want your obsession with me to turn into a mania.

this we'll defend said...

JB: I did say I would vote for a block of wood over Bush. The striking similarity to Kerry is just coincidence.

I'm not sure we will change the minds of those who disagree with us on this post, but we have more readers than those who make comments. And I enjoy the debate. If you think you can get somebody to agree with you by suggesting they perform anatomically impossible sexual activities ("Cheneyizing themselves") that is fine, but I don't think it will work. People that have just been insulted don't usually have open minds and a willingness to listen and consider the point of view of the person who insulted them. But hey, as they say in the infantry, its a technique. That is usually said about something incredibly dangerous that nobody in their right mind would try. "Hey, I think I'll dazzle the enemy by wearing bright orange instead of camoflauge." Nobody ever calls such ideas "wrong" in the Army. They just say "well, its a technique. Let's see you do it" and then they nudge their friends and whisper "watch this idiot."

Tom: LOL. I'm not a stalker, I'm just hanging around, every day, for hours, that's all. :)

this we'll defend said...

I noticed that ALa71 said Bush "didn't know who the Prime Minister of Some-Country-No-One-Has-Ever-Heard-Of is (mind you that many Americans don't know who the Vice President is now).

That, I think, says it all. It doesn't matter what Bush DOES or DOESN'T DO, but only what he SAYS. And he says all the things people want to hear.

If you were going in for heart surgery would you want a doctor who didn't know how many ventricles were in a heart? If you are buying a house would you want your real estate agent to understand escrow? If you are hiring an attorney would it matter to you if they didn't know the difference between a state and a federal court, or the statute of limitations? But hiring a president, who cares if he doesn't know the names of prime ministers, right? If he doesn't understand the international system, who cares? He would be a great guy to BBQ with, so who cares if he is incompetent, right? If he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING?

this we'll defend said...

I noticed that ALa71 said Bush "didn't know who the Prime Minister of Some-Country-No-One-Has-Ever-Heard-Of is (mind you that many Americans don't know who the Vice President is now).

That, I think, says it all. It doesn't matter what Bush DOES or DOESN'T DO, but only what he SAYS. And he says all the things people want to hear.

If you were going in for heart surgery would you want a doctor who didn't know how many ventricles were in a heart? If you are buying a house would you want your real estate agent to understand escrow? If you are hiring an attorney would it matter to you if they didn't know the difference between a state and a federal court, or the statute of limitations? But hiring a president, who cares if he doesn't know the names of prime ministers, right? If he doesn't understand the international system, who cares? He would be a great guy to BBQ with, so who cares if he is incompetent, right? If he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING?

ALa said...

The name/location of a ventricle doesn't change...Prime Ministers do. I knew that Jose Maria Aznar was the PM of Spain...I have no idea who the new Socialist Party PM is...Does that make me dumb?

this we'll defend said...

I noticed that ALa71 said Bush "didn't know who the Prime Minister of Some-Country-No-One-Has-Ever-Heard-Of is (mind you that many Americans don't know who the Vice President is now).

That, I think, says it all. It doesn't matter what Bush DOES or DOESN'T DO, but only what he SAYS. And he says all the things people want to hear.

If you were going in for heart surgery would you want a doctor who didn't know how many ventricles were in a heart? If you are buying a house would you want your real estate agent to understand escrow? If you are hiring an attorney would it matter to you if they didn't know the difference between a state and a federal court, or the statute of limitations? But hiring a president, who cares if he doesn't know the names of prime ministers, right? If he doesn't understand the international system, who cares? He would be a great guy to BBQ with, so who cares if he is incompetent, right? If he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING? It isn't like the job takes skill like a surgeon, a lawyer, or even a real estate agent, right? If you were hiring somebody for a job you wouldn't care about his resume or the jobs he has failed at in the past?

Of course that isn't the case, and 1,000 dead in an unnecessary war of choice, lack of WMDs, record deficits, and the misnamed "Patriot Act" prove it. But results don't matter, all you have to do is say what people want to hear. And if you say something that turns out completely wrong, act surprised, blame Tenet and the CIA who were telling you all along you were wrong, and then change the subject. Iraq was all about liberation, not 9/11 and WMDs.

From the AP: "Of those who cited issues, Kerry was favored by 10 percentage points. People making a gut-level choice overwhelming favored Bush, 65-29 percent."

Would you want "gut-level" decisions from a surgeon, an attorney, your real-estate agent, an infantry scout?

Military commanders who make "gut-level" decisions are usually beaten by commanders who make informed, logical ones. Rommel was popularly known for his "gut instincts" but all of his war diaries, staff journals, and his book "Infantry Attacks" show instead well-thought-out, precise, logical decision-making using as many sources of information as he could get his hands on. Patton was the same, with an almost-fanatical level of attention paid to scouts and military intelligence. These men only went with their "guts" when they had no other choice, and even then it was "informed ignorance" to coin a phrase. They were masters at what they did and had prepared their entire lives for it.

Apparently the job of leader of the free world doesn't demand nearly as much, huh? After all, what could possibly go wrong?

If you vote based on "gut-instinct" and what pleases you to hear rather than what is good for this nation after truly examining the issues then you are NOT patriotic and this nation will get what it deserves, for good or for ill. The fact that clearing brush in a cowboy hat counts for more than well-thought out decision papers doesn't bode well for our future.

"C" student indeed. I want my Presidents smart, well-informed, or at least well-above average. I'll find my own BBQ buddies thank you very much.

Frater Bovious said...

I believe the disease is called Marfan's Syndrome, a heart defect that seems to have some side effects such as long spindly legs and long faces, etc.

There is some support to the theory that Abraham Lincoln had this disease. In fact, Kerry kind of looks like Lincoln. Food for thought. Maybe there are other things to focus on. fb

Bigandmean said...

Tom and Lefty meeting for a drink! I'd love to hang around for that one.

ALa said...

Frater...Yes! Marfans...That's it...

ALa said...

TWD:
The name/location of a ventricle doesn't change...Prime Ministers do. I knew that Jose Maria Aznar was the PM of Spain...I have no idea who the new Socialist Party PM is...Does that make me dumb?

Again you mention the "I want my CIC smart"...and mention 'C' student. Everything I can find online says Kerry was a LOW 'C' student --Please find me soemthing that disputes this (challenge) -or you are banned from degrating Bush's grades -which it seems may have been better than Kerry's.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

"I want my CIC smart." Hmmmmmmm... well, the two major categories of "smart" are "book-smart", which Kerry obviously is (by his pronunciation of Ghengis Khan as "jenjis kon" phoenetically); and "common sense". But how often have we seen people in real life who had a lot of book-smarts but no common sense whatsoever? Would someone with common sense play into that kangaroo court called "Winter Soldier" in Detroit? Would someone with common sense say, with a deadpan straight face, "I voted for it before I voted against it"?

Certainly, because the office of President of the United States is, chiefly, a public speaking position, I can readily concede the notion that failure to properly pronounce words (like "nukular") is an embarrassing thorn in the side of America's image among the world's anglophone countries. On the other hand, I will not go so far as to leap from there to a conclusion that Bush is "stupid". He seems to be a very "what you see is what you get" kind of a guy, contrasted with a duplicitous Bill Clinton and a snobby elitist in the Boston Backstabber. There is a comfort in that, for middle America--a demographic which needs reassurance that the government isn't going to backstab them with tax hikes or back off on the war against terrorists on any of the battlefields not personally approved by Jaques Chirac. It may annoy the hell out of the post-graduate-educated not to hear Churchillesque oration from the White House these days, but to people who have children that need protecting and a small business that doesn't need overtaxing, it's no great failure on Bush's part. And when you get down to it, Kerry's no Winston Churchill on the bully pulpit either. Too much monotone; too much dwelling on the negative; too much blue-blooded elitism oozing through, even though the "Thursten Howell III" accent he had back in 1971 is largely coached out of him by now. Much in substance and policy would be sacrificed here, for a proper pronunciation of "nuclear".

A final word on "anybody but Bush". I seem to recall many Germans saying, "anybody but Paul von Hindenberg", and Russians saying, "anybody but Tsar Nicholas". If you take your eye off the ball like that, you're bound to get beaned. And that's common sense--not "book smarts".

Frater Bovious said...

My dad always said "A students work for C students."

Meaning there is more to what makes a person successful than the grades they make in college. He said this to me 20 years ago, but it seems to be an accurate statement.

fb

this we'll defend said...

ALa71 says she has "no idea who the new Socialist Party PM is...Does that make me dumb?"

Well, ALa71, if you were the secretary of state it would. If you were President it would. If you were running for President it would. Why? Because then it would be your job to know, and you still wouldn't know.

Saying "well, I don't know it either so who cares if the president does?" is facile. You aren't the commander in chief. If you were a car dealer and you didn't know what MSRP meant then you would be stupid. If you are running the foreign policy of the free world and don't know who the PM or President is of ALL your NATO allies then you are "unfit for command."

And the old saw about "book smart versus common sense." That's sum larnin thar, cigman. Yeehaw, we don't need no book nolege in these heer parts.

Common sense is in fact quite uncommon, and education helps you learn to think and solve problems independently. The military requires a bachelor's degree for officers. The state department requires a bachelor's and passing the difficult foreign service exam. There are very good reasons for that.

As far as A students working for C students, there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that, as Bush's career shows, we are far from the meritocracy we need to be. It is more important who you know than what you do - a C student that has connections will be boss while the A student will work for him, and that is ok with you. Not with me. Another reason is that for some A students they are very, very smart and thus don't need to work as hard for their A as someone else who works hard for a B. Thus the B student has a better work ethic, and work ethic will get you further than sheer ability most of the time. So who took the most vacation of any president in history? Hmmmm....

But these are just minimum qualifications. I've known guys with perfect 4.0s who couldn't lead hungry wolves to meat, I've known geniuses who were such poor leaders that Mother Teresa would tell them to get fucked, I knew one West Pointer who graduated with a 3.8 in mechanical engineering who couldn't count his balls and get the same number twice in a row. And I knew OCS guys who got their bachelors from Troy State University (near Columbus GA, also derisively called "University of Columbus 'Longside the Airport" or UCLA) that I would follow to hell if they asked for volunteers.

Does that mean education doesn't matter? Hell no. It is an indicator, it shows how serious students were in college - it is a good indicator of ability and work ethic combined. While I knew brilliant people who were bad officers, and I knew average students who were brilliant officers, 95% of the time the smarter somebody was the better an officer they made. Conventional wisdom (read: uninformed opinion) suggests the opposite (nobody likes a know-it-all) the truth is that brilliant, genius-types are more respected in the infantry, and in any demanding position. When you are under fire you want a know-it-all taking charge and leading. It is one thing to be decisive (Bush is very decisive), it is another to consistently make good decisions (Bush consistently makes bad ones). Brains have a lot to do with that.

And so even if C student Bush were an A student, even if his history of mediocrity were a history of excellence, his track record as president shows that he is incompetent.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I ask again WHERE IS OSAMA? We have Saddam. BFD. Where is OSAMA?

I demand we track down and kill all those responsible for 9/11, all those who assisted the evil men who attacked us, all those who knew and didn't try and stop it. Saddam is none of those things. And since our President has not made this a priority I want him fired and replaced.

Accepting anything less than the capture and execution of Osama and his allies is unacceptable. As you watch the republicans wear their hairshirt and try and capitalize on 9/11 for political purposes ask one question: where is Osama?

ALa said...

TWD: 12 paragraphs and still not an answer to the question...MANY people believe Bush to be an excellent leader -strong and steadfast (double or triple digits over Kerry on this arena).
Everyone also agrees that while we want (and will) get UBL -he is a figure head and it won't change the day-to-day operations of Al Qaeda. Will Kerry get him? You don't think that the best-of-the-best have been out there hunting him down (my mom thinks he walking around in a burka)?
BUT you still haven't answered why (when you make such a big deal over grades) you would vote for someone who may have lower grades than Bushie? Someone who is definitely not a good leader as (no matter what spin you try to put on it) can not take a definite position. This is not a new trend for the 'Nuanced One', this started early in life when he said that he 'thought it would be advantageous to go to war and then protest against the war'...I was for the war -before I was against the war ...sound familiar?
And your grades argument is bullshit anyway --my husband didn't go to college and he is one of the smartest people I know (much smarter than me who has been in continuing education -with very high grades- my entire life). He has engineers with PhDs calling and asking his help to get them out of design jams all the time ...book knowledge vs. applied actual knowledge. I have seen him sit with the over-educated as they banged away furiously on their calculators and he gave them the numbers before they were even done with their first column. All the book knowledge in the world isn't going to help you succeed...you have to be well-versed in people, and in real problems, and in how to solve those problems in real-life and not a piece of college-ruled paper. John Kerry has never lived in the real world. He is a Forbes who went to boarding schools in France, married a millionaire, cheated on her with B movie stars and damaged her so bad that she wrote a book about how being married to him almost pushed her to suicide, he then married a billionairess...he has NO idea what the real world even is --if there is 2 Americas he should know and he has never even stepped into the 'other one'. You can do nothing to help poor people if the word 'poor' is something that you have read in a book and have no practical application for.
Bush may come from a rich family, but lived with real people -bought his first house FHA, campaigned his first campaign driving in the back of a beat-up pickup truck with handmade signs hanging on the sides... He has had businesses that failed (which any business owner can tell you, will teach you the most valuable lessons) and ones that have succeeded.
So, putting aside the grades thing (because until I hear otherwise, I am assuming Kerry's grades were lower than Bush's -or he would have them plastered all over his website) -Bush has more REAL experience. Asked to hire a PhD engineer or my husband ...I am taking my man each time (as I know the PhD will just be calling him anyway!) --though this isn’t a fair analogy because Kerry's grades were below par and he has no PhD.

tescosuicide said...

Thanks sweetheart, but some things really do need an engineer. I personally feel that Bush has both. After reading everything in this post here's what I've summed up - JB is an idiot trying to sound smart, BIGANDMEAN still rules, Dirty Frank's is a shithole that has always been and always will (just like the artsy Philly boneheads to grasp on to this joint), TWD, as much as I hate him is still the smartest DEMOCRAT posting and Cig's point says it all that Anyone But Bush so irresponsible.

Ron Brynaert said...

Friend of yours? Ann Coulter Jr.

ahipdude said...

Ala71

First time poster to any blog anywhere: I have spoken to many of the engineers your hubbie has spoken to, most of them are book smart, street stupid. They got the grades, got the job, and can't apply their knowledge.

I believe about myself, as I believe about your significant other, that I have the ability to learn on the fly. My college grades were less than stellar, mostly due to hanging out at the arcade instead of with my books. In the years subsquent to my education, I found employment and threw myself into my work so that I could understand as much of it as possible. In my line of work, I surround myself with those that can grasp new ideas and hope they can teach me something new as they learn from me. This is a skill that GWB has not yet revealed to me. The difference between a smart leader and a stupid one is knowing when to make the call.

I believe that this election is going to be based on terrorism and fear, short term hot buttons, instead of issues that matter the most; economy, ecology, and education (the three "E"s?) to name a few. It pisses me off that the Catholics are only worried about abortion, the NRA members are only worried about their guns, etc.

Americans need to look at the bigger picture. We are not economically stronger. We are watching the prices of steel, wood, and other primary resources going up which helps boost the numbers. We are importing goods now more then ever, giving our manufacturing jobs to other countries.

"No Child Left Behind" is an absolute disaster. My father is an Elementary School Principal, my wife, sister, and brother-in-law are teachers, so I think I have a handle on this subject.

Dubya has undone all of the pollution controls from Clinton's reign as well as some of Seniors in the name of spurring on better prices for consumers. What we have instead is corporate fat cats lining their pockets and pumping out more toxic fumes.

I really don't give a Rats Ass which canidate scored the lower of the two "C"s in school. I don't know if Kerry is going to be a better leader than Bush. I do know that we have had four years of Bush's rule, and we are truly no better off for it - not individually, not as a nation.

Anyone for a ham sandwich?

ALa said...

ahipdude:
Welcome to the blogosphere...BUT of course I must take issue with most of what you have said...
1)War On Terror: Of course I believe that basing the election on terrorism is appropriate. Basing it on the reality of terrorism does not mean you are basing it on fear. You are choosing who would be most efficient in dealing with the biggest problem facing Americans today. As I have said before, 'You can't marry your gay lover, have an abortion, work union overtime or listen to Howard Stern if you’re dead'...it's that simple.

Your alternative: a man that lied about fellow officers, caused POWs more horror, voted against almost every weapon/intelligence upgrade (including a 6 million dollar cut after the first WTC bombing) and has a non-flip-flopping record on just one thing...his disdain for the US military...

2) The Economy: The Economy is fine. Bush came into the Clinton/Gore recession, had 9/11 & all subsequent financial fallout and 1 million jobs lost in one month, anthrax scare, etc. and yet we are at a LOWER unemployment rate than when Clinton was re-elected (56% V. 54%) and the economy is growing at a steady pace. Given all those factors, I don't think anyone could have done a better job. Research on 'out-sourcing shows that we in-source WAY more jobs than we out-source...

Your alternative: Someone who calls companies that out-source 'Benedict Arnold Companies' while Heinz ketchup exports 70% of its company overseas....

3) Education: NO Child Left Behind is the education entitlement that Democrats have been using as a campaign promise for years...they are just bitter that the Conservative actually followed through. The money is there -States and school administrations have to utilize it. The last time I checked almost all the States had tons sitting in the reserve and it will be lost if they don't file for it by Oct. 2004. Buy the Book "Betrayal" by Linda Chavez...you will see that it is the NEA that is destroying education. This is why I have abandoned my teaching degree and am in Grad school for Library Science. I will not be a party to the union's corruption.
Your alternative: Who knows...he has never said..., but he is against school vouchers and I thought it was the liberals that were all about 'Pro-choice'...

4) Environment: Maybe if people stopped driving those old gas guzzlers and bought new SUVs and cars that have emissions standards -the environment would improve...
Your alternative: How much energy does it take to heat/cool FIVE mansions, or 2 top-of-the-line private jets (to fly in your hairdresser from across the country)...Someone who says in Detroit that he proudly owns FIVE SUVs and then a week later on Earth Day says he doesn't own them. The Heinz/Kerry family probably uses more energy than 40 families put together....

For the thinking man, ‘Anybody but Bush' doesn't work in this election...the stakes are too high and the contrasts too stark...(besides Kerry is really odd looking…)LOL

this we'll defend said...

For everybody dismission the value of education here are some facts:

Education is not the same as intelligence: ALa71 I believe your husband is smart and gets calls from PhDs. Intelligence is a natural gift, education must be earned. Your husband sounds gifted. The PhDs might not be as smart, simply better educated.

Education trains you to think: we all know the "book-smart, street stupid" stereotype, but in fact the military shows the falsity of that stereotype. Infantry training is "education" for combat. While reporters always focus on how combat veterans and "seasoned troops" are better than "green troops" the Army and Marine Corps disagree. Training prepares you for victory, and a well-trained ("educated") unit is always better than a unit with little training but lots of combat experience. Example: Afghanistan. Those people have been fighting for decades. They still can't shoot straight and US troops in their first action were obviously much better. Another Example: the first Gulf War, where the Iraqi army was full of seasoned veterans of the war with Iran, and most of the US military had never heard a shot fired in anger. Why did the inexperienced troops do better in both conflicts? Education - they were trained.

Now a PhD in Romance Languages or Elizabethan Poetry doesn't have much pratical application. But you would hope an ambassador would have some political science and history education, you would hope that your doctor went to medical school instead of "learning on the job," and you would hope that your President was diligent in his studies and curious about the world around him before being given the most important job in it.

Kerry has shown he is well-versed in foriegn affairs and is respected in the Senate for the depth of his knowledge.

Bush is known to be impatient with complexity and prefers simple solutions to complex problems. As a result the war in Iraq, which a majority of Americans who can't name the countries that border Iraq or the history of Iraq supported, seemed and seems right to him - and them. But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it was a stupid and avoidable and costly mistake, but because it takes more than 30 seconds to explain most Americans don't know and don't care. It is easier to say "support the troops" and "remember 9/11" and "WMD" with no understanding of what it takes to support the troops, of how the troops depend on the American people and the President to carefully consider all the facts before committing them to battle, of how our war on the terrorists was weakened by invading Iraq, and of how little threat Saddam's WMDs were KNOWN to be even before we discovered they didn't even exist in the first place.

Thinking is hard. Let's just not do it. Vote Bush - it's easier than thinking!

And without a transcript of Kerry's grades I can definitively say Kerry did better than Bush in college. How do I know this? He got into a prestigious law school. Bush did not. Does this matter? Not necessarily, but it is one of many indicators that all point to Kerry being smarter, making better decisions, and being more engaged in the world around him. Those are pretty important qualifications for the presidency, don't you "think?"

Bigandmean said...

I've known many people who could write a lengthy treatise on how to do the breast stroke but would drown if they fell in the pool.

ahipdude said...

Ala71,

Thanks for the welcoming and I expected much of your responses. I will attempt to address them in reverse order.

Kerry IS odd looking... Bush looks like a monkey. Clinton had a nose like W. C. Fields. Nixons nose was worse. The list goes on. I won't vote for someone based on looks unless we are talking about Miss USA.

Environment: Nice stab. When I was forced to have emmissions tests on all of my cars, they all passed better than cars with modern pollution controls. My POS Corvair had emissions tests come back less than half of cars one third its age. Age has almost nothing to do with the emissions it produces. Keeping the vehicle in tune does. Should I replace my old Mustang with a new car (POS SUV or other), it would take over ten years before I would hit "break even" with the added pollution of constructing the new vehicle, possibly more than that now that Dubya lifted the pollution controls from the auto manufacturers. They are allowed to police themselves. I would put my fuel efficiency of my 4000 pound Packard up against your Me2 SUV and come up the winner. As far as how many SUV's someone owns; you can only drive one at a time. When one is polluting the air, the other four can do nothing more than take up space.

Education: No Child Left Behind was the brainchild of none other than Good Ol' Boy Governor Bush in the 90's - a program of standardized testing designed to increase performance and reduce dropout rates. What it became is a program designed to privatize the public school system. If grades don't make it to the standards, the Principal gets fired for not whipping the teachers hard enough. The Superintendant gets a beating for letting it happen. It doesn't matter whether the school is in a rich area or a poor one. Because of No Child Left Untested, your child will spend a full week getting tested when they get to fifth grade. This is not to determine what classes they qualify for... this is to find out how much money your school can get. They will do it again in eighth grade, and one more time in eleventh. The kicker... everybody graduates, no matter how bad their grades were. You get a gold star on your diploma if you were a good student, a silver star if you are average, and a plain old diploma if you weren't so good. By design, schools in affluent areas will get more cash. The Rich get richer...

In Philadelphia, where a large chunk of schools were privatized, the grades have not improved. Why not? Prior to becoming privatized, the Philadelphia School District was begging for more money. They were denied. Immediately after privatization, the new schools ONLY were given millions of dollars MORE than what Philadelphia was originally requesting.

Two of my sisters and one of my brothers were sent to catholic school. If you want to pull your kid out of public school and send them to private school, it is your right. Apparently you want to pay more and get less. No swimming classes, gym, art, music, science all suffer due to lack of funds. Don't ask for the state to kick in some money because you heard it was better. My wife might have gained from the voucher system. She is an out of work private school teacher that lost her job due to the declining enrollment.

Interestingly, Bush cut $200 Million from his NCLB Act, including a reduction in Title I, eliminating educational programs for lower income children and cutting training for more than 20,000 teachers.

The Economy: The economy is fine? I must repeat... The economy looks better on paper because the cost of goods rises at an unheard of pace. Since January, my company has had its costs increased five times. This increases the amount of cash generated. It does not improve the economy. The cost of fuel is up over 30%. I don't know what gauge you use for the economy, but the Dow Jones has been riding around 10,000 for two years now. This is not an indicator of an economy in growth. Kind of stagnant actually.

Outsourcing jobs is our number one growth area. It used to be only blue collar jobs that went overseas, but now China and India are scooping up the office duties as well. Call Dell, HP, Verison, or any of the corporate fatties and just try to discuss why your computer isn't working, I dare you. (All kidding aside, our number one export is entertainment - movies and music. Hooray for Hollywood!)

He is crushing the economy (sorry, going from a $236 million surplus to a projected $350 million deficit by the end of this year does not count in making the economy better. It means that instead of your kids not getting social security benefits, now you won't as well). His band of idiots that he surrounds himself with did make an honest attempt to spur the economy. The people at Frost King experienced a huge increase in sales as everyone ran out and bought duct tape and plastic so they could seal their families in a room. This way they would die from asphyxiation in hours instead of days from nuclear blast fallout from the non-existant WMD.

Our economy also gets a boost from the government as we pay our troops $2000 to $3000 a month guarding Iraqi oil mines as Halliburton employees make $8000 to $10000 extracting it.

The United States now has the highest bankruptcy cases in its history, increasing 23% since 2000.

The Heinz connection... The Kerry's own 4% of Heinz stocks, the largest single holding. If you control 4% of the votes, you control nothing. Seventy percent of the Heinz products being made overseas support the overseas market. They import next to nothing. Check again. Don't belive the hype. BTW, how much of Dubya's oil is imported? How come the Saudi's are suddenly able to produce an additional 600,000 barrels of oil PER DAY?

Flip Flopping: This term can refer to a person that makes a choice, thinks about it some more and then decides the first choice was not the best choice. Have you never reconsidered anything? Especially the things that are REALLY important? I am perfectly fine with a person that rethinks their position on something, it shows they are thinking. On the other hand, someone that makes a decision and sticks with it to the bitter end no matter what the consequences is not the kind of guy I want to work for me.

Terrorism: Bush cut funding to the FBI prior to 9/11. On August 6, 2001, Bush was handed a Brief entitled "Bin Laden To Attack Inside The United States" where it was discussed that planes were to be used in the attack. The task force was put together by Clinton and was made up of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

Dubya made a lot of noise about "smoking Bin Laden out of his cave". Where is this cave? Why did it take two months to put only 11,000 troops in Afganistan? Why did it take over a month to make any move at all?

Dubya's actions on Terrorism have been to beat up on a Third World country he thought he could beat easily in the name of Terror (oops, no exit stradegy), and take away your privacy (Patriot Act to be renamed the 1984 Act) while Bin Laden walks around laughing. Bush sends our troops to die defending the Iraqi's freedom while he removes ours with catchy phrases. Al Queda was not in Iraq (they are now, however).

When Bush was in Pennsylvania, he told a group of Amish that "I trust God speaks through Me". This is something I would expect the Pope to say.

Intelligence: I do not decide whether someone is smart or not based on a speech defect. However, after getting your ass kicked 2760 to 12, saying "bring it on" to the guy that just bashed your two front teeth down your throat isn't the brightest thing I've heard someone say. It's like the Bug's Bunny cartoon. I dare you to cross this line... Now this one... Now this one... Now this one...

Now here comes Dipshit Dole (I used to like him a lot) saying that Kerry didn't bleed ENOUGH to warrant a Purple Heart. What the F---? If I get shrapnel in my ass, you can either kiss it and make it better or give me a medal. They chose a medal, I guess.

You said "I never said W didn't have a drinking problem when he was young (who didn't)..." I didn't. My friends didn't. There is a difference between having a beer or two to be social and getting drunk off your ass getting DUI's and shoving Coke up your nose. "When he was young" refers to a 34 year old man. A bit old to be carrying on like a college kid.

You said "You can't marry your gay lover if your dead". Apparently, you can't marry them if you live in the United States, either.

Freedom of Choice is what you got. Freedom from Choice is what you want. - Devo 1980

redleg said...

hippie

on Afghanistan...it takes a whole lot of time and effort to put 11k of soldiers in Afghanistan. I was there...we had more than enough-- mass kicks ass but only when you can put your mass where it counts, when it counts. Show me another nation of this world that could have done what we did as fast as we did it and I will be blown away. 700 miles inland at 3k altitude in the lowlands...logistically you cannot sustain a large force without tying yourself down. Rifle, radios and rucksacks are what kills the enemy over there along with SF, Civil Affairs and Psyops.

We live in the real world here. There is 17k on the ground in OEF right now, and that is a lot of troops used the right way. The troops you have on the ground the bigger a target you make. We are doing fine without your armchair quarterbacking. Bush 43 sent me to war and I am on orders to go again...happily. Because for once in the last decade we have a man who means what he says in office. That means more to us than anything else I can concieve.

ahipdude said...

I guess I am armchair quarterbacking a bit. It seems to me that if the people that attacked us reside in Afganistan, then you go beat up on the Afganies. The Iraqies were just sitting around beating up on themselves.

On second thought, not as difficult of a terrain, easy to take, lets get 'em.

I guess you weren't too happy when your bretheren started stacking them up like human pyramids and giggling like children at their Tallywackers (can we agree to call it a Tallywacker?). The funny thing is, I don't blame the soldiers, I blame Dubya for leaving them their too long to without quality leadership. If you step on the gas and don't hold the wheel, sooner or later, you are bound to hit a wall.

On the homefront, it is time to put Big Brother back to bed. People happily give up their rights (the same ones you are trying to win for the Iraqies) for a sense of false security. Wake up people, you are going to die. It might be by the hands of time, or a Muslim extremist, or the kid next door that stole Daddys gun. As someone recently reminded me, Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

To sum it up: Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, 9/11, 9/11, Fear, Fear, Terrorism. Thank You.

ahipdude said...

(Read Like Beavis) Uhh, Uh huh huh, duh. I mean "there" too long.

this we'll defend said...

ahipdude: great comments. You meant "Billions" not "Millions" but that was understood. Facts facts facts v. ideological rhetoric!

I disagree with you about Abu Ghraib and NOT blaming the soldiers. Of course we shouldn't blame those not involved, but for those who were participating they deserve punishment for shaming the uniform I so proudly wore. Whether they were ordered to or not only determines if commanders should be punished too - a soldier ordered to do something illegal is honor-bound and duty-bound to simply refuse, and if he follows that illegal order he is committing an illegal act and it is no defense to cite superior orders. All soldiers are taught this in basic training.

Bigandmean's comment on a "lengthy treatise on the breast stroke" is simply silly. Suggesting that a physical activity (swimming, playing golf, baseball) takes the same kind of analytical skills as planning a military invasion, creating alliances, or planning economic policies is an example of just how wrong Bush is for this nation. He wants to just "jump in" and learn to swim by doing. Great for swimming, not for war and international diplomacy. Again, simple solutions to complex problems.

Redleg: you keep talking about how hard it is to deploy troops to Afghanistan and how thin the air is as an excuse for why we didn't (and don't) deploy more force. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afghanistan. My guess is that if we didn't have 140,000 troops in Iraq and hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place we would have had the resources to deploy and support more troops in Afghanistan. But if we are invading nations based not on national security needs but on ease of deployment then I suggest we invade Canada. We could use the interstate highway system to bring forces to the border, there is a good transportation network there, and after all, they have massed 90% of their population right on our border - sounds like a threat to me. Sure it won't help us fight terrorism, they have no connections to 9/11 or AQ, and it will make our fight against terror much tougher by committing our military and economic resources to a fight that has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism, but that didn't stop us in Iraq, did it? And certainly Celine Dion is more of a provocation and perhaps might even gain us some allies in a coalition of the willing. And Bryan Adams? Let's nuke the bastards.

You say you were there in AF and we had enough troops, but I ask you, enough for what? To capture or kill AQ and their Taliban allies, especially at Tora Bora? I don't think so. As with Iraq, I don't give a flying rat fuck for Afghans or Iraqis, and we shouldn't have gone to war to improve their lives. We were looking for our enemies and we let them get away. Now we are spending billions in Iraq and promising (but not delivering) billions in Afghanistan so that they don't become "terrorist havens." None of the 9/11 hijackers were afghani or iraqi. Most of them were well-off and educated. We were after our enemies, and we decided to make them a lesser priority. That isn't making our nation more secure, and despite the number of times Mr. Bush lies about it, we are NOT safer as a result of his inept decisions.

I feel like we live in South Park sometimes.

ALa said...

But wouldn't life be so much easier if we did live in South Park...your Kenny BTW...LOL

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom said...

TWD asks:

"If you were going in for heart surgery would you want a doctor who didn't know how many ventricles were in a heart? If you are buying a house would you want your real estate agent to understand escrow? If you are hiring an attorney would it matter to you if they didn't know the difference between a state and a federal court, or the statute of limitations?"

Okay, no, yes, yes.

"But hiring a president, who cares if he doesn't know the names of prime ministers, right?"

Unlike the heart surgeon et al and their technical knowledge, a president can learn the names of foreign dignitaries/luminaries in a matter of minutes.

But that was too easy.

What's really funny about TWD's line of reasoning is that since the President has control over nuclear launch codes, is the commander in chief of the armed forces, influences (or so Democrats believe) the economy, etc., then, per TWD's analogy, the President of the US should be a nuclear physicist, a general and a professor of economics.

We don't hire presidents, by the way - we elect them.

"If he doesn't understand the international system, who cares?"

What, pray tell, is the single international "system" it is imperative that presidential candidates learn?

redleg said...

TWD

I agree. We should invade Canada. Bastards have been snickering at us for 2 centuries since we last tried. Since be a rollover now that they gotten rid of their paras.

You are also committed to you own particular brand of HEAVY Army think. Do I think the US Army could deploy 130,000 troops to Afghanistan, yes I do, but to what end? None, except to satisfy you. They would sit there and do nothing but draw fire. I don't need more guys working out at the gym at Bagram or Kandahar or waiting in line at the PX. I need fighters that I can deliver to the fight, and the resources to do that are limited, and would be in any Army. Think, infantryman, of task-purpose. A rural mountainous country at high altitude limits how you apply that force, whether in small firebase or by air assault. Mass is everything where a well armed platoon can win the day if applied correctly. A Division more at Tora Bora (your favorite exercise) could not have begun to cover the gaps in the routes into and out of the White Mountains. A more select choice of allies or warlords would have. 11k in country when I was there was enough to get the job done, but not the way it is written of at NTC or the Infantry School at Fort Benning (School for Boys). It was enough, but would I have like a battery of 105mm at Anaconda? Yes, but I couldn't have delivered them to the fight so they are in effect worthless. You continually lecture us about fighting smarter and not harder, but then you wish for more force (measured in numbers) in the 'Stan. That is worse than criminally stupid. A tank means nothing in OEF if you cannot deliver it to the point of battle, which has been my point whenever I have posted on this before. The force is larger in Iraq because that is what the mission in a relatively low altitude, urban enviornment calls for. We are fighting the enemy now where we choose and not where he chooses, and most certainly not here. And we are doing it remarkably well, despite what you read in the press. However smart it is to be fighting on these fronts is up to debate, but we have personally freed two nations that can now choose their destinies. That is no small matter and I am justifiably proud of my part in the business. A huge strategic change has been wrought upon the world in the 3 short years since 9/11, and the mid east has begun to see us differently. We can read about how in a generation or two. But I, and many who serve with me believe we are 1) doing good and 2) that our leadership has it right for once.

I don't like everything the Bush Administration has done or probably will do. But they are doing it better than just about any other government out there. Do I want to kiss Momma goodbye for a year to go see Afghanistan again? Hell no. But I will do so gladly because I have trained all my life for this job and few can do it as well as I can. My paratroopers are the same way. And we learn from mistakes and make the enemy pay for his.

ALa said...

Ahipdude:
Environment: You say: “As far as how many SUV's someone owns; you can only drive one at a time. When one is polluting the air, the other four can do nothing more than take up space.”
But if you are pissed at Bush for environmental stuff why would you vote for a hypocrite? Did the beloved Clinton sign the Kyoto treaty when he had the chance? If Kerry is driving one Theeeeresa could be driving the other and the long-faced daughters the rest… I think my Jeep would slam your cars on emissions…catalytic converter baby…I get the same gas mileage as I did in my Mazda 626…AND I look good…LOL.


Education: You seem to leave out that Laura is a teacher and was for many years…No Child Left behind was her baby. She got WAY more money out of him than anyone lese could have (Wow, novel…a President that loves his wife…). My friend that is a teacher says that other teachers don’t like NCLB because it is more paperwork for them –and that the wonderful NEA demonizes it to it’s ‘members’ that don’t research it for themselves (and she is a lefty-lib…hairy pits and all). You ignored the fact that Bush has given more money to education than ANY President ever…
Catholic & private schools spend WAY less per student than public schools do…have more student per teacher ratio –yet grades are WAY better…why? Who should assume accountability?
I went to a private school and I had gym (unfortunately), took art every year and advanced art senior year using every medium, had music (once again unfortunately), took flute, gospel choir, and took and advanced Bio class where I did more than anyone else I know –including going to Temple and watching a cadaver dissection. I also played field hockey, took Spanish, ran track, played softball, was a cheerleader, was on student council, and yearbook. 98.8% of graduates go on to graduate from college…I don’t know one person that went to public school (unless it was a school like Central or Masterman) that had more options or a better education than I –AND it was SMALL...36 in my graduating class.
Don’t really care about Headstart as I don’t think Government should pay for daycare…stay home with your damn kids…


Economy: Highest growth in the past 20 years. Lower unemployment than the average of the 70’s 80’s and 90’s. George Bush has nothing to do with oil prices. Every ‘money show’ that I watch says the DOW was unstable because Kerry’s numbers were higher than Bush and Wall street wants Bush –now that Bush is in a comfortable lead it will go back up. There is steady growth –you don’t want rapid growth and a bubble that bursts…like Mr. Clinton. Wars cost money –I have two boys and I would rather it be fought now –so they can be around to complain of the have no SS. People in the projects in the United States own DVD players… (We actually have five –even in both of our gas-guzzlers…and we are hardly rich…)





Flip Flopping: Yes, I have reconsidered things…but not EVERYTHING. Come on –this isn’t a GOP catch-phrase…this is true! I have very strong (well thought and researched beliefs –so I rarely change them) …To me –this isn’t nuanced it’s spineless.

Terrorism: “Bush cut funding to the FBI prior to 9/11.” Bullshit. Richard Clark said that the Bush Administration increased intelligence and plans to get Al Qaeda by FIVE FOLD. He also said that the Clinton Admin “had no plan”…Read the transcript (May 24, 2002 ‘on background) It says it all and disproves everything you just said.

You said: ”Now here comes Dipshit Dole (I used to like him a lot) saying that Kerry didn't bleed ENOUGH to warrant a Purple Heart.”
58% of vets –including my father, uncle and grandfather feel the same way. He was the only swifty to leave without spending one hour in the hospital. He is a disgrace to all vets.

You said: “There is a difference between having a beer or two to be social and getting drunk off your ass getting DUI's and shoving Coke up your nose. "When he was young" refers to a 34 year old man. A bit old to be carrying on like a college kid.”
This is ridiculous –Kitty Kelly is a tabloid journalist that no one takes seriously. You Dems didn’t care about character when your blue dress staining, Big Mac gorging, coke snorting, raping and groping Clinton was in the White House…why start now?

And you shouldn’t be able to marry your gay lover –as that is a religious term –I am all for Civil Unions though…

this we'll defend said...

91ghost - no, I am not a tread-head heavy guy. I started out light and preferred it even at the NTC (where infantry was usually under-utilized and half the blufor fought Bradleys as shitty tanks instead of infantry fighting vehicles anyway). It comes as no surprise to me that now we are at war we need more infantry and need to improve the training of all other branches so that they can fight on the ground when the infantry is otherwise engaged. As a student of history you know it "twas ever thus." And the next war will find some technology that has replaced infantry to be falling short, and infantry will be needed in larger numbers than anybody thought. In WWII it was airpower that would win the war for us, and then tanks, but it came down to grunts as always. In Korea we didn't have a prepared army because nuclear weapons made it obsolete, but we found out the hard way through Task Force Smith and the debacle at the Chosin Resevoir that infantry fighting is still the decisive element, and infantry skills are the most critical. In Vietnam we expected technology to triumph but grunts in the field made all the difference - and could have triumphed but for political weakness at home (before Tet - I'm talking of the Pentagon Papers and the unwillingness of the politicians to commit the forces needed to win because of the political backlash that would result - they preferred "not losing - at least not right now" over victory). In the first gulf war it was air power again, as in WWII, but most Iraqis and most Iraqi vehicles died to direct fire from soldiers and Marines - something the general public still doesn't know about. And then Stan, where we overthrew the weakest govt in the world and declared success while our true enemies fled to safety and regrouped, and Iraq where we overwhelmed an enemy that never recovered from the first war a decade earlier and was weaker than ever (and growing weaker by the day) and we declared victory again. And now we are engaged in a protracted struggle, the reserves are no longer in reserve and haven't been for some time, and we are finally adding 30K infantrymen to the force - but still only "temporarily."

The 101st and 82nd and 10th MTN and 25th LID should ALL have gone to the Stan, with some heavy forces in support. But more airlift than tracks. The Soviets could do it and so could we if we made it a priority. We didn't. I'm thinking more SF, more infantry, more airlift (yes even in the thin air), and if we had to, a mobilization of the ENTIRE NG lightfighter community. My point is we sent an entire Army to Iraq, but we only sent the equivalent of one division to Stan and it did NOT get the job done and was NOT enough. At Tora Bora we depended on our Afghan "allies" to help us isolate the AQ and capture/kill them, but they didn't. If we had 10,000 more at Tora Bora perhaps some would still have escaped, but I doubt it would have been as many as actually escaped. And I would treat the border with Pakistan as a nice feature to admire on the map as I crossed it in pursuit of the bastards who attacked us on 9/11. As in Korea (even more than in Korea) the heavy forces would be restricted and defeated by terrain and the difficulty of deployment, but light forces would rule the day. And CB should have been in Stan hunting down Taliban and AQ instead of having to be in Iraq, where he must now stay because losing there will really hurt us.

As far as your strategic change, don't go and declare victory just yet. You are an Army officer and should know about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as well as ours in Vietnam. The Soviets had a tougher initial fight, executed their invasion incredibly well (you have to give them props for the mechanized AIRBORNE assault too) and dominated Afghanstan in a way we never have and still don't today. And ten years later they still got shot at even as their last unit crossed back into the USSR. My point being - I honestly don't give a rats ass what happens to Afghanistan unless it affects the US, and our goal should have been to pursue and punish the perpatrators of 9/11 and all those who assisted them, period. Instead we know have an extended, incredibly expensive committment to a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and if we pull out without stability we are less safe than before invading, while we have an expensive committment (one that we aren't honoring) to a nation that did assist the 9/11 hijackers, but most of the guilty got away and still attack us, either in Stan, plot to do so just over the border in Paki, or they travel to Iraq where it is easier to kill Americans than ever before - all while ALa71 claims "no terrorist attacks here at home proves Bush was right." I don't see a method for success here. In the words of CPT Willard from Apocalypse Now, I don't see any method at all, sir.

And if you want to talk reform, why do we still have ADA soldiers? Why not eliminate that branch altogether and replace them with 11B slots? And do we really need a TOW company in each line battalion of the 101st? And why not make Bradley crewman a completely separate MOS and have them under the control of infantry commanders, with no set relationship b/w the brads and the dismounts - just like the grunts in the 101 and their blackhawks? That way the Brads get good at working with dismounts (lots of live fires with manuevering infantry) instead of what I've seen time and again at the NTC: an entire company of brads attacks an objective, with 16 multimillion-dollar fighting vehicles roaring up, the ramps come down... and about 20 guys, mostly the least-experienced, come straggling out to complete the assault. I've seen entire battalions that couldn't field 50 dismounts - but damn, every Brad was fully crewed. I only saw one commander who had the guts to park his brads and field full dismounted elements - and his unit did incredibly well, and he got dinged for not effectively using his resources because not all his vehicles crossed the LD. I was so mad my commander noticed me change color and pulled me from the AAR to cool down before I went ballistic on a 2-star asshole (and former tanker who considered infantry a distraction from the "real fight" anyway). NO, I'm infantry as hell, and the lighter the better. Tanks are effective as hell, and even more effective when paired with dismounts, but how often do grunts run around in live fires with tanks? How do dismounts even communicate with tank crews - are they trained to do so? Does the M1 have an external phone? Do dismount squad leaders have the freqs of the TCs? We don't really need "transformation" as much as we need to heed the lessons a WWII vet could tell you - combined arms wins, tanks and infantry should be trained together to manuever together (how many tankers have EVER trained to operate with infantrymen alongside using the vehicle as cover - for that matter, how many bradley BC's?), and after all the armor and CAS and arty in the world, the infantry will have to move out alone and make contact more often than not.

Yes we need transformation, but Rummy isn't doing it. And we needed more fighting men in Afghanistan, not tracks and mechanics. Heavy forces were more appropriate in Iraq, but MORE force was needed in Afghanistan - light, Stryker, AASLT IN, ABN IN, and SF.

Bigandmean said...

Hippie Dude,
Congratulations on the Corvair. Great choice. I bought one once. Looked under the hood. Damn! No motor.

TWD,
The comment about the breast stroke was not to be taken literally. Don't you know me better than that?

ahipdude said...

Hi Ala,

Lets please remain focused. You could say that I own three cars. I drive a 68 Mustang as my daily driver, and I own a 55 Packard as a backup. I also own a 91 Merc Colony Park. This car is driven by my wife. I would call that her car, not mine. If Kerry owns five sports utes, and his wife drives one, and his daughters drive one each, then he owns one. His POS uses way too much fuel to transport one human, just like your POS. As far as catalytic converters go, I indicated that my cars were burning cleaner than cars of the time. They do not require emmissions tests anymore because it is assumed that if you own sheet metal older than 1974, you are probably taking care of them. Keeping a car in tune is the best remedy to a clean exaust pipe. Current exaust standards are beyond what my cars are capable of by themselves without a converter. I am considering them, much to the shock of my piston head friends. If your Cheep Me Too Ute gets the same milage as your 626 did, then you either did not take care of your Mazda, or you push your Ute roughly 20% of your driving distances. The 626 was rated 18/30 mpg, your jeep is around 15/24mpg.

Education: Your friend is not a 5th grade teacher. Money to education? Bush giveth, then Bush taketh away. Your school had a gym and a music room you say? Ours had a gym, two music rooms, an indoor pool, football field, lacrosse field, soccer field, baseball fields, a computer lab (in the late 70s), full library, and an A/V club, our own TV studio, and a 25 incher in every room. The kids from the local catholic schools used to come to our school for Drivers Ed. and use our football fields. Interestingly, I did not go to one of the richer schools. My graduating class had around 200 people. You don't know people with more options because (typical of someone that wants to believe their side is always better) you apparently didn't investigate. 98.8 percent of the kids from your private school advanced to college because the dregs and trouble makers were booted back to public school, an option not available to public schools. If the kid gets expelled, they still have to pay to educate him / her (oooh, ooooh - this may be another reason why it costs more per child to educate in public school). You want the parents of Headstart kids to stay at home? but then your Utopia has them limited on how much welfare they are entitled to. Do you want these people to be wage earning members of society, or not?

Economy: Highest Growth? Again, refer to my earlier observation where the prices of goods are going way up, but the amount of product moved is not. Ask Hubbie how much plain steel has gone up over the last year. The DOW hasn't moved off 10,000 in over two years, Kerry can't be bitched about for any of it except for the last several months. Nice try, who else would you like to blame? The rapid growth was due to day traders, not Clinton. I would not argue that the DOW should have been over 14k like it was. That was too high, too fast. Owning a DVD player doesn't indicate that you are rich, being as they are well under $100. Owning five may be considered excessive, you may want to work on family unity a bit and share.

Again I ask, how many pounds of shrapnel need to be removed from your ass before it is Purple Heart worthy. Instead of being happy he wasn't bed ridden, it's "my wound is deeper than your wound, you didn't get hurt ENOUGH to get a Purple Heart!" What F---ing BULLSHIT! If someone gets hurt defending the country, they did a shitload more than I did and they (at least in my mind) deserve a freakin' medal.

Lastly, I am a Repub, not a Demo. You keep on bringing up Clinton. A classic response for someone without all the facts is to change the subject. The facts are as I have stated them earlier. A group of 6 Demos and 6 Repubs were formed to determine what Terrorist threats existed and they were to report to the next president. That happened prior to 9/11 but Bush was dilligently working on invasion plans for Iraq.

Duty Now For The Future!

redleg said...

TWD-- I agree with you, more infantry is need as in all wars. The guy who gets is done is your grunt, your rifleman. And that is who is getting it done in the 'Stan today. It is the grunts who lay it on the line and win the battles, the engagements and ultimately the war. You keep going back to Tora Bora and say we made mistakes, and I have said it is true, we made mistakes. The enemy did too. At Anaconda, the 101st occupied the blocking positions while the warlords hit the alleged strongpoints. They thought the enemy would run, not fight. When he fought instead, they died by the hundreds. Not many got away and they don't stand up and fight anymore. War is an adaptive and iterative process. The one who wins is one who can take advantage of his enemies mistakes while minimizing his own. We are learning and so is the enemy. We are doing it faster, but it is messy and good people die even when you do it the best way you know how. Unfortunately you can't recock the battle and try again. War is the history of missed opportunities.

I am a fan of transformation, and ADA is going away (60 years of no hostile air attacks regardless). I disagree on the TOW trucks of Delta Companies as they are the heavy hitters in Afghanistan-- constantly in contact only the roads with the local population but usually using 50 cals and Mk19s. More force in the Stan at that time is woefully out of touch (and revisionist) with what our strategic airlift and helicopter fleet could actually do at the time. Your more force argument keeps centering in on troops when force on the ground that you can actually deliver to the fight is what is at issue. The best work in country right now is being done at the remote firebases in touch with the Afghan population. It is being done, and right, whether you believe it or not.

And try operating a Brigade task force with 2 composite aviation battalions to a high altitude environment and then fight. Now multiply that problem by 12 and you will see the intial beginnings of a huge problem that 4 Divisions would have caused at Tora Bora, even if they could have deployed to the Stan in the first place.

To answer a hip dude (misread your name before) I blame the leaders at Abu Ghraib. Poor leaders let that problem happen, but the Army is solving it after their investigation. I hate what they did, and do not condone it at all.

ALa said...

ahipdude -First of all...you are not a Republican -you may be registered Republican, but NONE of the views that you have espoused are Republican views.

My school was not Catholic. I was not speaking for Catholic schools -as I am not Catholic and never attended a Catholic school. I got a better education than public school...plain and simple. If they had more languages to choose from -so what -Latin is the only one that will help on SATs and Spanish is the only one you will have a chance at utilizing on a daily basis (unless you plan to work for the UN). I don't feel I was deprived of anything -except the bad stuff (lefty can vouch for me here). I didn't even know of anyone that smoked pot in high school. I didn't curse or smoke until after I graduated (maybe senior year...) but this isn't a contest -the point is that people should have the right to choose...it's their money and they should get to say how it's spent. My father had to work (Philly fireman first job and wall paper scraper second job) to put five kids through private school -while still paying Philly school tax.

It's not a matter of how many pounds of shrapnel --it's how it got there. But, I have to say that it is not this that has REPUBLICANS angry...it is what he did when he returned from the war. It is the fact that he coached other vets to lie, that he lied, that he made vast accusations and many where later proved to be lies, that his picture still hangs in the 'Friends of Communism -People that helped the Viet Cong win the War' museum in Saigon and that he himself admitted to burning down villages. Now I am not going to argue with the opinions and feelings of the overwhelming amount of vets that were there and that hate him (and have for years -this is nothing new to them -just to the American public).

Anyway, obviously we will have to agree to disagree...But think of it this way...Us Republicans have something to gain if Kerry wins and that's no Hillary ---and you Democrats have something to gain if Bush wins...a chance at Hillary. So I guess we all have a shot at being happy which ever way it goes...