"By focusing on a failed attempt to smear the president, the media and the Democrats are diverting attention from the real issues. Why?"

Because, in my view, the successful MILITARY action in Afghanistan, the successful MILITARY action in Iraq makes Bush MILTARILY strong, thus they are trying to attack his strengths.

Good thing the Dems haven't read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Otherwise, they'd be trying like mad to maintain media attention on Bush's weaknesses.

I am glad I will never encounter McAuliffe in a darkened alley.

MG

Wow. You guys can't see the (if i can coin a phrase here) Rove'ish strategy of their smear campaign. So they made some baseless accusations, and the president responded with publicly airing all the details of his record.

Now everyone knows that his father pulled strings so that W could spend a month a year playing fighter pilot someplace safe where theres no chance of being in combat. He was also pretty much free to come and go as he pleased to further his political goals.

THAT was the point. It is an issue. War record of Bush vs Kerry is now out in the open for everyone to see. Bush = suntanning in georgia. Kerry = getting shot at and wounded in a jungle for a war he didnt personally believe in. The voters will decide with that prism.

I personally find the strategy morally questionable, but you cant deny that it worked.

"Now everyone knows that his father pulled strings "

Can't argue with that. The standard Pulled String For Son of Future POTUS Form is right there in his 201 file.

Nothing...hardly

The title of this thread should be wishful thinking by the GOP...

Sweep it under the rug...it will vanish...:)

I quite agree with columnist Mark Steyn's argument that, whatever these two individuals chose to do in 1970, what matters is what they've done as politicians since then. Kerry, as Steyn said, has been AWOL for the last twenty years, while the President has overthrown two dictators and beaten back our enemies to the point of exhaustion. (If you doubt that last fact, read the personal letter of Al-Qaeda leader Al-Zerqawi, recently discovered in Iraq.)

"a month a year playing fighter pilot someplace safe "

Dave,

You demonstrate an amazing degree of ignorance. Flight school is and was very competitive, and dangerous. The F-102 was a difficult plane to fly, and retired from the USAF and replaced by the F-106. The F-102 killed quite a few pilots.

Had you bothered to investigate, you would have learned that the President spent over two years on active duty to get his wings. That is more than Army National Guard soldiers of the day (or today) spend on active duty in a typical enlistment.

You defame the character of every Air Guard pilot by smearing on of their most accomplished alumni. Take your bigotry, and choke on it.

MG

My point was one of public perception.

I dont doubt flight school was difficult, but when compared to what Kerry went through you cant deny it appears more privelged.

Dave It is nothing compared to what Kerry is going to go through. He has some tough questions to be answered by myself and others as to his loyalty. He lied in testimony before Congress, Dave. He cheapened the life of every American soldier who not only served in Vietnam, but those who still serve. If he had his way US troops would be answering to the UN.

"Now everyone knows that his father pulled strings so that W could spend a month a year playing fighter pilot someplace safe where theres no chance of being in combat. He was also pretty much free to come and go as he pleased to further his political goals"

Please provide the documentation that suggests this. Moreover, what has been released recently that makes this appear to be the case compared to 4 years ago? More, more to the point, does anyone in their right mind believe that someone ducking danger by entering the NG would volunteer to fly all weather night fighters jets? Wouldnt, say, being a supply clerk be a bit safer?

"Wouldnt, say, being a supply clerk be a bit safer?"

Or joining the Navy in a non-flying role ?

It makes you wonder what the Dems and NYTimes will be serving up for this year's Thursday-before-the-Election scam. This Guard kerfuffle (what a word!) was an awesome display of their power- sowing confusion with an issue settled three years ago- and a shocking look at how hard it is to mount a timely defense. I'm sure they have more than a few Hollywood screenwriters working on scenarios for November.

Dave,

You may not understand that Purple Hearts
can be earned by minor "scratches" as well
as "major wounds".

What will come out in the general election
is the KNOWN FACT that all 3 of Kerry's
so called Purple Heart wounds together
resulted in less than a week of off-duty
time. You did not know that?

Wake up and smell the coffee, friend!

He took advantage of the 3 and out rule
to get out of Vietnam. Then he promptly said

"F_ _ k you"

to all of the Veterans still serving by participating
in his Treasonous activities with Hanoi Jane and
others.

No honest Veteran of whatever war can stomach
such back-stabbing. The general election will
show that.

Ever so true, leaddog2. I was twice injured flying combat missions in Vietnam. The first time I went to the clinic to get patched up I had to wait a while to see the doc. It was a small wound caused by a piece of sharp metal created when a VC round hit my helicopter and small pieces flew everywhere. A corpsman came over and started filling out a form. I thought it was for my medical records. He told me to sign the report, it was for my Purple Heart. I took the page off of the clipboard, looked it over, tore it in half, wadded it up and fired it into the trash can. A few months later I had a slightly worse wound and went to the clinic. No form this time, they just wanted to add my name to a roster. I told the corpsman hell no. I said when they have to carry me in here and I'm so out of it I can't say no, that's when you can give me a Purple Heart. Perhaps I should have taken them. Today I could have free license plates, more VA points for something, a nice disability check and could run for President!

I personally don't really care what either of these two were up to in the 70's. I think it hardly bears relevance to what they are doing now. However, if I were to choose, based on what they did in the 70's, at the end of the day, with all cards on the table, Kerry was fighting in Vietnam and Bush was not.

I don't live in the United States, but I was just wondering why such savage personal attacks on presidential candidates are the norm? Whenever I watch a US network during the elections, all of the political advertisments, well, all they seem to do is smear each candidats personality, not really their platform. Just an outside observation.

I have no intention of trashing Kerry's service record. But I do find it telling that the man who wanted the public to not pay attention to Clinton's draft-dodging (sorry folks, but he TWICE ignored the notice, so the only applicable word for Bubba is "dodger"), now wants to dwell on the details of a man who served in uniform, if not in action.

Kerry is trying to activate the Democratic base, to make them feel angry so they want to get out the vote. But by choosing a sleazy course of claiming UCMJ violations, then ignoring valid explanations, Kerry is actually trashing his own standing in a number of critical places:

Anybody want to guess what the prevailing opinion is in families which have served in the Guard, or have sons in the Guard right now?

Anybody want to guess how veterans feel about a politician trying to trash honorable service? This could have been a strong point for Kerry, but instead he is driving VFW members to Bush.

Finally, people aren't likely to dwell on details. The simple fact is, Bush DID sign up for dangerous work, did it well, and left with honor. Kerry could easily have trumped that with his Bronze and Silver Stars, but instead decided to ride the low road; the mud he has thrown takes the polish off those medals, and will cost Kerry. Worst of all for Kerry, he doesn't even see how badly he's played his hand. Because the media has given him a pass for now, but he can't see how this issue will play out.

It's like Kerry's a pliot who thinks a smoking engine is just a special effect; the bang at the end of his ride will be a very big surprise.

Bush may well be a liar, not too articulate, dishonest, ugly, a bit retarded etc., but by golly he sure represents the american people and we will stand behind him!

"I don’t live in the United States, but I was just wondering why such savage personal attacks on presidential candidates are the norm? "

That's an interesting question b. The short answer is that its really not as bad as it appears. Japanese parliment is known to break out into fistfights, and by British standards this mudslinging are a joke. The long answer is, there is a growing chasm of idiology in America, indeed in the world. We refer to it as the 'Blue v Red states' (blue being democratic states, urban, union, minorities and red being rebublican states rural and suburban, the south and much of the west.) The reality is that the divide is almost exactly 50-50, which means that even the tinyest perterbation can push the decision one way or the other. Our last election was settled (for most people anyway) by less than 500 votes. Thats essentially .0002% of the population. So the temptation to try to gain that extra little tenth of a point is growing impossible to resist. And these things tend to have a cascading effect, bad blood breeds bad blood. There really is no end in sight.

Before the discussion went flying off into the weeds I thought I had a valid point. They (Dem leadership) smeared Bush on his guard duty because in comparison to Kerry's military service, IN THE EYES OF PUBLIC OPINION, Bush looks weak. They got all this publicity for free and put Bush on the defensive. Dirty but effective. Rove-esque.

Ok go back to your discussions of how treasonous it was to protest the Vietnam war...

When did saying that you disagree with something become synonimous with calling it treason? Thats another dirty trick the dems have been playing, if you criticize their stands on security issues they claim you're saying they arent patriotic. BS, you're saying they are wreckless, there's a big difference.

Thanks for the explanation Mark, it makes a bit more sense to me now.

Mark's post at 2:41 was interesting, but I have to disagree. The problem is not that the country is essentially 50-50, but rather something harder to accept:

* First, most people do not see eye-to-eye with either of the two major parties, but they tend to believe that only a Democrat or Republican can win. So, one either chooses the GOP, which is strong on Defense but sometimes is reactionary, or one chooses the Democrats, who try to look after social needs but are appallingly foolish outside our borders, or one tries to change the hypoctical rules so loved in Washington. I, for example, am for Bush not because I believe he is perfect, but because I believe he is the best choice that can actually win. the actual Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat breakdown varies as you have to consider the definitions.

* Worse, many in the Democratic and Republican parties believe they represent the majority. That's why the Democrats point to the popular vote from 2000, while the GOP counts states and counties. They're BOTH right, and they're BOTH wrong, especially when someone leaves them where they can find a camera or a microphone.

You see, politicians LOVE focus groups and studies, and they have been brought up to believe that anger is good, especially if they can set the public off against their opponents, and the media eats up a good fight, even if it's staged.

YES, STAGED. Most people don't stop to think about hundreds of Republicans and Democrats woprking together behind closed doors, but the fact is, if these guys really hated each other as much as the TV news suggests, they'd never cooperate. But they do. Especially on the budget, where everyone gets their pork, but is careful to tell the TV that the OTHER party is raping America, while they have carefully polished their halo as tghey explain how they have met the needs of the people who depend on their "leadership".

In short, there are a lot of crap artists and crooks, but there are also a few good guys.

I happen to think George W. Bush is one of the good guys. Democrats believe that about John F. Kerry. Fair enough, but it's been a generation since the parties could respect their opponents and stick to the issues. These days, you have to know you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, or expect your opponent to play by your rules.

Somewhere, I expect Mr. Washington is MOST displeased...

My apologies for the lack of proofing the text.

I agree with that GDubya, but I dont know that its as simple as good guys and bad guys. Im sure everyone on the hill thinks theyre a good guy. Bringing money home to your district so people can work is a good thing. Unfortunately, that too easilly turns into the need to get reelected to keep doing good things, so i have to raise a bunch of money etc ect. A lot of the really straight shooting guys that showed up in the 90s are gone now. John Kassich, Joe Scarsborough. Its just the curse of power, either it corrupts you or you get disgusted and leave. I just dont see any time in the near future when another wave of damn the torpedoes politicians is likely to storm town.

You're right Mark, especially about everyone thinking they're the good guy.

There are a LOT of crusaders in Congress.

But the funny thing is, there ARE real good guys every so often. We have to recognize them and support them, and it CAN be done.

But not by putting candidates through a wood chipper, just to see if they can take it.

By the way, MG, it still bugs me, your comment about Sun Tzu.

Actually, if either of the major candidates was up on "The Art of War", they would recall that the acme of skill, is winning WITHOUT confronting your opponent at all.

The way is there, even if it is almost never used.

For a history on Kerrys role in vietnam http://www.usssatyr.com/RiverineHistory.htm
one note on this treatise, PBRs were the actual river rats, Swift boats were in the delta areas or sea going patrols.

GDubya: I am not so sure about that. Rhetoric aside, I don't think the Republicans have gotten the message that they have all three houses of government (Representatives, Senate, and White) They see their margin as being razor thin. The constant filibuster concerning judical nominees has got to be frustrating, and their handing up senate staffer over the Democrat memo scandal is evidence.

You are right that it is essentially a 2 party race. Some of us learned our lesson during Perot's campaign, and alot of the Democrats who voted for Nadar got the message durin 2000. But the two parties do evolve, as third parties rise in popularity, their agendas get co-opted by one of the big two.

The trick, Ben, may be illustrated by the good Mr. Jeffers of Vermont.

A Republican in Alabama, for example, may be far in his idealogy from a Republican in California, and they may both look askance at the Republican from Nebraska.

Some votes fall along party lines, but more often it breaks down into smaller groups as well, and being able to influence all those groups is the silent vote before the formal call.

But sadly they all, to one degree or another, follow the siren call of their campaign finances or the lure of the television interview.

I have been indulging myself by looking at some of the state polls, and the results have been interesting. For here, the most interesting number is just how many are still undecided. In New York, for example, fully 30% of those polled by Marist say they have no idea whether they would support Bush or Kerry. While some could take that to mean it's open to either candidate, it also suggests to me that neither man resonates with New Yorkers, and that is not good for the country, especially when the same thing happens in many other states.

Thought i would just disappear from these reasoned, thought-provoking "conversations". Still am going to find better things to do, but not without a parting shot.

At the request of CERDIP laid out the case for either Kerry or Edwards along with a question to the Bush brown-nosers--what are y'all so proud of? Even devised a simple test and was accused by tough guy Jeff that i had no idea of the conservative mind. Jeff, hint, The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. No mention of 108 pound loud mouths. Or pill-popping hypocrites either. Certainly no lying and Rove-ian dirty tricks. There's actually a well-laid-out philosophy. "Good thing presidents aren't philosophers." No, actually it's a good thing (if you've got your nose up Bush's rear) that presidents give no pretention of thinking at all.

And how about this gem from one of our resident civics professors?..."Japanese parliment is known to break out into fistfights, and by British standards this mudslinging are a joke. The long answer is, there is a growing chasm of idiology." For a group that can't spell or can't make subject and verb agree, it appears that "chasm of idiology" is not a mistake, but an "on purpose."

Here's what you're voting for with Bush (unless you're from the 51st state and then all you can do is rabble rouse and enjoy the fight):

1. preferential treatment going into the NG..."I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed...managed to wangle slots in the Reserve and National Guard units." (Colin Powell on VN service-until his lies to the U.N., the only upstanding character in this zoo). Do you think that Michael would be FCC non-commissar if he had a different daddy? More lies and cave-ins from Colin in My American Journey, flip to Chapter 6.
2. AWOL (not per the UCMJ, but from American people with IQs greater than 80 and not Bush apologists) from NG.
3. Harken Energy. Insider trading. Failed company, despite Daddy's influence and BS contracts.
4. Texas Rangers...Daddy, I wanna a baseball team!
5. Texas governor...let me count the ways:
-Texas Housing Agency Falls Short of Bush 'Dream': Allegations of Corruption, Inefficiency Dog Agency
-'Texas Miracle' Doubted: An Education 'Miracle,' or Mirage?
-Despite Mixed Record, Big Tobacco Picks Bush
-Fact Check: On HMOs, Bush a Reluctant Reformer: Bush Now Touting Measures He Had Vetoed, Left Unsigned
-Insurers Profited from Texas Tort Reform
-Texas 'Tort Reform' Aided Business - and Bush
-Bush's Style Succeeded Even as Tax Plan Failed
-Bush: Weighing the Cost of Compassion
-Texas Environment Could Work Against Bush
6. U.S. President
-character assassination on John McCain
-says one thing, does another.
-Florida fiasco; election fraud and scandal
-Supreme Court "gives" him another toy
-Ignores 9/11 warnings
-Appropriates Democrats idea of Homeland Security, which institutes colored alerts thereby making American safe
-Promises to get OBL
-Decides to get revenge for George 1 embarrassment; premature withdrawal
-Finding OBL taking too long and is too hard, lies or supervises liars re: WMD to go after Saddam
-No plan for how to deal with Iraq post-war
-Ignores U.N. or brings them in to suit his political needs
-Scares the crap out of Americans so that they will elect (finally) the "War President."
-jobless so discouraged they give up, thereby improving the jobless numbers
-lies about reading the paper--according to his wife
-lies in the budget and turns his back on the military
-panders to the Christian ultra-right by flirting with gay and abortion issues. He will at least hint that he agrees with the anti-abortionists that women can't make religious decisions on their own.

Doesn't have a clue...except Ronald was a good guy...and Bill beat up my dad.

Karl: George here's the plan. Think of the worst thing we could say about the other guy. Say that he is doing it. And then do it ourselves.
George: Brilliant. Those stupid sumbitches won't know what hit 'em. And that includes the voters.

Wait, wait, the jobs are coming...i promise.

See ya in November...suckers. Disgusting.

Why are those libs so angry? He brought in that black woman didn't he?

oh, Jeff forgot to tell you

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk is not a comic book. It only has words. there isn't a single picture. It has more than 20 pages.

Please don't hurt yourself.

Here's a tip, have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

Mark Buehner

Thanks for the tip. Will keep that in mind next time. It would help to know what level of intelligence and insight to target the tips for you. Are you more of a "Run Spot Run" guy or do you prefer "SpiderMan"?

Your problem is not lack of interest, but lack of attention span. Thoughts that run counter to your programming give you a headache.

Mark, just this once, I'll do your thinking for you. By the way, Georgie Porgie, Karl, Rush, Sean and Ann will help you anytime.

There are several points (maybe that's what confused you):
1. There are people on this blog who are clueless about why they support Bush.
2. Bush's record in black and white (grey may also be too confusing) demonstrates that Bush is a privileged character who has been getting away with non-performance all of his adult life.
3. Just because Bush adores Reagan, doesn't make either of them right, only right wing.
4. If we get another 4 years of this sham, let no one say that you weren't warned.
5. There is not ONE person who posts on this blog who has read The Conservative Mind. You wouldn't know conservative if it bit you.
6. My entire post was intended as a wake-up call and subtle insult to folks of your ilk and intelligence. Guess it was too subtle.

There are some other points too, but those are reserved for other thin-skinned muttonheads who let others tell them what to think until they can discover their own self-righteousness.

Carl,
I read some of Kirks writing, just awhile ago, as well as reviews on one of his books. The reviewer was puzzled and a little irritated that the editor inserted comments by another man who seemed to lean towards the neo-conservative side. Last night I saw a recorded lecture by Charles Krauthammer after he received the Irving Kristol Award. I looked up the text of the lecture and posted the link, here: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912/news_detail.asp , in case anyone is interested.

I wouldnt decide on the 'exact' definition of conservatism, based upon the thoughts of any one man.

Here it is in summary, folks:

* Carl doesn't like Bush. Any Bush.

* Bush is doing pretty good as President. Carl does not understand this, so Carl becomes angry (see insults and middle-school references)

* Carl does not have anything positive he can reference about Kerry, so he intensifies the hate-speech against Bush.

* Despite his implied reverence for reading, Carl has not studied up on exit polls from 2000 and 1984, and so does not understand the futility of his tactics.

* Carl has apparently discovered just enough about the Economy and Iraq, to know he doesn't want to discuss those conditions, so he returns, yet again, to the puerile venom card.

* See Carl rant. Rant Carl, rant.

* LOL

Nope Carl, you apparently didnt pick up on my tip. Why dont you try again.

(Note, point= argument, bottom line, burden, core, crux, drift, essence, force, gist, head, heart, idea, import, kicker, main idea, marrow, matter, meat, motif, motive, nitty-gritty, nub, pith, pointer, proposition, punch line, question, score, stuff, subject, subject matter, text, theme, thrust, tip, tip-off, topic)

Brian

Good speech by Krauthammer. right along the lines of Kirk. thanks for posting it. It looks like he's thinking; completely defensible and compelling. this is different than crooks calling themselves conservatives lying to the country, taking the economy in the toilet and increasing the size of government. Is it just that the American people are too dense to get this?

I am not saying that Kirk is the final word on conservatism. he references many people in his book. Krauthammer and Kirk make well-reasoned, thoughtful arguments in favor of a Conservative mindset. It would be helpful for the pissants (not everyone, just the pissants) to read something intelligent instead of spouting the party line and screaming a la Rush and Sean.

Now Mark and GDubya...well, you can read their posts for yourself. I apologize for misunderestimating Mark's intelligence. It looks like he at least can run a browser and find synonyms.com. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you Mark. You may be concerned about the new Republican suggestion being floated in a few safe states that voters will have to pass an intelligence test to get a ballot.

GDubya, on the other hand, to a reasonable question about why he is supporting his (apparent) namesake, offers up the irrefutable, intelligent remark "Bush is doing pretty good as President". Hoping to sway that large body of undecideds. Besides that, instead of addressing the specific list of personal and professional Bush failures, decides to psychoanalyze and ignore the failures. Not even refute them. Uh, gee, uh...that's cuz there's nothing to refute. See i can argue intelligently just like my action hero, George Porgie.

Still putting words in my mouth...posits that i don't like any Bush, despite my family being at G1's inauguration and his illustrious public service career. As his other favorite action figure said, "There you go again."

Despite my having posted facts about Kerry's and Edwards' backgrounds and laying out some of the President's illustrious background, BW cannot do anything except incompetently insult.

Never mentioned in my post anything about a reverence for reading. But BW, like his other action figure hero, Johann AG, knows what's in my mind. Hey BW, you at least know the name of two resources now for true Conservative thinking. You will now be able to impress your friends at Young Republicans. And you have made crystal clear that you haven't read Kirk, you won't read Kirk and you probably can't understand Krauthammer. Georgie Porgie is counting on your ignorant support.

BW, not all Americans are as stupid 1) as you think they are, or 2) as you are.

Carl, you're rambling. Again. Oh, and I can pretty much guarantee i'm significantly smarter than you. Certainly more concise.

certainly more demure and humble. Better looking. richer. In fact, in every way possible, you're better than just about everyone, aren't you Mark?

You have no idea how smart i am or how smart you are. Your feeble attempts to insult me without addressing substance don't prove diddly. that you even have to bring it up speaks volumes about your ignorance.

Lessee, i have three phrases. Carl had more than that. QED i am more concise. And smarter. I didn't say shit, but i don't want to talk about that.

Mark pay attention. You're losing. And your Boy George isn't far behind you. He's depending on your lack of wit to win.

Mark, please forgive me.

I refuse to continue to try to match wits with such an intellectual heavyweight.

Maxi, the Hero
By Mark Buehner

Harvey Potter's Balloon Farm
By Mark Buehner

Adventures of Taxi Dog
By Mark Buehner

Snowmen at Night
By Mark Buehner

This First Thanksgiving Day: A Counting Story
By Mark Buehner

No More Water in the Tub!
By Mark Buehner

My Monster Mama Loves Me So
By Mark Buehner

6th Grade Nickname Game
By Mark Buehner

Well, gee, Carl, back to the insults. What a surprise.

Look, I've written thoughtful posts with insight in a number of places, but I see how you react to multisyllable words and historical references, so I apologize for trying to make sure you could grasp the gist of the text; at least I am able to refrain from referring to my candidate's opponent with juvenile name-calling. Could you possibly manage to discuss the President of the United States, a self-made millionaire and graduate from two Ivy League universities, without acting like a spoiled 5th-grader yourself?

From your posts, apparently this would be beyond your capacity.

But I digress.

It's fun tossing the rhetoric back and forth with you, Carol, but I observe that you have yet to produce a single cogent plan Kerry has for the nation, or prove even one of your many nefarious allegations against President Bush.

[ pauses for the inevitable 'nyah-nyah' level retort ]

Well then, enjoy your February polls. I will be courteous for the moment, and not point out their track record against actual elections.

found some more:

Barney and the Economy Hit the Deck: It was Laura's Fault - link
By Mark Buehner

Junior and Scooter Square Off - link
By Mark Buehner

Don't Mess With Me and Mark - link
By Mark Buehner

BW,

How do you reach the conclusion that i can't deal with multiple syllable words and complex sentences? Is your summary post immediately above indicative of the level of intelligence that you think slips by me? My o my! Did that insightful analysis tax you?

self made millionaire? Karl and George are drooling over folks like you BW.

And you have still not said one peep about the track record i posted. Guess that's the record of record.

Spoiled 5th grader? I was only helping Markie understand something that i thought was over his head. little did i know that he was a published author.

settle down carl, it's all good. Obsession is self defeating.

Bush is your firend. Any Bush.

Wrong Mark Buehner. Its what we grownups call a 'coincidence'. Amazingly its entirely possible for two human beings to have the same name. Unlikely, but it does happen from time to time.

And if you want to know how I know I'm smarter then you, keep googling. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of how to string together a coherant thought. You might learn something. Hope springs eternal.

Hey CERDIP
I don't know what a "firend" is. But if it describes Bush, I'm suspicious. It sounds to me like what happened when Bush lathered himself up with BenGay and bent one of his good buddies over.

Gee, Mark thanks for explaining that coincidence thingy to me. i learned something there. You sure are smart Mark. I never realized before that there was anything like that. As you said, that is amazing.

I wonder if there are any examples of how to spell "coherent." People who misspell either don't know or don't care. Which is it Mark?

You are being entirely too modest about your writing. Are you the most modest person you know too? Wouldn't it be cool if the War President got the Nobel for Peace and you got the Nobel for Literature?

In these erudite books that you write, do you try to get subject and verb to match? If you can't spell and your grammar sucks, there must be some other area besides communication where you really shine. Where do you apply all of this intelligence?
Apparently, there's an awful lot of brainpower going to waste here.

I got the insults, i got that you are intellectually superior to me Mark, i got that i shouldn't be so angry and otherwise psychologically deficient. What i still don't understand is Why Bush? either 1) i am dumber than a matched set of fenceposts or 2) nobody is willing to answer, or 3) there is no sensible answer.

you'd think that among all these brilliant people who are sold on the President that one person could say one thing sensible about why he should be re-elected.

A) Spelling flames are the last refuge of the irretrievably humiliated B) The answer is #1

Me, I'll just stick to Cowboy Poetry. SInce I sorta feel responsible for my kids' education, I'm leanin' more toward "Back in the Saddle' than 'Happy Trails'. Glad they ain't goin' to school in France. My daughter'd have to give up her Burkha, and the boy? A Celtic Cross. But Hey! Who's looking for Divine Intervention? Nobody planning any cloning right soon, are they? What with all those 'marriages' goin' on in SanFran, I'm expecting another BabyBoom just in time for the Inauguration.

Real Issues? Did someone say something about real issues? How's Kerry doin' with the home folks on this Gay 'Union' thingy? Is he flippin' or floppin'? Freakin' Fish. Definitely not in his 'Zone'. Doesn't use Lures when he goes fishin'! Oh my, no! Just drag them Medals out (Ooops! This Tackle Box doesn't belong to me!) and toss them over the Portside Rail! That was some mighty fine Lu-re See-lection! Loookeee Here! All these Fish! All kinds of fish! There's a pair of Male Gropers over thar! Wonder if they'd bite?

Enough. Kerry looks like the Perfect Fisherman...

Perfectly suited to the Party. Enjoy. It's gonna be a real short Honeymoon if his history has anything to say about it.

"... taking the economy in the toilet and increasing the size of government. Is it just that the American people are too dense to get this?"

Have you heard of Keynes? Following excerpts are from http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/Timeline.htm

1933
"Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending."

1934
"Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending." (More) [ http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/Sweden.htm ]

Well, we didnt have a depression and we're not likely to, barring some earth-shaking events. We had a recession -- and event which is as normal as weather. This is a war economy, and the deficit has been worsened by the recession. Now that the recovery is upon us, Bush has followed Greenspan's advice and tightened Washington's belt. Senators and Congressmen are going to be very unhappy about not taking home as much bacon as they would like. :)

Sorry, but I dont see any failures on the economic front. Any other areas you want to talk about, Carl?

////A) Spelling flames are the last refuge of the irretrievably humiliated B) The answer is #1////

ROFLMAO!!!!

Now That's comedy.

Brian,

You know that Keynes plays an insignificant part in the President's thinking...anybody who understands Krauthammer's piece can see that. (for that matter, thinking doesn't play a part in the President's thinking). I don't recall Keynes talking about weird tax policies. (By the way, i see in the post from Nobel Prize-winning-author Mark Buehner that he has added Kraut's piece to his todo list)

Why no mention of the Laffer Curve? Given upper income behavior, zero slope on the Curve has not been reached. (Mark, I threw that in to see if your incredible intelligence is in the math field.) If so, why aren't taxes being raised? Is this is an administration that actually considers these philosophies rather than spouting them to justify their BS? NO!

Where does Keynes talk about this folksy macroeconomic theory of "giving you back your money." Please Brian, be intellectually honest. don't toss Krauthammer and then shill for these goons.

Why is consumer confidence plummeting? Where are the jobs? Seeing as how we've got very intelligent economic people here, how 'bout a discussion of progressive taxation? The economy nailed one Bush and it's going to burn another one.

VP Reichard - "Reagan (the paragon of intelligence) proved that deficits don't matter." apologies if you take that as an insult, Mark Buehner. (Man, that name is hard to spell; did i get it right? Not that spelling matters)

And how 'bout this cockamamie Bush tripe?...just posted on the op-ed link for "Bush and Spending", this hypocritical Compassionate Conservative Christian is going after chicken s*&t programs for the poor. Lookin' good. Protect the base. Shame, shame.

How is GWB going to communicate with the average citizen about high falutin' outdated economic philosophy? Especially when they can see that the Emperor has no clothes, cred in the toilet, says one thing/does another.

Why the screamin' about Kerry's lack of new ideas? The old ideas work just fine. it's just that the current clowns are irresponsible and incompetent.

So, lemmesee if I can winkle out what the wingnuts are objecting to about Kerry:

* He went to war.
* He served honorably and bravely.
* His honorable and brave service was acknowledged by the US Navy.
* When he got back, he said the war was Wrong and worked to end it sooner, rather than later.

This is known as Principled Opposition. Those who have served honorably and bravely are in the Best position to oppose the war. Kerry is hardly the only one to do so, nor was he the first.

In contradistinction to those who Play-Acted at being in the military - sort of, deliberately ducking both the honorable service in wartime and any principled opposition afterwards.

Such folks are known as Chickenhawks.

Wingnuts are amusing.

But not terribly credible.

That's good Don. Except for the Navy part you just described Benedict Arnold.

Carl,

Spamming gibberish is bad enough. Now you are stalking Mark B?

Do you like my line of soda?

Carl, when you say, "Why no mention of the Laffer curve, did you mean me, or Bush? Anyway, he is smart enough to know that when taxes go down, tax receipts go up, and wise enough to talk in simple terms. Raising taxes would slow down the recovery. Jobs always lag in a recovery, though this one seems to be a bit atypical. I think employers are more cautious. But Ive read that capital expenditures are beginning to kick in -- just heard a news story about John Deere sthttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040217/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_deere_ to support that. Over all, the economy seems to be imroving, according to the beige book: http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2004/20040114/default.htm I believe that after capital expenditures pick up more, we will begin to see an increase in jobs.

Reagan wanted to increas military spending. The deal he had with the Congress and Senate was that they hold down spending in other areas. The Democrats controlled approprations and refused Reagans desired cuts in domestic spending. Congress outspent all but one of nine budgets he proposed. Of course, he Democrats blamed Reagan for the deficits, while disavowing any responsibility for their own actions.

'nuff for now.

Don, you should take a look at this:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Vietnam Vets Against Kerry.

Its pretty sad when taxcuts are referred to as "weird tax policies"

Jones
Mark and I are having a public conversation. He insults me; i return the favor. it has people ROFLMAO. Despite his superior intelligence, i have to serve up softballs so that he can insult me. Reflecting the warped view that you share with Georgie Porgie (why's everybody always pickin' on me?)--why did you direct your insipid stalking question to me and not to Mark? And why do you find it necessary to protect him? Handy to hurl "gibberish" when you are unable to respond substantively. What substance? Try this...according to Laffer's theory, we should be raising taxes on the upper income earners. do you have a response or another tantrum.

Johnnyhappy to supply amusement. i have to confess...there for a minute, i thought you were laughing at me and it almost hurt. Tax cut does not equal tax policy in the context that Brian was using. Analyze this...when there was a surplus, the tax cut was to give us back our own money. When Bush's incompetence and lack of responsibility caused the recession, Keynes conveniently appears. In the case of the current Admin...tax cut is the policy, it's just weird. And...thanks for being civil with me.

Brian,

Good points. Rhetorical Laffer question...I don't know what Bush, et al are thinking (don't mean that insultingly). Laffer gets trotted out in tax adjustment discussions, and was used for justifications in the St. Ronald days. L - taxes inhibit ambition, so increased taxes (beyond a certain point) decrease tax revenue. Signs are that we are below that point.

Bush's simplification his tax cuts--he's giving us back our money--is BS. Let's just go all the way...don't give it to them in the first place. It's not going to happen. And it makes it look like he's a simpleton. You will not hear one word of justification for the Democrats or Congress from me about spending.

Yeah, don't know what to say about Reagan. Poor guy has Alzheimer's. Lot of people love him; others don't. No opinion appropriate to the current situation; i voted for him.

The deal is though that Cheney is invoking Reagan for deficit justification, not Keynes. And the information i saw didn't have the sort of reasoned thinking that you are citing. I think it came from that turncoat O'Neill's book--who would trust a GD thing that b(*&*%d would say.

DonnieChad! How nice of you to drop by!

'This is known as Principled Opposition.'

Is that a DonnieDefinition? Cuz, Don, I call you on your CrapArgument. With Spades. He was Anti-war to suit himself, and nobody BUT himself. He has no principles, and like the Cap'n in 'Pirates', is guided by a Moral Compass that does not work. Hell, for all I know the medals he shucked DID belong to him, and he just went to a PawnShop and bought hisself a new set to hang on his wall. VVAW, although I will not call a communist organization, did march under the NVA and VC banners in Washington. Kerry was a LEADER of that organization. I'm curious Don, as to whether or not you'd think it appropriate for Senator Kerry to hang a picture of a smiling Saddam Hussein in his Office? How about an UpsideDown American Flag? Do you suppose he has his BookCover under glass in that office? How about an NVA flag?

Crap argument, Don. Find another. There are two sides to every waffle, and when he's toasted on side one, I'll let you flip him over. He's gonna need all the help he can get.

Just for the record here's where the personal insults began:

"Thanks for the tip. Will keep that in mind next time. It would help to know what level of intelligence and insight to target the tips for you. Are you more of a “Run Spot Run” guy or do you prefer “SpiderMan”?

Your problem is not lack of interest, but lack of attention span. Thoughts that run counter to your programming give you a headache.

Mark, just this once, I’ll do your thinking for you. By the way, Georgie Porgie, Karl, Rush, Sean and Ann will help you anytime."



Sorry to interupt Carl. Back to your undergrad tirade.

This is not "where the personal insults began." What you have listed are insults that i have written...proudly, creatively...in response to yours. Not one of yours is shown. Makes it look like i'm a pretty insulting guy, a (whimper) obnoxious Liberal. For someone who brags of superior intelligence, this is not very smart The reason none of yours are shown in your post is because they are boring and unimaginative.

typical of someone who supports the current liar-in-chief. Amazing that you would lie and distort the situation when the truth is right in this thread. Here's where the insults started "Here?s a tip, have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader" from Mark Buehner in a lame response to a post that was full of (uncomfortable) points.

Just because that coed in your sophomore PoliSci class thinks you're cool because you're in the Campus Republicans...and you're chatting her up about having a bake sale to "protest" affirmative action doesn't say squat about your intelligence.

Here's one of your insults: "...pretty much guarantee i?m significantly smarter than you" Hey Mark, prove it! Post your SATs, your GPA for your freshman year, your attendance record for your senior year in high school, notes from your mom for your absences, and your dental record.

Mark: "But that's not a personal insult. That's a fact. How could something be two things?"

BTW, interrupt has two R's. Would you please type your insults into Word with spell check turned on and then cut-and-paste to post? I'm tired of being your English teacher.

"I’m tired of being your English teacher."

This is amusing coming from a guy that continuously neglects to capitalize the first word of a sentence and the word I.

///Analyze this…when there was a surplus, the tax cut was to give us back our own money. ///

The theoretical surplus that was apparently to happen over five years? Perhaps. But the money from the current tax cuts is apparently not ours?

///You will not hear one word of justification for the Democrats or Congress from me about spending.///

Maybe not, but only because now that particular fad is politically expedient. Democrats controlled spending in Congress for 50 years, and not once did I hear Tip O'Neill, Ted Kennedy, Tom Foley, or Daniel Patrick Moynihan complain about budget deficits; in fact, they all were complaining about Reagan cutting spending, as I recall. He's the only President in the last 20 years whose budget had negative growth (-1.8%)now, all of a sudden the same people are complaining that the world is coming to an end because Bush and the Republican controlled Congress are spending too much money. Seems pretty disingenous to me.

///I’m tired of being your English teacher.///

If you're tired of being Mark's English teacher, then why don't you just not comment on it, Mr. Professor?

Killa, glad you got the joke. Others on the blog are far more serious. Notice Johnny's feeble attempted insult and nifty logic trick.

Johnny "out of context" mozart

Bush tax cut - given; apparently the policy from day one
Reason - shifting; never the straight story.
Responsibility - wait until later.
Thinking - some was done, apparently ignored.

So the reason i'm not sticking up for Democrats and Congress complicity in spending is because it is no longer faddish? Thanks for clearing that up for me. Because you were civil with me, i'll cut you some slack on your statement, but i 'spect that you'll be surprised and saddened to hear that Tip O'Neill passed away...about ten years ago. that's why he's not complaining.

i agree with your analysis. don't know the facts about Reagan's economic performance. tried to get it through Sean Hannity's analysis. He's a pretty face, but no mathematician. People (perhaps like these tax-and-spend liberals) are complaining because Bush is hypocritical. Says one thing, does another. Says he's a Compassionate Conservative...and he's neither. time will tell whether the economic philosophy will pan out in reality. nothing to do but wait.

i see that Bush and Snow are backing off of their ludicrous jobs forecast. After they both bought into it publicly. Bush has got the perfect answer - I'm not a predictor. No shit, Ikey.

///You will not hear one word of justification for the Democrats or Congress from me about spending.///

By the way, Mr. English Teacher, I assume from this poorly worded sentence that what you are trying to say is: You will not hear one word of justification from the Democrats, Congress, or myself about spending.

or perhaps:

You will not hear one word from me justifying Democrats or Congress's spending.

///Reason - shifting; never the straight story.///

Here's one, carl, how about we pay too much in taxes as it is? How's that for a reason?

///So the reason i’m not sticking up for Democrats and Congress...///

Clearly I misunderstood the abovementioned poorly worded sentence. No, what I was saying, carl, is that Democrats are only complaining now because it is politically convenient. It never seemed to bother any of those fellows I mentioned earlier. Never once did I hear anyone shrieking with that syrupy-faux concern, "What about the Children?!?!!"
Why? Because nobody cared. But now, Bush spends a deficit, which I profoundly disagree with, and its a crime against humanity, according to the left. It's disingenuous.

Yeah, and so did Moynihan, wiseass. Stick to the issues, carl. You are clearly an intelligent guy, but you only make yourself look like a horse's ass when you deviate from them.

Cap'n:

I can understand where the entire concept of Principled Opposition is something you can't quite comprehend. It shows.

Those of us who were Actually There, and came to understand Up Close and Personal that the reason for getting into Viet Nam was in error, the way the war was fought was in error, and the means whereby we left was also in error. (Though by the end, what was just One More Error in the great scheme of things anyway.)

Opposing that, On Principle, is highly principled indeed.

Now be a good little wingnut, and re-read the RNC talking points du jour, the better to regurgitate then on command.

What tantrum?

Issues?

Is stalking Mark the issue? Is posting long lists that have no meaning to the thread debating? Is blathering on and on about who the hell knows what a factual debate? Cut the insults, gibberish, fluff, name calling, and stalking out. Post what you want to say in 100 meaningful words. Otherwise be ignored and mocked.

So DonnieChad - Speaking from this wealth of in-the-boots experience - Was Kerry correct in characterizing YOUR behavior as being a perfect example when he addressed the raping, pillaging, killing of civilians ad infinatum, or are you just filled right up to the top of your pointy freakin' head with opprobrium?

You are a first class TROLL.

I was there as well. Kerry is a classic example of an Eastern TroughFeeder with no Morals. You want to defend the man? Hang an NVA flag on your freakin' flagpole and see how your Veteran neighbors react to that one.

You wanna play bad with the language, boy, you came to the right place. I suppose you're up for Gay'Unions' too, right? I thought so.

No thanks, Don, I'm stuffed. I'm all full from my first helping of Your Arrogance. :)

But the class thanks you for showing them exactly why you will see George Bush reelected in November. Because the Washington elite are just like you. I know its not Your Fault; you guys can't help Being Arrogant. In fact, I bet its become so second nature you don't even realize you're being a Condescending Prick.

But the American public sees this behavior, and all those like you who share it, for What It Is, I assure you.

johnnymozart! The Caps know no bounds! LOL.

Well Put. Give me Principled Opposition or give me DON! Prolly dropped his SwizzleStick when you hit that B-Flat.

Y'know JONES, JOHNNY

Thought about how to respond to your posts. Decided that there just isn't a good response. You can get the same information i can and will make your own calls about it.

i am an incorrigible wise-ass jerk. And i'm not going to change 'cuz it seems to piss you off. But it makes no difference to do that. and i'm not interested in getting more bad karma.

We can all watch and kibbutz as the election season passes. This time around is more fun than it's been for a while. i'm aware that there are differences of opinion and style. it's why i'm proud to be an American. have fun. don't take it too seriously. As my hero CERDIP says, "it's all good."

Fair enough, carl. It certainly will be something, won't it? I'm not sure if that's good or bad at this point. :)

Im back :) The reason for the lag in jobs is the unprecedented level of productivity weve seen, as the result of the last recession. Higher productivity is a good thing. Why? because it makes things cheaper, which in turn increases demand, which in turn translates into a higher demand for jobs. The corrective process of a recession first results in fewer jobs -- companies become more productive in order to survive, and we see jobs increase. It may be a bit counter-intuitive, but it works.

Another favourable article: http://washingtontimes.com/business/20040205-092922-9080r.htm

I'm not up on fancy economics. It is all just guessing anyway. All theory, little fact. But I do own 3 small businesses. That is because one of my ecnomics professors told me several decades ago that the way to a comfortable life in America was to own 3 seperate tpyes of business, so that when the inevitable recession comes along, you will have at least one left over. My little gold mine right now is a lock-up (longterm storage). It is good for a recession, since people downsizing their homes need to store the excess, and when they lose that, I get it. Unemployment is not going up because businesses cleaned out the deadwood during the last cycle. They discovered that they didn't need the ones they got rid of. If those people want jobs, they need to develop skills to sell. Check it out, you will see that Nurses, Mechanics, Carpenters, Plimbers, Drywall men, electricians, etc. Have no trouble finding jobs. It is the middle level managers that skated for years and the 'programers' that are out of work. Or their Ilk. For those people the free ride is over. They need to get re-training. The purpose of a business is to turn a profit. NOT Employ people. If you can make maoney without employees, then that is the way to go.

Ableiter, I disagree.

'Jobs' is one of those trigger-words that gets everybody talking, and usually in a negative manner.

I am old enough to recall when people DREAMED of Unemployment below 6%. We've been there for long enough now, that folks forget the dynamics of how companies work.

My point though, is that even as people (the smart ones anyway) retrain for new work, they still need to get a paycheck, and those jobs are mostly in service positions, the kind let go in 2001-2, and which are just now starting to come back. Things like sales teams and call centers, the kind of service that companies always brag about in their ads, but which have been understaffed for most of the last 3 years.

The good news is, these jobs are coming. The bad news is, count on the news to complain anyway, about the overpaid workers who can't get what their union demands, or young workers discovering that you need to train fo work; As long as Dan Rather can suggest that America "owes" people jobs, the football season is year-round.

I think the unions have done no favours for people the last few decades. They dont seem to know when to quit. When they push beyond a certain point -- the point of diminishing returns -- then bad things happen. Companies have a hard time making the profit they need to make. If unions were more 'partner'-oriented, instead of 'bully'-oriented, then things would be better off. There would have been fewer companies moving out of country, also, though it probably would have only delayed such a move in many cases. The unions, themselves, have suffered due to their own shortsightedness.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: