I think Kerry communicates plenty well, but their silience on this issue baffles me.
The only thing I can figure is that it's a strategic decision; they don't want to get on the slippery slope of wasting all their time responding to the other guys' attacks.
I think it didn't work for them, either on the $87 billion vote or the Swift Boat ads. They left both of these issues alone, apparently thinking they would go away, but they didn't. And it cost them.
"But figuring out Kerry's 'I voted for it before I voted against it' is pretty hard."
Only because noone takes the time to figure out the real story behind that vote. And Kerry, to his detriment, does not come out and explain it himself.
Kerry sponsored an amendment to the $87billion bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount. The Republicans voted this version down over Kerrys first vote. The original version then passed over kerry's 'No' vote.
Everyone in the Senate who voted against the version of the bill with the amendment has two votes on this issue on their record, and many, if not all, of those voted for passage on the second vote.
So they all have contradicting votes on this bill, only they "voted against it before they voted for it".
The difference is that they voted to borrow the money from our children rather than pay for it up front.
The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"
The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice
their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer).
Well, that contradicts the definition of 'Chickenhawk'. A chickenhawk is one who
advocates aggressive military action, but is not willing to serve (or have their
children serve) in the military. So I would suggest that when you saying "us
Chickenhawks" is not compatible with your views on military service - views that I share with you.
I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous.
I agree with you completely - I never served in the military, but almost everyone from my parent's generation did. My father immigrated here in 1947 and served in the Army twice - including a tour in Korea - before he was granted citizenship. I have the utmost respect for those who choose to serve in the military.
The problem is that I do not trust Bush to use the military wisely or with restraint. And in this war that has us so divided, one of the most galling things is that Bush, Cheney, et al. are men who avoided service in Vietnam through various means, and now have started their own misguided war.
They did not walk the walk when they were of age and others were called. Now they call on others to walk the walk for them.
Rangel introduced this measure under the idea that if a draft were reinstated, the chickenhawks would tone down their rhetoric when it might mean that their kids would be the ones fighting.
The problem with this is twofold. First, the powerful will find a way to keep their kids out of harm's way no matter what laws are passed (even if the National Guard is no longer a safe haven).
Second, even if it were to soften the stance of some hawks, it would likely not do so until after a lot of kids (like my 17 year old son) get their asses shot off.
If the best you can hope for is a perpetual state of anarchy, no national government, and an existence comparable to medieval living, you have already lost.
No, that's how you can begin to win. Those conditions you described were the exact conditions that made the Taliban acceptable in Afghanistan. Oridinary people accepted the Taliban because it made everyday life better. Living according to draconian Islamic law was demonstrably better than living under no law. To a people who never knew much beyond anarchy, a burqa (sp?) is a small price to pay for being able to be safe.
No terrorist movement that I know of has ever been defeated by military means. You have to defeat the guys who are actively fighting against you, but you also have to deny the enemy new recruits. This is why the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's what we're failing at now.
Bin Laden knew there would be an attack, and was willing to sacrifice the Taliban in the hopes of it being reborn throughout the whole Islamic world. His propaganda said that we are imperialists at war with Islam, and we played right into his hands by invading Iraq.
Kerry did well, I thought, but had some golden opportunities to hammer Bush that he missed.
Number of trained Iraqi troops. Bush said that there are 100,000 trained Iraqi police/troops, a number I thought to be grossly overstated, and ABC news after the debate said was only 50,000 at most. Kerry himself was talking about how Rumsfeld overstated the number very recently. Kerry could have made big points with this by showing it as an example of how Bush cannot be trusted to tell the objective truth.
Bush's statement that "Bin Laden is isolated" My jaw dropped at this one, and dropped even further when Kerry let it slide. This should have been a Quayle/Bentsen/"You're no John Kennedy" moment, but Kerry let it go.
Bush's threatened veto of $87 billion. Kerry is taking it in the gut with Bush hammering him on this issue. This is the one case where he should go into detail and explain the whole thing, because the full explanation is damaging to Bush. Kerry sponsored an amendment to roll back the tax cuts enough to pay for the $87 billion, and Bush threatened to veto any such measure. He never had to, but is on record threatening a veto. Kerry's no vot was symbolic because the bill had enough support anyway. Also, that $87 billion will still have to come out of our taxes someday, only now we have to pay interest on it as well.
Noone held accountable for false intelligence. Bush said Kerry "saw the same
intelligence that I did" regarding WMD and Iraq, apparently saying that he was fooled like everyone else. Kerry should have taken him to task for apparently accepting the status quo in spite of this collossal failure. (The real truth is that Cheney, Rummy, and the Likud party that has taken over the Pentagon was simply lying through their teeth, but that's another issue) seeing this as a reasontaking any steps to do anything about it. The 9/11 commission has made reccomendations that Bush supports, but Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission itself.
Not pointing out Bush's many flip flops
Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission, then reversed.
Bush reluctantly accepted 9/11 commission but said he would not testify. Then testified, but only if Uncle Dick was in the room to coach.
Imposed steel tariffs, then withdrew them when the heat got to be too much.
Kerry sponsored an amendment to the funding bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount, a more responsible move than borrowing the entire amount.
George Bush threatened to veto the bill if it contained any rollback of the tax cuts, as if the $87 billion would just materialize out of thin air.
The Republicans defeated this version. The original version, which was to borrow the entire $87 billion, then passed over Kerry's "no" vote.
Lots of Republicans voted against the first bill and for the second.
So like Kerry, they all cast two opposite votes on this issue.
Unlike him, they voted to pay for the war with a credit card.
That $87billion will have to be paid back someday, with interest. This won't happen before the election, though, so Dubya's not worried about it.
The vote in late 2002 was not an up or down vote to go to war. It was supposed to give authorization to Bush to wage war if all other avenues were exhausted. The timing was right before the midterm elections, while hysteria over 9/11 was still high, and the Republicans could use any no vote as a club to beat opponents down as 'soft on terror'.
Bush was going to war no matter what. He never had any other intention, and fighting a war on terrorism was just an excuse. And in doing this, allowed Bin Laden to escape.
Incredibly, Bush said in the debate tonight that Bin Laden is 'isolated' and apparently, no longer a concern for him. Following 9/11, Bush is on record with his famous "dead or alive" proclamation, but claimed a year later that Bin Laden was 'not a priority'.
But let's not forget that Kerry is a flip-flopper.
Wouldn't that be about the same if Jerry Springer decided to anchor the news?
He tried it in chicago and it was a failure, causing the resignation of the two top anchors at that station.
Interestingly enough, Springer's first commentary (there were only two before he quit) derided Carol Marin for her actions, saying that it was an infringement on his right to speak freely.
He was completely ignorant of the irony in his statement - that by exercising her freedom to protest Springer's inclusion on her news broadcast, that she was somehow infringing on his free speech rights.
The US has never maintained a balanced budget or budget surplus during a time of war.
We also have never had a President insisting on tax cuts during a time of war. Dubya threatened to veto the $87 Billion last year if it rolled back any tax cuts.
While the budget is record-breaking in dollar amount, it is still under 2.9% GDP
The debt is growing with each annual deficit, and service on that debt is an increasing drag on the country. Last years service on the debt was over $300 Billion. And an increasing amount of that debt is owed to countries like China that may not always be dependable friends.
Reagan asserted that budget deficits don't harm the economy. Clinton proved it.
The Social Security "obligations" can be retired by selling government land.
Cool - don't stop there, though. Time to pull out all the marketing tricks.
Timeshares:
Get your timeshare at Old Faithful and have a private Geyser Get-Together.
Naming Rights:
Visit the Viagra Washington Monument.
Sponsorships:
The high point of the State of the Union address was when the President, in his stunning Halliburton/Bechtel/NASCAR jumpsuit, explained that only your doctor can tell if Celebrex is right for you.
Ok, I've got to call bs on almost everything you said.
"For every 3 months of construction steel going up in the US, it takes the Japanese 1."
Documentation?
" But lets face it, the last "new" innovation was 20 years ago when ironworkers stopped using rivets and switched to bolts."
Well, rivets went away about 40 years ago, and there has been plenty of innovation since then. Post-tensioned concrete, Bolts with a spline on the end that twist off when the nut is torqued to the right value, specially compacted subsoil that can have footings poured in it without forms, etc. If you percieve a lack of innovation, perhaps its because the technology has matured. And you have no proof that construction unions have contributed to the supposed lack of innovation.
"The final design is as inspired as milk toast. It doesn't claim the tallest building title. Even the outline of the building is uninspired."
This is the fault of construction unions? There's a union official somewhere saying "no, that building would be too high"? If you're upset at the final design, fine. But blaming the construction unions for that is like blaming your mechanic because your car's engine is too small.
"We've lost our edge, and unions are part of the reason why."
You're entitled to your opinion, and unions are far from perfect, but they have helped millions of people in this country, including myself, to live a better life.
"Construction - The cost to build per square foot is double than the rest of the world due to corrupt unions. In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."
You act as if all of the country had unionized construction. Most commercial construction outside major cities and most residential construction anywhere is non-union to some degree. So if there is such a big difference in construction cost, its not coming from union labor.
" In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."
What is the rest of the world building that we are not?
I once saw a newspaper article (circa 1990) about a skyscraper being built in Hong Kong. They were averaging about one fatality a week. But they were using innovative steel tubes instead of I-beams, so I guess it evens out.
"Unionization is the first class ticket to non-competitiveness."
I disagree. I was a union Ironworker in Chicago for 11 years and I would put the quality and speed of our work up against anyone in the world. Assuming, that is, that everyone survives the project.
This is vintage bush campaign strategy. He pretends to take the high road personally, while 'persons not affiliated with the Bush campaign' get down and dirty. It's despicable, but highly effective.
Examples:
When Bush was running for TX Gov, Rumors surfaced that Democrat Ann Richards was a lesbian.
Push pollers in SC in 2000 tried to imply that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was the product of an affair with a black woman.
In that same campaign, McCain was labeled as unstable emotionally as a result of his POW experience.
And of course we have the big whoppers on Saddam, WMD, Medicare reform, etc, etc.
Situation then (1992): Bob Kerrey (Navy Seal and CMH winner) criticized political rival Clinton for trying to avoid the draft and protesting the war.
Kerry says " neither one group nor the other " has more patriotism, those groups being veterans and protesters.
Situation now: Associates of GWB slander and lie about Kerry's Vietnam service while GWB used TEXANG to avoid being either a combat veteran or a protester.
Kerry is rightly responding to attacks on him by fighting fire with fire. Bush is historically a dirty player and you don't beat a guy like that by being nice.
If you use a stationary laser to push the ship away from the solar system, how will it be able to stop when it gets to its destination? Presumably the laser provides greater acceleration than the solar wind, and so you wouldn't be able to slow down as fast as you sped up.
Slashdot Mirror
You install the latest service pack for "Windows GT" in your car and then the navigation system keeps giving you directions to Redmond.
I think Kerry communicates plenty well, but their silience on this issue baffles me.
The only thing I can figure is that it's a strategic decision; they don't want to get on the slippery slope of wasting all their time responding to the other guys' attacks.
I think it didn't work for them, either on the $87 billion vote or the Swift Boat ads. They left both of these issues alone, apparently thinking they would go away, but they didn't. And it cost them.
"But figuring out Kerry's 'I voted for it before I voted against it' is pretty hard."
Only because noone takes the time to figure out the real story behind that vote. And Kerry, to his detriment, does not come out and explain it himself.
Kerry sponsored an amendment to the $87billion bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount. The Republicans voted this version down over Kerrys first vote. The original version then passed over kerry's 'No' vote.
Everyone in the Senate who voted against the version of the bill with the amendment has two votes on this issue on their record, and many, if not all, of those voted for passage on the second vote.
So they all have contradicting votes on this bill, only they "voted against it before they voted for it".
The difference is that they voted to borrow the money from our children rather than pay for it up front.
You truly are a compassionate conservative.
The irony lies in the fact that I went to your website expecting to see something about YOU, and the first thing I see is "Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"
"Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc"
Oh, the irony.
... is the answer. The requirement that you declare a party affiliation seems only to be a way of locking in the two-party system.
... is the alien symbiont. Haven't you guys seen The Puppet Masters?
The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer).
Well, that contradicts the definition of 'Chickenhawk'. A chickenhawk is one who advocates aggressive military action, but is not willing to serve (or have their children serve) in the military. So I would suggest that when you saying "us Chickenhawks" is not compatible with your views on military service - views that I share with you.
I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous.
I agree with you completely - I never served in the military, but almost everyone from my parent's generation did. My father immigrated here in 1947 and served in the Army twice - including a tour in Korea - before he was granted citizenship. I have the utmost respect for those who choose to serve in the military.
The problem is that I do not trust Bush to use the military wisely or with restraint. And in this war that has us so divided, one of the most galling things is that Bush, Cheney, et al. are men who avoided service in Vietnam through various means, and now have started their own misguided war. They did not walk the walk when they were of age and others were called. Now they call on others to walk the walk for them.
The problem with this is twofold. First, the powerful will find a way to keep their kids out of harm's way no matter what laws are passed (even if the National Guard is no longer a safe haven).
Second, even if it were to soften the stance of some hawks, it would likely not do so until after a lot of kids (like my 17 year old son) get their asses shot off.
No, that's how you can begin to win. Those conditions you described were the exact conditions that made the Taliban acceptable in Afghanistan. Oridinary people accepted the Taliban because it made everyday life better. Living according to draconian Islamic law was demonstrably better than living under no law. To a people who never knew much beyond anarchy, a burqa (sp?) is a small price to pay for being able to be safe.
No terrorist movement that I know of has ever been defeated by military means. You have to defeat the guys who are actively fighting against you, but you also have to deny the enemy new recruits. This is why the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's what we're failing at now.
Bin Laden knew there would be an attack, and was willing to sacrifice the Taliban in the hopes of it being reborn throughout the whole Islamic world. His propaganda said that we are imperialists at war with Islam, and we played right into his hands by invading Iraq.
and buy him a shot, a beer and a lap dance. It would be the most well spent fifty bucks in history.
- Number of trained Iraqi troops. Bush said that there are 100,000 trained Iraqi police/troops, a number I thought to be grossly overstated, and ABC news after the debate said was only 50,000 at most. Kerry himself was talking about how Rumsfeld overstated the number very recently. Kerry could have made big points with this by showing it as an example of how Bush cannot be trusted to tell the objective truth.
- Bush's statement that "Bin Laden is isolated" My jaw dropped at this one, and dropped even further when Kerry let it slide. This should have been a Quayle/Bentsen/"You're no John Kennedy" moment, but Kerry let it go.
- Bush's threatened veto of $87 billion. Kerry is taking it in the gut with Bush hammering him on this issue. This is the one case where he should go into detail and explain the whole thing, because the full explanation is damaging to Bush. Kerry sponsored an amendment to roll back the tax cuts enough to pay for the $87 billion, and Bush threatened to veto any such measure. He never had to, but is on record threatening a veto. Kerry's no vot was symbolic because the bill had enough support anyway. Also, that $87 billion will still have to come out of our taxes someday, only now we have to pay interest on it as well.
- Noone held accountable for false intelligence. Bush said Kerry "saw the same
intelligence that I did" regarding WMD and Iraq, apparently saying that he was fooled like everyone else. Kerry should have taken him to task for apparently accepting the status quo in spite of this collossal failure. (The real truth is that Cheney, Rummy, and the Likud party that has taken over the Pentagon was simply lying through their teeth, but that's another issue) seeing this as a reasontaking any steps to do anything about it. The 9/11 commission has made reccomendations that Bush supports, but Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission itself.
- Not pointing out Bush's many flip flops
- Bush initially opposed the 9/11 commission, then reversed.
- Bush reluctantly accepted 9/11 commission but said he would not testify. Then testified, but only if Uncle Dick was in the room to coach.
- Imposed steel tariffs, then withdrew them when the heat got to be too much.
- the aformetioned flip flops on bin laden
Oh well, two more strikes before anyone is out.Kerry sponsored an amendment to the funding bill that would have rolled back the tax cuts by an equal amount, a more responsible move than borrowing the entire amount.
George Bush threatened to veto the bill if it contained any rollback of the tax cuts, as if the $87 billion would just materialize out of thin air.
The Republicans defeated this version. The original version, which was to borrow the entire $87 billion, then passed over Kerry's "no" vote.
Lots of Republicans voted against the first bill and for the second.
So like Kerry, they all cast two opposite votes on this issue.
Unlike him, they voted to pay for the war with a credit card.
That $87billion will have to be paid back someday, with interest. This won't happen before the election, though, so Dubya's not worried about it.
The vote in late 2002 was not an up or down vote to go to war. It was supposed to give authorization to Bush to wage war if all other avenues were exhausted. The timing was right before the midterm elections, while hysteria over 9/11 was still high, and the Republicans could use any no vote as a club to beat opponents down as 'soft on terror'.
Bush was going to war no matter what. He never had any other intention, and fighting a war on terrorism was just an excuse. And in doing this, allowed Bin Laden to escape.
Incredibly, Bush said in the debate tonight that Bin Laden is 'isolated' and apparently, no longer a concern for him. Following 9/11, Bush is on record with his famous "dead or alive" proclamation, but claimed a year later that Bin Laden was 'not a priority'.
But let's not forget that Kerry is a flip-flopper.
I'm just not very high on atheists.
Yeah, that's got to be Poppy Bush. Dubya has never admitted to being high on anything.
"Get outta that damn computer and go cut the grass!"
Maybe the military doesn't use commercial ISP's?
He tried it in chicago and it was a failure, causing the resignation of the two top anchors at that station. Interestingly enough, Springer's first commentary (there were only two before he quit) derided Carol Marin for her actions, saying that it was an infringement on his right to speak freely.
He was completely ignorant of the irony in his statement - that by exercising her freedom to protest Springer's inclusion on her news broadcast, that she was somehow infringing on his free speech rights.
We also have never had a President insisting on tax cuts during a time of war. Dubya threatened to veto the $87 Billion last year if it rolled back any tax cuts.
While the budget is record-breaking in dollar amount, it is still under 2.9% GDP
The debt is growing with each annual deficit, and service on that debt is an increasing drag on the country. Last years service on the debt was over $300 Billion. And an increasing amount of that debt is owed to countries like China that may not always be dependable friends.
Reagan asserted that budget deficits don't harm the economy. Clinton proved it.
How, by eliminating the deficit?
Cool - don't stop there, though. Time to pull out all the marketing tricks.
Timeshares:
Get your timeshare at Old Faithful and have a private Geyser Get-Together.
Naming Rights:
Visit the Viagra Washington Monument.
Sponsorships:
The high point of the State of the Union address was when the President, in his stunning Halliburton/Bechtel/NASCAR jumpsuit, explained that only your doctor can tell if Celebrex is right for you.
Ok, I've got to call bs on almost everything you said.
"For every 3 months of construction steel going up in the US, it takes the Japanese 1."
Documentation?
" But lets face it, the last "new" innovation was 20 years ago when ironworkers stopped using rivets and switched to bolts."
Well, rivets went away about 40 years ago, and there has been plenty of innovation since then. Post-tensioned concrete, Bolts with a spline on the end that twist off when the nut is torqued to the right value, specially compacted subsoil that can have footings poured in it without forms, etc. If you percieve a lack of innovation, perhaps its because the technology has matured. And you have no proof that construction unions have contributed to the supposed lack of innovation.
"The final design is as inspired as milk toast. It doesn't claim the tallest building title. Even the outline of the building is uninspired."
This is the fault of construction unions? There's a union official somewhere saying "no, that building would be too high"? If you're upset at the final design, fine. But blaming the construction unions for that is like blaming your mechanic because your car's engine is too small.
"We've lost our edge, and unions are part of the reason why."
You're entitled to your opinion, and unions are far from perfect, but they have helped millions of people in this country, including myself, to live a better life.
"Construction - The cost to build per square foot is double than the rest of the world due to corrupt unions. In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."
You act as if all of the country had unionized construction. Most commercial construction outside major cities and most residential construction anywhere is non-union to some degree. So if there is such a big difference in construction cost, its not coming from union labor.
" In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."
What is the rest of the world building that we are not?
I once saw a newspaper article (circa 1990) about a skyscraper being built in Hong Kong. They were averaging about one fatality a week. But they were using innovative steel tubes instead of I-beams, so I guess it evens out.
"Unionization is the first class ticket to non-competitiveness."
I disagree. I was a union Ironworker in Chicago for 11 years and I would put the quality and speed of our work up against anyone in the world. Assuming, that is, that everyone survives the project.
Examples:
And of course we have the big whoppers on Saddam, WMD, Medicare reform, etc, etc.
Kerry says " neither one group nor the other " has more patriotism, those groups being veterans and protesters.
Situation now: Associates of GWB slander and lie about Kerry's Vietnam service while GWB used TEXANG to avoid being either a combat veteran or a protester.
Kerry is rightly responding to attacks on him by fighting fire with fire. Bush is historically a dirty player and you don't beat a guy like that by being nice.
If you use a stationary laser to push the ship away from the solar system, how will it be able to stop when it gets to its destination? Presumably the laser provides greater acceleration than the solar wind, and so you wouldn't be able to slow down as fast as you sped up.