A month or so back I remarked to John that there seemed like a large number of Iraq vets running as Democrats these days, an observation that came largely from Kos’s efforts in pointing them out. John asked how many Republicans there were, and since I didn’t know we both shrugged our shoulders and moved on. The question matters because as everybody knows both sides are recruiting desperately for 2006, and the side which troops choose says any number of things about the mindset of the actual grunts prosecuting this war. A gross imbalance, depending on which side it fell, would be either a slap in the face of the yellow-ribbon-on-an-SUV crowd or else a vindication of their smug self-superiority.
Today Kos provides hard numbers on both sides: the Democrats have recruited thirty-six Iraq veterans, according to this article. Depending on whether you count Iraq veterans or all veterans, about which there seems to be some confusion, Kos asserts that the Republicans have recruited either one or two. Kos does not support the claim, so don’t be 100% eager to take it for granted.
I will watch the fallout of this particular windfall with interest. Paul Hackett nearly upset the most conservative county in Ohio, and unless Bush gains the ability to heal the sick through your television set whatever bounce Hackett got from Bush fatigue will be ten times more severe by 2006.
So what will the GOP do? Swiftboating seems likely. I’m eager to find out whether they have the cajones cojones to try it thirty-six times.
ape
OF COURSE they’ll do it 36 times.
no decency.
that’s a law of nature. no decency.
you should have also counted those financially benefiting from war., and then a calculus of bellicosity.
but whatever, none of this will matter. americans will still vote GOP. “liberals” are evil. they kill babies and stuff. they have no souls.
and. erm., er., they believe in “BIG” government.
and, even if they ARE the military, they’ll still hate america, still fail to support are troops.
Bruce Moomaw
“Cajones” don’t figure in such a decision. Desperation does. If a party gets into a cornered-rat position, they’re perfectly willing to run a large-scale ad campaign accusing Jesus Christ of Satanism. (By the way, you misspelled “cojones”.)
I remain puzzled by John Kerry’s feeble response to his SwiftBoating, which can only be ascribed either to the fact that he was a dumb-ass (which is entirely plausible) or that there really WAS some kind of dirt to be found somewhere in his service records had he released them. After all, those records — when Kerry finally did release them long after the election — included all sorts of flowery comments from the same Swifties who were solemnly telling the press that they had never liked the guy. (Notably including retired Adm. Hoffman, who may be described as a post-Naval drip.) It’s still possible, I suppose, that he STILL hasn’t really released his complete records; but the only thing that turned up in the supposedly complete records when they were released was the revelation that his GPA at Yale was no better than Bush’s. (They and Gore actually did worse than Dan Quayle, who pulled a C Plus to their C averages. If you need a solid argument against college legacies, there it is.)
S.W. Anderson
With Rove unindicted and still at large, and Ken Mehlman heading the RNC, you can be sure there’s going to be swiftboating. It’s a reflex. It’s standard operating procedure. The only uncertainty is how low they’ll go with it.
After Rep. Jean “Ms. Congeniality” Schmidt’s badmouthing of Rep. John Murtha, can there be any doubt?
Try it 36 times? They will probably strive for what they intend to be subtle variations. The potential for low comedy is tremendous.
RonB
The Economist is a bit skeptical that there will be a massive shift of power in ’06, to my surprise. They cite gerrymandering as the problem in the House, and the difficulty of unseating an incumbent in the Senate. Democrats also have more seats up for grabs by 18-15 even if incumbency isn’t a factor. It’s in the outlook for 2006 brand new issue, so I dont think I can link. There was another major outlet who also cited these obstacles to a power shift…can’t remember who.
Pooh
If I may speculate (and hopefully not give anyone any ideas), I foresee instances of “Abu Gharabing” and/or “White Phosphoring”
rachel
(cough)
“Cojones.” A “cajón” is a drawer or a big box (ie: crate). A “cojón” is a testicle.
¡Ay cojones!
demimondian
Just to show you that stupid reading goes both ways, I was trying to figure out what pixels on a greyscale monitor had to do with electionerring.
S.W. Anderson
(Hand slaps forehead) Wow! This perfectly captures the essence, the thrust, the M.O., of right-wing Republican psychopathy where election opponents are concerned.
Why didn’t I think of that. In any case, bravo.
DougJ
It all boils down to this: either you’re with George Jesus or you’re for the terrorists. There’s no middle ground.
ape
Bruce Moomaw says:
“I remain puzzled by John Kerry’s feeble response to his SwiftBoating, which can only be ascribed either to the fact that he was a dumb-ass (which is entirely plausible) or that there really WAS some kind of dirt to be found somewhere in his service records had he released them.”
I remain puzzled by those who fail to properly appreciate the emperor’s wonderful clothes.
What is Kerry supposed to do? How absurd. Take it seriously or trust in the decency of the electorate? Well.
John Cole
Personally, I think it is great the Democrats are running more veterans- I could use some help when the idiots in the current Democratic party are chanting that White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon, and some folks in the Democratic party with some military experience would be great. But just because you are a veteran does not mean that the constituents are automatically going to vote for you- Kos, after all, is a veteran, and he would not get elected but in the bluest of blue states were he to run.
The irony is that you are all talking about the ‘swiftboating of these possible guys,’ when I am willing to bet it is the anti-war left and anti-war Democrats who are going to savage these guys ala Lieberman/Hillary if they refuse to endorse whatever the popular anti-war political position of the day might be.
And here is a piece of advice to all these new Democratic candidates- run on more than your military service.
DougJ
I’m writing all of John’s comments today. Enjoy.
p.lukasiak
John wrote:
[whatever…. listening to a right winger like John about Democrats is a waste of time.]
My fondest hope is that the DNC realizes what an asset it has on its hands with these 36 candidates, and spends every penny necessary to make sure they are media savvy, and ready for Prime Time — then make sure that they are on the list of “contacts” provided by the DNC for every news show that needs a Democrat to talk about Iraq.
p.lukasiak
DAMMIT DOUG!!!
:)
John Cole
DougJ- I have no doubt Republicans will engage in a load of bullshit with some of these candidates- it is one of the reasons I have just become completely disugusted with the current GOP. I am still pissed about the Karl Rove/stab in the back bullshit calling all democrats traitors this summer. But if you think the anti-war base of the Democratic party is going to let these pro-war Democrat veterans get through the primary, then you have been drinking more than me.
Furthermore, it would make no sense to recruit these candidates in predominantly liberal areas, as Democrats already win those seats. Thus, they are running in places that lean conservartive- like Henry Hyde’s seat. Is it really bad advice to tell them to run on more than just their war record, particularly in these areas? I mean, we saw how well focussing Kerry’s entire campaign around his Vietnam service worked, didn’t we?
ape
JC “whatever the popular anti-war political position of the day might be”
i’ll take a guess that this will be a position against voluntary wars by states that never have, never will and never can attack us?
or maybe some kind of other ‘popular’ opinion. ‘anti-war’ is a lame critique. i would expect most politicians to be ‘anti-war’. certainly not ‘pro-war’.
i’ve not heard many British soldiers saying, “yeah. i’m glad to be HERE at Christmas. I’m pro-war.”
that’s cos they are not total morons.
DougJ
I don’t think it is fair to call John a right-winger but he seems a bit off today.
Seriously, John, you don’t really like Hillary/Lieberman, do you?
p.lukasiak
What is Kerry supposed to do? How absurd. Take it seriously or trust in the decency of the electorate? Well.
Kerry claimed that he was ready to answer personal attacks on his character, but when they came, he went AWOL. Big time.
It wasn’t a question of “trusting in the decency of the electorate”, it was a question of understanding the indecency of the GOP, and the willingness of the SLCM to facilitate that indecency. Kerry didn’t get it — and he lost because of it.
The Other Steve
Well Lieberman deserves to be savaged. It’s not that he’s for the Iraq war… it’s that he’s against Democrats.
But yeah, there will be just as much crap coming from the left, as the right. That’s what makes these candidates appealing… they sit in the middle.
And to the others… Kerry was a dofus. He talked about Vietnam, but he ignored his opposition to Vietnam. What the fuck was the guy thinking trying to hide that? If you’re a Democrat, you don’t hide shit, you let it out.
Only Republicans win by hiding from their past.
Bruce Moomaw
It depends on wht the meaning of “savaging” is.
If some of these veterans decide to emulate Lieberman and announce, with a straight face, that Bush is doing exactly the right things because Iraq is really a peaceful, and unified society in which the entire fight just pits “10,000 insurgents” against “27 million peace-loving Iraqis” — or that Lindsay Graham was entirely correct in his proposal to totally strip all detainees of any habeas corpus right whatsoever (something which Graham himself called “a mistake” two days later) — then, yes, by all means let’s “savage” them for making such stupid and/or immoral statements. Ditto if they decide to emulate Hillary and squirm around like demented eels trying to dodge any straight answers to the questions of whether or not it was justified for us to get into Iraq in the first place, and what we should do now.
Tim F.
If they’re anything like Tammy Duckworth, the horrible mob of bucket-pooping Sheehanites should love them just fine. Since that mob accounts for four or five people, even if the Sheehanites do throw a red-faced fit nobody has much reason to worry. Kossacks had no problem getting behind Paul Hackett.
DougJ
I see what you’re saying that the “anti-war base” will want to hold these guys to a timetablish stance on the war, John, but if you think Hillary/Lieberman are anything more than amoral opportunists, you’ve been doing more than drinking.
The Other Steve
That’s a good point. Apparently in JC’s world if you are not for blowing someone up every day, whether they deserve it or not… you are anti-war.
What a strange little world the strawman lives in.
John Cole
I don’t know what I am anymore. I used to think I was a conservative, but I have kinda thrown that shit out the window, because I am not what conservatives pass as anymore.
And I have been drinking, to boot.
But I am serious- these guys won’t get elected because they are veterans, they will get elected because of where they stand on issues and whether or not they run good campaigns. While it is great there are more veterans running, I am as yet unconvinced that merely throwing up Democratic veterans will work in the districts that lean conservative. It may, in fact, backfire, if they put unpolished candidates forward who are merely veterans.
More power to them, though- they did their time and deserve our respect. I hope more than a few of them win.
p.lukasiak
I don’t think it is fair to call John a right-winger but he seems a bit off today.
I liked it better when Tim was apparently on vacation, and Cole had to pretend to be sane for a while.
Look at his most recent comments — first off, he assumes that all these vets are going to be supporting Bush’s Iraq policies. DUH…. if they were supporting Bush’s War, would they be running as DEMOCRATS?
Secondly, he seems to think that progressives are a bunch of morons who don’t understand the politics involved. We are pissed off at Lieberman and Hillary because they suck up to Bush when they represent states where that is completely unnecessary to get re-elected. We are far less critical of Democratic Senators and Congresscritters from Red States, because we understand the compromises they have to make.
Cole is completely clueless when it comes to progressives — his partisan mindset precludes the consideration that progressives — you know, the people who were saying that Iraq was going to be a clusterfuck well before it became obvious to people like John — might actually understand things.
John Cole
Tim F.- She is one I read a stroy about- I think it was in USA Today when I was travelling a few weeks ago.
demimondian
You know what, John? Sens. Clinton and Lieberman are grown ups, and they can handle the anti-war left — at worst, Howard Dean will stand up and say “you can’t govern if you don’t win”, and the nay-sayers will fall in line.
And make no mistake about it, the 2008 primary season is going to be bloody on both sides of the aisle. Neither party has an annointed candidate, and so we’re going to see the unusual prospect of more than one circular firing squad.
John Cole
I never said anything of the sort. I do think that simply putting forwards handfulls of anti-war Democratic veterans in conservative leaning districts would be kinda pointless. Furthermore, I don’t think supporting Bush’s policies and supporting the war in the Iraq are the same thing.
Second, I don’t assume anything of the sort. Since you seem to be incapable of EVER understanding anything I write, and instead make up your own versions of what I have said, replete with Pajama Media insults, I am beginning to think you are a moron.
Being lectured for a partisan mindset by Paul Lukasiak. Too f-ing funny. How are Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes?
Pooh
One would think that it would be harder to make the “why do you hate America?” bit stick on a recently returned veteran. So that might make these 36 hearties more electable, but there needs to be more there there.
DougJ
Now you really are quoting me. That was one of my money lines when I was honing my trolling technique on the (now gone) NYT fora.
Jorge
John,
You seem to be assuming that the majority of these Iraq war veterans will support the Iraq war. However, as was the case with Hackett, it is quite possible that these folks do not support the rational or management of the war. They might also be Murtha’s who intially supported the war and now think that we need to get the heck out of Iraq ASAP. There is a long way you can travel on the left between Cindy Sheehan and Joe Lieberman.
Considering the way that independent voters have changed their opinions on the war the GOP would be very, very vulnerable to these types of candidates. Especially in the purple districts of supposedly red states. Let’s not forget that Kerry was one show of gumption away from winning the Presidency and Mel Martinez barely won here in Florida by the hair of a Sami Al Arian smear ad against Betty Castor.
Soldiers running on a pro-working class, anti-corruption, saw the mess Bush made of Iraq policy, DC outsider agenda will have all the talking points they need.
John Cole
No, I am not. a Democratic Iraq veteran running on a platform like you described, plus as a messagestating they think the war has been mismanaged or been ineptly handled would seem to resonate, especially in the moderate conservative districts they are probably runbning in.
Sorry for stealing your material. After the ten or so snide PJ comments today from P. Lukasiak, I am a little punchy.
Pooh
Jorge,
You bring up an interesting point. Given those givens, could we see vulnerable GOPers making conscious and high-profile efforts to distance themselves from the WH in the next year? How might this play out in the PATRIOT/NSA/Alito/Bolton matters?
p.lukasiak
John writes:
except here is how John described these vet candidates in the post to which I was referring…
sometimes you just make things too easy, John.
John, your recent post on Hillary was a perfect example of how clueless you are about Democratic politics. Being up against an anti-war Democrat in the primaries is going to hurt Hillary, not help her, because it will energize the anti-war base of the Democrat party against HER, and right after the 2006 election the jockeying for position for the Democratic nomination starts—and Hillary will be the LAST choice of party activists.
Being lectured for a partisan mindset by Paul Lukasiak. Too f-ing funny. How are Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes?
Mary’s fine — as of last September, when I finally actually MET her for the first time. Burkett, I have no idea how he is. Never talked to him. Don’t know him — indeed, the closest contact we ever had was a rather public spat on Democrats.com about my research (plug http://www.glcq.com ).
Of course, these kinds of facts don’t matter to John…..
Pooh
p.luk, wtf? You’re a dick. (If that’s you Doug, you got me. Broke my cherry and everything…)
capelza
John Cole, don’t let a bunch of NeoCon SoCon, Con, Con whatever carpetbaggers take away from you what is part of you. You and others like you are still the real conservatives, those people have just stolen the name. I’m hoping that you all can get your party back.
I hope to god that if any “Swiftboating” does start on these candidates that THIS time, they stand up and tell the “swiftboaters” to go fuck themselves. It might help that the media does not seem so enthralled by the Bush Admin right now. And I have this fantasy that at some point, we’ll get to that “Have You No Sense of Decency?” moment we occassionally have in this country. Might even be able to discuss real issues…nah, but a girl can dream! :)
p.lukasiak
p.luk, wtf? You’re a dick
Pooh…allow me to quote our host.
“Fuck you”
John Cole
Paul- I very seriously doubt that the strategy behind fighting Democrats is to put 36 vehemently anti-war Democrats in races in conservative leaning districts and hoping they win because they are, well, veterans. I am willing to bet Jorge is closer to the mark than you are.
Second, as to Hillary. Opposition from the anti-war left may hurt Hillary slightly in the Senate primary, but it helps her as to her future political ambitions for higher office, something I think we all agree she has.
That was an insult, and I am not really worried about the factual basis of the remark. As someone who has spent the entire day attacking me, you would think you would understand what an insult is (and as all of your insults have shown, there need be no factual basis).
Pooh
Where was that greasemonkey script again Dem?
Jorge
An interesting side note – My father-in-law is a mulit-generational Georgian and still lives on land in the country that was owned by his grandparents. He came up southern Democrat, was a county commissioner for two decades as a Dem but began turning away from the party during the Clinton years. As of last year, he was saying the Democrats had become too extreme and that the party had left him behind.
Well, since then he’s realized that from the pre-war Intelligence to today Bush Iraq policy has been a mess, lost his job with the state government to “restructuring”, has become sickened by the corruption of the Delays and has seen the mess a Republican governor has made of his state. Last week he told me that he is supporting the Dem for Georgia governor and that he might never vote Republican again.
Now, this is purely anecdotal and I’m sure loosing his job has greatly influenced his thinking. But it was interesting to see how quickly one of these souther Democrat Baptist remembered what he liked about the Dems after living with the reality of a Reublican dominated America.
I really do think that if the right wants to hold on to that slim 51% majority they are going to have to acknowledge that those southern Democrats they siphoned off have very deep, very progressive tendencies that have nothing to do with the civil war and have alot to do with poverty and many of the opportunities that have come their way because of government programs ranging from medicare to social security to unemployment benefits. Beating the abortion drum won’t ring anywhere as loud once Bush puts another supreme court justice on the bench.
DougJ
All right — Paul and John, get a room.
Let’s talk about my favorite topic, the Abramoff scandal.
p.lukasiak
Paul- I very seriously doubt that the strategy behind fighting Democrats is to put 36 vehemently anti-war Democrats in races in conservative leaning districts and hoping they win because they are, well, veterans. I am willing to bet Jorge is closer to the mark than you are.
John, the vets aren’t being “put” anywhere… people like Duckworth (and Hackett before her) are running in otherwise reliably Republican districts for one reason — presenting a veteran who is also a critic of Bush’s approach to the war makes the voters THINK about the war. Why the hell do you think that Hackett came so close?
These vets are being recruited because they change the dynamic of every race they are in — the GOP can’t demonize vets as “anti-American” or “cowards” and get away with it with these kinds of candidates. And the minute people start to THINK about the issues, rather than just reacting to the usual GOP smear tactics, the Democrats pick up support.
except it doesn’t help her. it makes it almost impossible for her to win the Democratic nomination, and I don’t think there is much chance of her winning the GOP nomination either. So, if she’s not on a major party ticket, how does that help her aspirations for higher office?
One of us has had too much to drink then, because either I’m hallucinating the PJM logo and ads on your site, or you are hallucinating that they aren’t there.
That’s the factual basis of my criticism, John — The fact that you are willing to be a whore for an outfit that promotes some of the most hateful and reactionary bloggers out there.
p.lukasiak
My father-in-law is a mulit-generational Georgian and still lives on land in the country that was owned by his grandparents. He came up southern Democrat, was a county commissioner for two decades as a Dem but began turning away from the party during the Clinton years. As of last year, he was saying the Democrats had become too extreme and that the party had left him behind.
what is most interesting (to me at least) is that during the Clinton years the Democrats actually moved to the center.
Which of course suggests that your father-in-law was, at best, heavily influenced by his peers who were buying into the GOP’s (essentially racist) southern strategy. Because those of us on the left KNOW that the party abandoned us, and started listening to the DLC and its advice of downplaying the Democratic Party’s 30 year tradition of standing up for the rights of minorities.
(and I’m really not trying to be snide here….just remarking on the effectiveness of the GOP’s efforts to divide the nation during Clinton’s tenure.)
DougJ
I hope you’re right, but I think you’re wrong. Paul, all people like you and me are going to accomplish is giving Hillary a lot of “Sister Souljah moments” in 2008. I can live with that if it means keeping Frist or McCain or Guiliani out of the White House. As long as her running mate isn’t Joe Lieberman.
John Cole
Because it was an off-year election in which the Republican base stayed home and the Republicans ran an extremely unpopular candidate.
And still won.
If all you want to accomplish is get voters to “THINK about the war,” I am sure you will accomplish that. I don’t know how many races you will win with folks running the type of campaign you are advocating, particularly in the districts they are running in, but more power to you.
There is no factual basis to your claims, then, as I am not whoring for anyone. I was not beholden to the ads I ran from blogads, I am not beholden to pajamas media or the ads that run here. I simply chose a revenue stream that was more steady than the hit or miss of blogads. They get to use whatever I write, as does EVERYONE else on the web, and I simply run ads through a consortium rather than through blogads.
Hell, if you all want to pay me to take down the PJ ads, I am more than game. This is a business decision for me, and if you want to offer more money, knock yourself out. I will take it.
p.lukasiak
I hope you’re right, but I think you’re wrong. Paul, all people like you and me are going to accomplish is giving Hillary a lot of “Sister Souljah moments” in 2008.
Doug, first off, we are the mainstream at this point, in terms of our opposition to the war. There is no “sister souljah” moment to be had in repudiating those opposed to the war.
And, on a purely technical level, you have forgotten that Clinton’s “Sister Souljah” moment occurred in June, 1992 — at a point where he had the Democratic nomination wrapped up, and was positioning himself for the general election.
As I’ve said before, Hillary will be 2008 version of Joe Lieberman — the person who had high poll numbers until alternatives started campaigning in earnest.
Personally, I think Edwards is the best choice for the Dems… he’s not my first choice, but he’s a viable candidate for both the primaries and the general election.
demimondian
Heh. Pooh, here’s the greasemonkey script.
p.lukasiak
This is a business decision for me,
which is why I described you as a whore, John, and will continue to do so.
PJM exists to support a far-right wing ideology. Blog-ads had no ideology. You allied yourself for the money with a group that is advancing the ideas of malkin and other reactionaries.
That makes you a whore in my book. Whores are business-people too, y’know.
Davebo
Then either you’re bad at math (ie basic polling statistics) or confused about what makes those districts conservative (ie: they could give a fuck less about all those poor Iraqis you guys seem happy to break the bank on).
Welcome to Kansas John. But then, no one could ever claim you were, shall we say, familiar with the folks you associate with.
stickler
Our host is drinking, and so am I, so I’ll get this off my chest and refill my (homebrewed, Belgian golden ale) beer.
They shut their traps and got behind John Kerry in 2004. John Kerry, from Massachusetts. Now, I liked the guy somewhat, and even put a “Republicans for Kerry” sticker on my pickup. But he was hardly the bee’s knees for your average Oregon liberal. And for the undecided, he was after all from Boston. And his speech skills were not — ahem — Reaganesque.
No, John (Cole), the white-hot hatred that a majority of our citoyens have for George Bush the Lesser would lead to a heaping mound of votes for a feral yellow dog. Let alone an Iraq veteran who can speak and walk and has a “D” after his name.
Bruce in Alta California
I have it all. In CA-04 we have incumbent John Doolittle whose name has been mentioned in connection with both Abramoff and Delay. Nothing official yet but as this district is 5 to 3 Republican/Democrat, there is a revolt brewing. A veteran from each party is running for the position in 2006.
Veteran Mike Holmes will challenge Doolittle in the Republican Primary. http://www.holmesforcongress.net/
Veteran Charles Brown is one of two candidates (so far) for the Democratic nomination. http://www.brown4congress.org/
As California now has open primaries, spoilers like me (Green Party) can vote for any candidate in the primary. Oh the dilemma, I will vote against Doolittle, do I vote for Holmes in the primary and hope Brown wins on the Dem side? Or do I vote for Brown in the primary and hope the revolt works. I really want both candidates to win their primary election.
Now, before you throw “green” tomatoes, I am disappointed with both major parties and thus with California open primaries opted for a third party. A difficult choice between the Greens and Libertarians. I agree with principles in both and have problems with both.
demimondian
Pooh, commenting on Jorge:
What I’m seeing in the purple part of Washington State is very much consistent with this. In particular, Dave Reichart (R-WA4), a first-term Republican in a changing district, has been moving away from the Bush administration on a variety of big issues recently — and the recent ANWR fiasco has hurt him badly.
John Cole
PJM exists to make money. If they don;t and they run through all their VC, they will cease to exist.
As to blogads having no ideology, that is absurd. Have you seen the “Advertise Liberally” consortium? or the “Buy the RIGHT Ads” conservative group I belonged to, and which was the source for virtually every blogad that ever appeared here? If anything , the circuit city and other ads running now are LESS ideological.
Someone offered to pay me a little more than I made off blogads to run their ads on my site. I agreed. That no more makes me a whore than it makes me a paid shill. It makes me an entrepeneur who has chosen to give up a little space on his personal website to make some money. Nothing wrong with that, or immoral, in any sense.
Joey
Christ on a cracker, John went to a better, more profitable advertising system. Who gives a damn? I’m pretty sure it was nothing other than a business decision, and had nothing to do with furthering Malkin’s agenda. Shut the fuck up about it already, and just be happy that a blogger like John can make a little bit of cash by giving us stuff to talk and read about.
tbrosz
First of all, it’s 36 veterans of Iraq AND the Gulf War, not 36 veterans of Iraq. I suspect most of the veterans mentioned are Gulf War, since a lot of the Iraq veterans tend to be a lot younger.
It would be worth doing some research into this.
Another news story here, and a blog commentary here
Bruce in Alta California
Hey John,
Quit defending your decision to take PJM money. Getting your message out is important and you do a great job of being “fair and balanced.” This tree-hugg’n librul respects your opinion, even when I disagree.
I am happy that you aired your grievance about Jane’s (FDL) rant but did not bite back. I happen to agree with Jane’s ariticle (mostly) except when I visit your blog, I can see that she is somewhat off the mark. Your actions are your best defense against her accusations.
Relax, take a deep breath. Pet the kitty.
p.lukasiak
John, do you understand the difference between a a “consortium” that targets ads to the most receptive audience, and a group like PJM, that exists solely to promote a far-right wing agenda?
The issue isn’t the content of the ads — the issue is how the money is used. And PJM money is being used to support the dissemination of far-right wing propaganda. That’s why it was created. That’s why a whole slew of respectable conservative bloggers wanted nothing to do with it — despite the fact that it offered them more money.
Earlier, you questioned whether you were still a conservative…. its a good question. Conservatives have principles. You apparently don’t — at least not principles that won’t be abandoned for thirty extra pieces of silver.
ppGaz
Your attempts to stir up churn with this kind of bait are getting more lame as time goes by. Why this is, I have no idea. And don’t care. But anyway ….
Kerry came relatively close to beating an incumbent president during a time of war, which is a near impossibility, and might have pulled it off with a few minor changes to strategy, or a little luck. Bush narrowly escaped defeat, and did his level imcompetant best during the campaign to snatch defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory.
Why the relentless assholes on the right treat 2004 as some kind of vindication of all their causes going back to 1974 is beyond me. Well, not really, it’s all part of the hubris and arrogance that are the hallmarks of the sorry potatohead period in our history.
Also, what is with the “I’m not sure what I am” thing? Is there a single social issue where you are not to the left of me? I haven’t seen it. You’re obviously an advocate of fiscal responsibility, but right now that’s a movement without a party. The pro-military thing isn’t really Republican except in the brochures. As near as I can tell the all-GOP gummint treats veterans like crap. Another cause without a party. You claim to be pro-war but have never mounted a coherent defense of the war, other than standing up for “staying the course” without really saying what you think that means or what it will take. Besides, that’s another cause that is going to be without a party before long, and the next party that drops it will be the one running the government in Iraq.
Anyway, we’re not getting paid enough out here to constantly be trying to figure out your politics and keep up your morale while you struggle with librophobia. I haven’t had a check all year, and now I can’t even tell if DougJ is writing your damned material.
How about a little respect for the commentary-working man out here?
demimondian
How does California get away with open primaries, Bruce? Here in Washington State, we lost ours. How open is yours: do you have to go in and get a one-party ballot, or what?
demimondian
Damned if I understand what this has to do with Democrats who are also veterans, but, hey, if this is where the conversation’s gone…fine by me.
Advertise Liberally and the RIGHT Ads were aggressively partisan, which meant that there was quite a bit of stuff which only a red-meat conservative or a blue-steak liberal would buy. They could afford to be; they were only going to show their campaigns on ike minded sites. PHM appears to be trying to target mainstream advertisers, who have a deep distaste for being associated with political bias of any stripe. That being the case, my guess is that the business office at PJM is trying to sell advertisers that they’ll draw in left-wing sites instead of just right-wing sites.
John Cole
They aren’t promoting any agenda that I have seen. If anything, one of the legitimate criticism of PJ is they haven’t been very good at promoting anything, much less themselves. I understand that just the though of LGF and Michelle Malkin gives you the vapors, truth be told, I am not a fan of the comments section at LGF and really have little to nothing in common with Malkin, and think she is over the top.
Let’s remember that you consider Ralph Nader to be right wing, just as a matter of perspective. Again, it was created to make money. Unless you have something other than a a paranoid fantasy to offer up, or some inner workings in the mind of Chernick who funded the operation, we’ll just file this latest under ‘wild-eyed accusations.’
And the insults keep a coming.
I knew you had another one in you, Lukasiak. I don’t know why you even bother coming here.
For the records, my principles would probably be best evidenced in my posts, not in my ads. Unless you thought the Larry The Cable Ad that ran on my site for a month was a declaration of principles.
For the record, you can pout your money where your mouth is- if you think my choosing a different revenue stream somehow emboldens ‘far right-wing ideology,’ you are more than welcome to buy out my contract. Then you can put up ads for every organic co-op run by transgendered Berkley residents, or ads for Code Pink, or ads selling Cindy Sheehan’s latest tome, or whatever you want and you deem acceptable.
And you know what? I will not change one political position because of your ads, just as I haven’t with PJ ads, and just as I did not because of the type of blogads that ran on my site.
Now bugger off.
srv
John, you may not be a whore, but PJM (or some sibling) is going to be around regardless of any “free” market success.
Rev. Moon and R. Mellon Scaife and all kept bankrolling projects like the Heritage Foundation for decades. I predict their peers will keep the wingnut blogs going for a long, long time, no matter what the business case is.
And they’ll always need confused conservatives like you, just like old media needs Buchanan, Will and Huffington.
demimondian
John, be fair. The thoughts of LGF and Michelle Malkin give me the vapors — and I’d be happy with HRC as a Dem presidential candidate. (Joe Lieberman, not so much.)
Pooh
I’m just wondering what P.luk is trying to accomplish here…
John Cole
I guess I am made of sterner stuff- I have been known to read the DU and read hundreds of DKos diaries, so maybe I am better prepared.
I don’t know, but he better start writing a letter to Verizon. They are now enabling Michelle Malkin’s hate speech and subsidizing my far right ideology.
Bruce in Alta California
It was a ballot initiative. In Califonia, if enough qualified signatures get on a ballot initiative, it makes the next ballot. That is why the folks with $$$$$ pay folks without $$$$$ to hang out in front of the grocery store to collect signatures.
We get one ballot with all candidates listed with their party affiliation.
The sad news is that one cannot “cross-over” to vote for a presidential or senatorial candidate in a primary. I had to change my party affiliation to hold my nose and vote for Kerry in the primary. The open primary applies to all candidates for partisan office, including Governor and other statewide offices, State Senate and Assembly, and U.S. House of Representatives. http://primary98.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/OpenPrimary.htm
The good thing (maybe) is that being the sole (I suspect) Green Party member in my precinct, I get invited to participate in every election as an election moniter
John Cole
PPGAZ- Surely I am not to the left of you on every social issue.
John Cole
Actually, that is pretty cool. I served as an election poll woirker for a couple of years.
p.lukasiak
They aren’t promoting any agenda that I have seen.
c’mon John, at least TRY to be credible in this discussion….
**********************
I’m just wondering what P.luk is trying to accomplish here…
I’m venting my frustration that someone like John, who frequently shows a glimmer of insight atypical of the average conservative blogger, is associating himself with PJM.
….and ya gotta give John major props for letting me do that, and I do so, even if I do still think he’s a whore.
ppGaz
I feel your pain. If you can name a social issue where you’re to the right of me, I’ll withdraw the assertion.
But you’ll have to swear that DougJ didn’t write the position statement.
p.lukasiak
I don’t know, but he better start writing a letter to Verizon. They are now enabling Michelle Malkin’s hate speech and subsidizing my far right ideology.
actually, i did it already. And your PJM ad has finally motivated me to switch to an internet-based phone carrier. So far it looks like I’m going with Vonage… but before I switch I want to make sure they aren’t advertizing on PJM… do you happen to know?
ppGaz
It looks like a simple business decision. Isn’t there something important to get riled up about? Because that ain’t it.
Bruce in Alta California
My job and absentee ballots make it difficult to perform that task. I am looking forward to the time when I can get more involved.
p.lukasiak
It looks like a simple business decision. Isn’t there something important to get riled up about? Because that ain’t it.
ppgaz… check out John’s post about chemical plants, and why they present really inviting targets to terrorists.
John thinks that businesses would want to protect themselves from the risk of being targeted by “securing” their plants.
But they don’t. And the reason why they don’t is a “simple business decision.”
demimondian
Paul — if Vonage isn’t advertising with PGM yet, they will be soon. Vonage intentionally advertises everywhere; they are currently using a revenue model in which they pay the costs of acquiring their previous batch of subscribers with their next batch of subscribers.
demimondian
I guess you are — the thought of even fives of dKos diaries gives me the vapors, too.
Then again, I’m the one whose chosen name means “whore”. So, perhaps, you’re just made of sterner stuff about some things.
dorkafork
Excuse me if someone already mentioned this, but wouldn’t you naturally have more anti-war veterans available to run for office? It seems like the natural course of action for a pro-war veteran would be to re-enlist and go back to Iraq.
Bruce in Alta California
ppGaz
Soulmate? Socially liberal and fiscally conservative? Protect the environment, help the helpless and balance the budget?
Whewwwwwwww
ppGaz
Well, that’s a clever turn of rhetoric, but grossly misleading. Big-money ethical decisions at the life and death level in corporate boardrooms is not a simple subject at all.
Whereas one guy’s decision to hook up with what amounts to an ad agency for blogs is hardly on the same scale.
Your comparison is inapt, and since I am tired and going to bed, I only have time to sentence you to death for it. Sorry, you probably deserve to live, but life is not always fair. Get your affairs in order, you’re toast.
ppGaz
I’m too tired to figger it .. is that a question, or a gasp?
Anyway, yes, that’s me in a nutshell. Except for the balance the budget part. Governments must borrow judiciously. And uniformly good and available health care is a right in this day and age, not a privilege, so figure out a way to provide it, please.
demimondian
Why? Jeebus God Almighty, just because you support something doesn’t mean you want to go back and do it again, man! By parallel extension, it would seem like the natural course of action for a pro-war blogger would be to go and enlist, which would have taken all the fun out of Operation Yellow Elephant.
ghost of p.lukasiak
Your comparison is inapt, and since I am tired and going to bed, I only have time to sentence you to death for it. Sorry, you probably deserve to live, but life is not always fair. Get your affairs in order, you’re toast.
its not inapt. The bottom line in both cases is “the bottom line.”
But I’m dead. What do I know.
Pooh
I think we may have hit upon a possible ‘Swiftie’ issue, at least for Iraq vets – “If you really cared, why didn’t you go back?”
(“What’s the matter Col. Sanders? Chicken?”)
Bruce in Alta California
Two problems with assumptions in your theorom.
1) Vets that do not Re-up are anti-war
2) Vets that do Re-up are pro-war.
You assume all these vets are not career military or have not been long-term reserves, etc. Bad assumption. Do you thing these folks are ALL 20-30 somethings?
I want neither a pro-war vet nor an anti-war vet. I want a vet that has been there, done that and knows the horrors of war. A vet that will weigh the the projected gains and possible losses when the vote is cast.
Kool-aide drinkers from either party need not apply
Perry Como
That’s the problem. The “veterans” that are running for office are the people that want to cut and run. They are anti-win-the-War-against-Terrorism-ists and couldn’t stay the course, so they decided to give in to the terrorists and support the Democrats.
We need to stay the course until freedom is spread. We will defeat the Islamists and their hateful ideology of anyone who disagrees with what they believe. The Middle East will accept democracy, even if a bayonet demands it.
Paul L.
What Tim F. seems to forget is that the Swift Boat Vets are veterans too.
I guess that in Tim F’s. opinion you should only listen to veterans on the democrats side.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Yes, I can see the ads now:
“Sure, I was helping Iraq achieve democracy, oust a brutal dictator/terrorism sponsor and defend the US. And my party’s kind and inspiring words of “We Can’t Win” and “illegal, immoral war for oil to enrich Halliburton” really helped me pull through those tough times. And now that I’m home, elect me so that I can raise taxes, increase govt. spending, defang our military, give terrorists more legal rights, open our borders wider well as help spread the message that America is almost as great a Country as Sweden…..”
36 Iraq vets running for office on the D ticket. Hmm, I’m thinking: what if the Buffalo Bills had been to the Super Bowl 36 times? I mean, losing is kinda like winning, right?
searp
My nephew is a pro-war soldier that figured one hitch in Mosul was enough. You can be pro-war and still figure one hitch was more than 99% of the country gave, and you’d be right.
I don’t consider him an authority on anything other than what Iraq was like for him. We certainly disagree on Iraq policy, but he’d be the first to admit that he doesn’t know much about it. He cares because he and his buddies serve/served there and sacrificed there.
My point is only being a veteran makes you an authority on serving, which is valuable in wartime but not the whole enchilada.
I agree with John Cole – they need to have something more than this. However, it does help inoculate them from the inevitable charges of being soft on terrorism, and I assume that is why there are recruited.
John S.
I think you are missing the bigger picture. I would wager that Tim’s opinion – much like mine – is that you should only listen to people who aren’t completely dishonest and 100% full of shit. That pretty much puts the Swift Boat ilk in an advocacy class by themselves, somewhere below a green fairy that I know for sure I am hallucinating but probably slightly above a rock.
Actually, I would sooner listen to a rock.
DougJ
Yes, that really is an issue John needs to address. What does “staying the course” mean? What does “victory” mean? What does “plan” mean?
DougJ
Isn’t that a bit biases of you? Shouldn’t you listen to both sides? Shouldn’t we all adopt the the New York Time approach and say things like
“While critics of the flat earth model claim that scientific evidence strongly suggests that the earth is an oblate spheroid, proponents of the model assert that this evidence in inconclusive. Many of them point to the fact that the earth does not seem to be a perfect sphere as evidence that is most likely completely flat. ‘The Lord embodies perfection — he wouldn’t make the earth nearly round, he’d make it perfectly round or perfectly flat,’ said Dr. John Wayne Wallace of the Flat Earth Institute, a privately funded research institute with a budget of over $300 million a year. Recently, the president himself has waded into this controversey by suggesting that schools should teach ‘both sides’ of the debate. ‘Until we have sound science one way or the other, we shouldn’t prejudge’, said White House spokesman Dan Bartlett.”
Paul L.
Here is partial list of people who are completely dishonest and 100% full of shit.
Code Pink
Cindy Sheeham
Michael Moore
Joe Wilson
The Clintons (Bill and Hil)
Howard Dean
Moveon.org
John Muthra
Ronnie Earle
There is a equal amount of proof for the following:
George W Bush got his daddy to pull string to get him in the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
One of John F. Kerry’s Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.
But the swiftvets are full of shit?
However, Bush has released his military records to the public and Kerry has not.
And what about the false “war crimes” charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere?
CaseyL
The Swiftboat smear worked because the MSM gave them free airtime and unquestioningly accepted their agenda – AND because Kerry had some idiotic patrician notion of not dignifying their attacks with a suitable response.
Kerry is one of too many Democrats who lost whatever fire in the belly they ever had. If we take back Congress, and the WH, it’ll be thanks to a mostly new crop of Democrats – throwbacks to the Fightin’ Dems of the 60s-70s. If we don’t, it’ll be because we didn’t draft enough of them.
DougJ
Paul L — you seem like a flat earther to me.
BumperStickerist
In the interest of completeness any charge of the evil, soulless GOoPers ‘Swiftboating’ of the 36 Democratic Veterans should be restricted to their critique of junior officers who spent less than 90 days in theater
* were awarded multiple purple hearts and were decorated repeatedly for bravery
* upon their return from action, publicly proclaimed that atrocities occured by other soldiers.
* joined anti-war organizations
* testified before Congress about atrocities
* provided several accounts of his own service record which do not reconcile with each other.
——————————–
Given a choice between two candidates who were otherwise pretty close on issues, I’d vote for the person with recent military service.
However, if the Democrats are going to run Iraq veteran candidates with a background similar to Jimmy Massey’s, then they’ll lose 36 of those 36 races.
DougJ
The flat earthers are out in force today.
Paul L.
You seem like someone who can not debate and resorts to name-calling.
DougJ
Paul L, how could I debate someone who put up that whack job enemy lists of liars?
Do you realize what a joke you are?
If George Bush said the earth was flat, you would go along with it, say there was no sound science to support it, claim that Howard Dean was too shrill in his claims that it was round.
People like you are the reason I can go around posting things on right-wing sites about TWOC — the war on Christmas — and not have people know I’m making fun of them.
You’re a parody of yourself.
Sojourner
Yes but they’ve spent the last 30 years selling out their principles and shaming themselves and other veterans.
Hopefully, the Iraqi vets won’t do the same thing. Hackett certainly appears to be a moral guy, unlike the Swift Boat whores.
OCSteve
That is exactly right. Serving a hitch, even a combat tour, does not give you some magic insight into foreign policy. You are familiar with one very small piece of the puzzle – your squad’s duties. Hell you don’t tend to even know (or necessarily care) what another company in the same battalion does day to day. To think otherwise is like saying the guy that worked 4 years in the mail room is now qualified to be CEO of the company.
With that said, all other things being equal, I would tend to vote for the veteran. Just as with job candidates – if 2 candidates are equally qualified but 1 has a DD-214, he gets the job. But if he’s not qualified for the job, the other guy gets it. If you have an honorable discharge, that tells me a few things about your character. Character counts to be sure – but it is not the primary factor. In a tie it is a deciding factor – but if you are not qualified to begin with – sorry.
From the linked article:
Right. I’ve fired an M16 therefore I am a foreign affairs expert.
So now it’s not just foreign affairs, but the full spectrum of public policy. What pure BS.
I don’t think either side would be very smart to promote candidates solely on the basis of their service. And for you Democrats here – I thought military service was totally unnecessary to run for office? Isn’t it now a little bit hypocritical to want to use these vets because they disagree with some aspects of the war?
ppGaz
You appear to be yet another failed blogger buzzing around BJ like a fly circling a balogna sandwich.
Of all the blog failures this place has attracted, yours is the worst of the lot.
I’m putting together an award for that. Your people will be hearing from my people.
Really, I’m serious. Your blog is awful. Have you considered Bonzai as a hobby?
I’m just trying to be helpful
Bob In Pacifica
Paul L, maybe where you were in Vietnam the American soldiers acted with utmoost decorum. Please spare us the outrage over Kerry’s 1971 comments. AMerican soldiers raped Vietnamese women. They raped Okinawan women. In fact, rape and soldiers of any nationality seem to go together like, uh, “rape and pillage.” Removing body parts for souvenirs is a time-honored practice. A guy in my company came back from Nam with a collection of fingers, and if he inherited his dad’s bar in New Mexico he’s probably got them in a box under the stick to show off at appropriate times.
War is the most awful invention of human culture. Men are organized into acting like beasts in order to satisfy the greed of a profiteer far away from the action.
It’s naive to believe that war crimes don’t happen. But your naivete about war crimes is nothing compared to your apparent naivete about war.
It’s bad.
John S.
Did I mention I have allegiance to any of them? No? Then what the fuck are talking about?
Yes, they are. Their half-cooked theories have been discredited, and I’m not about to re-open that irrelevant debate.
You just officially drove the last nail in your coffin of irrelevance. Kerry allowed the release of his records in June. Interestingly, the documents show even further how completely full of shit the SBVT were. But I guess your rightwing puppetmasters never sent you that memo.
Bruce Moomaw
Entirely correct — but irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the GOP has gotten enormous political mileage out of the general idea that “Democrats are only opposed to the Iraq War (or Bush’s handling of it) because they’re irrational keenjerk doves who are opposed to ALL wars, however necessary”. War veterans running as Democratic candidates blow that particular meme to kingdom come, which is precisely why the GOP is so terrified of them politically.
Bruce Moomaw
Footnote to the previous: I was responding to OC Steve.
Bruce Moomaw
By the way, the line that Kerry got that Purple Heart by very slightly wounding himself was quickly blown to bits by multiple official witnesses — and, as I noted earlier, a lot of the Swifties (including Admiral Hoffman, previously described by conservative writer Chris Caldwell as a “war criminal”) were quickly proven during the campaign to have actually said flowery things about Kerry’s wartime conduct at the time, even before Kerry belatedly released his records and showed them doing so in more detail.
What has not been satisfactorily settled is the “Christmas In Cambodia” business, in which it seems certain that Kerry made a false statement in that Op-Ed column of his. However, one observer has suggested that it may have been an honestly false memory of his — the column describes South Vietnamese troops celebrating by shooting off guns, which according to said writer is something the Vietnamese did to celebrate not Christmas but Tet, during which Kerry very well COULD have been illegally in Cambodia. This issue remains unresolved — and as I say, given Kerry’s weird reluctance to release his records during the campaign, it’s possible that there is some other dirt in there somewhere.
ppGaz
Please be seated. Republicans will now lecture on the subject of “The Full Spectrum of Public Policy.”
In our first session, the spuds will explain their policy successes in the year 2005. Attendees are advised to bring a book or crossword puzzle …..
Paul L.
That list was illustrating a point that anyone can dismiss someone or a group by saying they “are completely dishonest and 100% full of shit” or calling them a flat-earther. You have to convince me.
Must have flew over your head.
“If George Bush said the earth was flat, you would go along with it”
I can think for myself and disagree with George W. Bush on a number of things.
1) Gun control and the AWB renewal.
2) Campaign finance “reform”.
3) The Swiftvets.
4) Increased Government Spending.
5) Steel Tariffs.
However, the Democrats are not supplying anything better.
ppGaz
Demonstration to follow?
Steve S
I gotta respond to p.lukasiak…
you mean fucking pandering without doing anything. Clinton was *LOVED* by the black community. Why? Because he delivered the goods.
You need to seriously step back and rethink your position on this. If you think the party can continue to carry minority votes by using race baiting, but not delivering the goods… then you are no different than the Republicans with their abortion crap.
Steve S
Paul L. – Without people like you, DougJ could never pull off his little stunts. People would think he was being ridiculous.
Thank you for that.
That being said, you are offering nothing intelligent to any debate. You just spew partisan crap.
OCSteve
I grok what you are saying, but these guys (from the article) don’t seem to be opposed to the war.
Hell, I’m concerned about what appears to be a solid plan for the war. I don’t see how that is going to fly with the anti-war base.
I’d be real interested to see a breakdown of how many are GW1 vets vs. new vets. The spokesmen at least are older vets. I think that matters because it will be real tough for someone who enlisted post 9/11 to now say they are against the war. They can say they are concerned with the handling of the war, but so are most people.
Sorry – I don’t think you are going to pick up 36 seats this way. Actually I think it could backfire big time. But I can’t wait to see Democrats making the case that military service better qualifies one to hold office. That is going to make my day :)
ppGaz
That’s what we live for.
Paul L.
Where can I download a copy for myself or view them on a website? He released his records to only to friendly newspapers. But I guess your lefttwing puppetmasters never sent you that memo.
Kerry Releases Records
Here is Swift Boat Veteran For Truth John O’Neill comment from the link
We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated [sic] military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry’s Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry’s Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.
OCSteve
My point was that a military background is not a credential “for leadership across the full spectrum of public policy”. Yours is??? Where did I say I know a damned thing about public policy or that Republicans have had a year chock full of policy successes? Frankly, I am glad they have not.
Sojourner
You’re listening to that lying sack of shit John O’Neill?
ROFLMAO!!! You really do need to start thinking for yourself or you need to stop posting on public blogs. How embarassing to admit that you pay any attention to the totally discredited O’Neill. The guy who dishonored the military in order to kiss Republican ass.
But thanks for the laugh. I know I shouldn’t laugh at other people’s stupidity but I just can’t stop myself.
Sorry!
Paul L.
Of course if I do not think as you do, I am dittohead robot getting my orders from Karl Rove. I should get them from the New York Times as the enlightened do.
I just use the blog for links I find interesting. It is mine and I can do whatever I want with it. I could care less who reads it.
Here is the reason I started.
Why this Blog was started.
“This Blog was started in response to Archduke John McCain and Duke Russ Feingold attack on Free Speech Campaign finance regulation (It’s not reform).
I may not be a legitimate online journalist but Archduke John McCain and Duke Russ Feingold can Go f*** themselves if they think they can stop me from exercising my first amendment rights.”
Maybe someday I’ll use it from something else. Like having polls on what titles to assign various moonbats.
Lord ppGaz
Sojourner
And how does McCain-Feingold shut down your first amendment rights? Which, strangely enough, you appear to be freely doing as we speak.
Jimmie
I sincerely hope that not a single one of those candidates take the advice offered to them here. For that matter, they’d be much better off not taking Kos’ campaigning advice either. His track record in backing various candidates is simply Shrum-like.
ppGaz
Stop puffing yourself up. Your blog just sucks. There’s no need to analyze why it sucks. If you ate something that tasted like crap, would you ask for the recipe? If not, then you can appreciate my position.
If you get my drift, which I am sure that even you can do.
John S.
Paul L.-
Thaks for the filling the void of dishonest sacks of shit left vacant by some of our recently absentee commenters. First you state that Kerry never released his records, then when that statement is proven to be false, you try to shift gears by saying he didn’t release them ‘enough’:
There was an entire list of PDFs posted on Kerry’s own website, and this website has a pretty hefty list of links to his military records too.
So now that your latest epiphany has also been proven to be complete bullshit, what will you throw at us for an encore? Or can we safely assume that you will crawl back into your coffin of irrelevance and stop haunting this thread?
demimondian
Ah, the Court giveth, and the Court taketh away.
You do realize that it was a Supreme Court decision which recognized political contributions a First Amendment right? The Court struck down a law which restricted the rights of people to contribute to political candidates in _Buckley v. Valeo_. (Interestingly, one of Buckley’s co-plaintiffs was Eugene McCarthy. Buckley, like his brother, was a conservative republican. McCarthy…wasn’t.) So, when the court carves out a right, why does it surprise you that the same court doesn’t see that right as absolute?
Paul L.
Your criticisms are noted and ignored. Well to do honest not even noted.
Of course, I await your blog to show me how a blog does not suck.
Baron ppGaz.
ppGaz
That may well be the lamest retort I have ever seen.
My staff is vetting it now, but I’m sure it’s the winner.
Hold on ……….
….. hmm, Lolita is on ….. Mason, Lyon, and Winters … fabulous cast ….
Okay, it’s official. That is the lamest retort ever in the history of the Internets.
So, you made some history today. Good for you!
Jorge
Wow – is 2004 and four again? Are we really debating the swifboat thing?
I am curious about someone saying something akin to, “democrats say that military service doesn’t matter.”
First, as I mentioned before, there is a heck of a spectrum that you can travel as a Democrat. Heck, part of the reason we haven’t done so well recently is because we haven’t been unified ideologically or politically.
As far as whether military service matters or not – of course, that determination is fairly worthless. FDR never served and we did all right in WWII and Grant served plenty and was a terrible drunk of a POTUS. For me what matters is a POTUS’ views on war and his own personal choices about service. Do they see war as an absolute last result in order to protect the nation or do they see it as reliable tool with great fringe benefits? Also, is there congruence between their choice to serve as a young person in a war with their decisions about war as POTUS?
It bothers me to see our nation being led into an elective war by a group of folks that actively sought to avoid fighting in an elective war. It smacks of cowardice. Not cowardice because they avoided serving – but cowardice because they avoided serving in the same kind of war that they are now asking others to fight.
Of course, this is a very personal opinion that is informed by my view on war in general, this war in particular and our current leadership. I’m sure that folks who have a higher regard for POTUS and VPOTUS or believe that war does not necessarily need to be a last resort in order to be justified will feel otherwise. And I’m not really sure that we are going to be able to bridge the gaps between these conflicting viewpoints.
ppGaz
Excellent post. My only comment would be that war as “not necessarily …. a last resort” is not morally defensible in my view. Except as a mercenary option, for people who just want to fight wars. But as a matter of national policy, I think it’s treasonous.
John S.
No debate, really. Just some zagnut named Paul L. attempting to create one. He would be wise to note that actual debates are not won by flat-out lying to make your point, though. Unless you are in the government, of course.
Barry
(sorry if this was replied to – I’m skipping to the end of the thread to post this reply)
Bruce Moomaw Says:
“I remain puzzled by John Kerry’s feeble response to his SwiftBoating, which can only be ascribed either to the fact that he was a dumb-ass (which is entirely plausible) or that there really WAS some kind of dirt to be found somewhere in his service records had he released them.”
Well, keeping damaging things in his records secret wouldn’t have helped him one bit, because the adminstration was being run by people who didn’t respect limits to their powers. If there had been anything really damaging in his records, do you suppose that the Bush administration (and it’s many right-wing, officer supporters) wouldn’t have leaked it?
I think that it comes down to the fact that Kerry had spent too many years in the Senate, where (until recently), he had to work well with political *opponents*. When he was facing a political *enemy*, he didn’t really understand that difference.
Paul L.
John S.
Thank you for posting something that refutes what I say.
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp links to Kerry’s site for his documents. So it does not have his records. I got 404s and I can not find them on Kerry’s site. But I did look too hard. All I got was this http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
Since you see no need for extra records from Kerry.
Using that standard, since George W. Bush got a honorable discharge, there was not need to look at Bush’s record to determine if he was AWOL? Agree?
So now that your latest epiphany has also been proven to be complete bullshit
Opps, you got some on yourself.
Sojourner
Read the links.
An Open Letter To The United States Senate
“Your legislation and the accompanying lawsuit that forced the FEC to regulate Internet political speech threaten all of that. If my links to political sites such as Georgewbush.com and Johnkerry.com counted as contributions and I was forced to accept responsibility for the cash value that the FEC designated to them”
Can you tell me how O’Neill was discredited before I take your word for it.
BYW, Why hasn’t Kerry sued the Swiftvets for Libel?
ppGaz
Enjoy this lame retort.
You have a staff. Are they going to help you on your blog? Does that make you the next Wonkette?
ppGaz
Excellent point.
After seeing the cutthroat nature of Bushco politics in 2000, wrt McCain, for example, Kerry was forewarned, though. He foolishly believed that having his boat buddies on the podium with him innoculated him against Bushco. He was dead wrong. Bushco thought nothing of savaging John McCain. And by that I mean … nothing. Buscho thinks nothing of anything that does not directly serve their interests. McCain’s Black Baby will help us win? Run it.
Trash Joe Wilson at the risk of damaging a CIA agent? Run it, fuck ’em. That’s the Rove way.
That’s why we have a war in Iraq now. Questionable WMD threat? Fuck it. Anybody who speaks against us will be labeled a traitor. With us, or against us, baby.
Barry
PaulL, the obvious reasons that Kerry didn’t sue the Swift Boat Liars are:
1) It’s really hard to win a libel lawsuit if one is a public figure.
2) The same odd refusal to take them seriously during the election campaign.
The first one is so basic and obvious that anybody who’s not a fool knows that.
“Since you see no need for extra records from Kerry.
Using that standard, since George W. Bush got a honorable discharge, there was not need to look at Bush’s record to determine if he was AWOL? Agree?”
Of course not, because there exists documentation ***from that time*** of Bush’s dereliction of duty. As opposed to commanders who praised him during his tour of duty later dissing him, once the political situation changed. Not a subtle difference, for anybody who’s old enough to drive.
Pooh
Shorter Swifties: I was for Kerry before I was against him?
John S.
Paul L.-
You have got to be the biggest ass I have seen grace this blog in a long time. Dead links? ON THE INTERNET?!? Perish the thought.
Listen, if you don’t know how to use Google, just say so. Otherwise, you can use this link to see the same enormous list of links to PDFs of Kerry’s military records. And don’t fret – I checked them for you so I don’t have to listen to you whine.
Regardless, you are still a lying sack of shit for these gems:
Oops! Too bad he did, which you admit while contradicting yourself by saying:
So I guess your new backpeddle is that if they aren’t on Kerry’s site, they don’t exist!
Yet another epiphany by Paul L. turns out to be bullshit. Big surprise, that. Seriously though, don’t you get tired of looking like a fool?
Birkel
Veterans can make good candidates. But a look through history shows fewer generals than statesmen elected POTUS, for example. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower were also big wigs involved in the Big Wars of their time. Sure, a few pics of soldiers in their dress uniforms will pique the interest of many voters. But there has to be much more substance there than simply a record of military service. After all, literally tens of millions of Americans have served, and most of them remember both the good and the bad about their young LTs and their grizzled NCOs.
It’s another sign that Dems believe the charicature of the “fly-over” states that the Southern/Midwestern/Mountain West rubes will simply fall in line behind any man in uniform with medals for service in a shooting war. IMHO, of course.
And the success of Dems implementing this strategy will be overwhelmed by perceptions of the economy, gas prices, success in the GWOT and success in Iraq. But hey, it’s just nice to see Dems with, you know, an actual strategy beyond hatred of Bush. Kinda refreshing as I mull the thought.
Paul L.
Barry, you forgot reason 3 from the link
“some defendants may quite relish the opportunity to begin discovery on the merits, being delighted to finally have an opportunity to have subpoena power, oaths, and penalties of perjury to help them finally dig out the truth.”
So the Kerry’s campaign “threat” to sue the Swiftboats Vets was just hot air?
NYPost gossips about possible Kerry defamation lawsuit against SwiftVets
And ppGaz, we know that the democrats would never use cutthroat tactics.
Paul L.
John S. Check out the bold part:
However, Bush has released his military records to the public and Kerry has not.
But you are right, so I will change it for you.
However, Bush has released all of his military records to the public and Kerry has not.
Happy now?
You posted links to Kerry’s records and it is my fault that the links are dead?
Strange that the records were removed from Kerry’s web site.
ppGaz
You’re flailing now.
Your silly blast isn’t even in the ballpark of my topic. Irrelevant and immaterial, mister Three Visits a Day to His Blog Non Sequitur Champ.
Bushco didn’t use his cutthroat tactics against Democrats in my example, he used them against a fellow Republican and former Prisoner of War, a guy who served while GW was sucking down beers at the Gear Down Tavern outside the Air Force base when he was supposed to be flying.
Go ahead, puff up the weasly little prick, make our day.
John S.
Of course I’m right. When you make such a glaringly fals statement, it’s easy to prove it wrong. And your little bolding trick is meritless, as it doesn’t change your lie one bit.
Happy? That you keep lying and squirming to cover your ass? The only one this seems to make happy is you. What records of Kerry’s that are PUBLICLY POSTED HERE are missing, huh? So yet again, you make specious claims that you are unable to back up.
No, it is your fault for stating that dead links = non-existent documents. And it is also your fault that you are too stupid to do your own research before making wild claims.
Nothing strange about it. The man isn’t running for President anymore and there are obviously enough other places that are posting the same damn information. But don’t let that stop you from donning your tinfoil hat and conjuring up another fabricated fairytale.
p.lukasiak
There is a equal amount of proof for the following:
George W Bush got his daddy to pull string to get him in the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
Although there is no evidence that specifically ties GHW Bush to the string-pulling that got Bush into the Guard, enough people are on the record that strings were pulled (that, plus the fact that there were waiting lists for the Guard at the Time) make it clear that strings were pulled.
And there is incontrovertible proof that Bush was AWOL — here’s a clue. Bush’s superior officers in Texas were not empowered to ignore the dereliction of duty that is detailed in the records that have been released.
In other words, no one in the Texas Guard had the authority to give Bush “leave” to not do any training for five straight months (and the records prove that NONE of the training that was required in those months was ever “made up”), nor did they have the authority to allow Bush to not perform the training that was required of him as a pilot (Bush remained classified as a pilot the entire time he was in the Guard — Air Force regulations required that if someone is classified as a pilot, they have to do the training required of a pilot.)
Paul L.
John S. Says: I clarified my statement with the “all of”. It am not squirming to cover my ass.
I knew that various military records that he had selected to release were on his web site during the election.
But you said here they are and I followed the link and found nothing. Now you are squirming to cover your ass. A simple “sorry not there anymore try here” would have worked.
As for a tinfoil hat, can I borrow one from you or ppGaz?
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Paul L., don’t trouble yourself here. Most of these commenters look at “Kerry/Edwards A Stronger America” bumper stickers and don’t bust out laughing. I mean, if “Kerry/Edwards A Stronger America” isn’t funny then I don’t know what is.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Oh, and as for Kerry’s military and other records: I like the part at the end where it says “Unsuccessfully ran for President in 2004.”
Didn’t Kerry’s release all his records after the election, you know, especially the part that stated that he got lower grades than Bush did at Yale?
The R’s don’t need to Swiftboat any more Dems. Murtha et al. have proven to be invaluable resources.
John S.
Squirming? You tool. I gave you EXACT SAME FUCKING LINKS on another website. Can you somehow wrap your feeble mind around the fact that I gave you a set of links that were dead and replaced them with an identical set that weren’t? Bottom line: It was the same damn information.
Seriously, you are a complete fucking waste of anyone’s time. You lie about Kerry not releasing his military records, you lie about him publicly posting them and then you continue to lie that they don’t exist because I gave you a bad set of links.
You are definitely the ruler of the Kingdom of Idiots. Especially if you listen to one of your subjects:
Ironically, even he bursts your bubble about Kerry not releasing his military records:
Yes, he most certainly did. A fact that poor little Paul cannot seem to come to terms with, despite all his semantical wrangling.
TallDave
The cynical logic here is simple:
1) Dems know Republicans vote for veterans
2) Dems are running veterans in Republican districts
3) Republicans already hold those districts, so they’re running incumbents who are generally not veterans
Unfortunately for Dems, voters are not going to be so easily manipulated.
p.lukasiak
Unfortunately for Dems, voters are not going to be so easily manipulated.
given that these people have elected Republicans (and in most cases have voted for Bush) there is something distinctly oxymoronic about your statement.
ppGaz
That’s right, people who voted for “defense of sanctity” are not going to be easily manipulated.
Perry Como
I added some links to reinforce your point, Birkel. You’re doing a heckuva job.
Paul L.
To repeat myself
John Kerry released all of his military records only to friendly newspapers not the public.
The subjects of the Kingdom of Idiots are crazied lefties and you are a worthy addition to the Kingdom, Sir John S.
Additionally, the stuff you linked to does not answer the following:
(1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry’s Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry’s Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.
“Kerry/Edwards A Stronger America”
Hee, Hee …. HA,HA,HA,HA…..
“Kerry/Edwards A Stronger America”
BWAAAAAHAHAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ppGaz
Uh, check your traffic. You have no subjects.
Sojourner
Bush’s promise to protect Americans from terrorism comes to mind.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
So isn’t Liberal lawyer John Turley now repping the dude who was convicted of trying to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, trying to get it overturned re: illegal wiretaps?
Man, if only K/E were in office and Turley was attorney general or something, man, wouldn’t that be great?
A Stronger America– I’m still laughing.
Sojourner
You are a really strange person to be laughing about the pathetic condition of this country, thanks to the Bushies. Or is it the laughter that often accompanies the realization of being totally fucked?
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Yeah, hunting down and killing terrorists just doesn’t seem to be working, does it? Lot of terror attacks after 911 in your world, sir?
And one more thing: K/E and the rest of the Dems still don’t think terror is the problem. You guys are more upset with Tax Cuts than with heads getting cut off.
Perry Como
Terrorist attacks are in a sharp decline.
Sojourner
Why would Al Qaeda attack the U.S. now when Bush is doing exactly what they want him to do?
Duh.
ppGaz
I feel almost as safe as I did on 9-10-01. It was, what, eight years since the attempt on WTC? Don’t worry, be happy.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Bruce in Alta California
Paul L. and ppGaz
After the bell rings you will each return to your corner.
Bringggggggg
Ladies and Gentlemen, after 10 rounds we have a split decision. The neo-con judge has voted for Paul L. and the independent judge has voted for ppGaz
That leaves the decision to me, the Green-Libertarion judge.
I have decided . . . I chose Sierra-Nevada Pale Ale
ppGaz
I saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico.
John S.
The next time I’m shopping for lame retorts, strawmen, bullshit or questions that are irrelevant to the discuaaion at hand, I’ll come check out your store Paul.
Could it be more ironic that the self-proclaimed “Heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots” and a guy calling him self Oh,Boy.Stupidity! found each other?
It’s a match made in blogosphere heaven.
Paul L.
And I thank you, Sojourner and ppGaz for using the double standards, naming calling, changing the subject and general pettiness I have come to expect from the democrats/liberals.
ppGaz
As well you should. You managed to gin up a few page views to your extremely crummy blog thanks to our efforts.
When can we expect our paychecks?
(sound of fingers drumming on table)
John S.
Pot calls kettle black – Film at 11.
Let’s see how the Paul L. scorecard adds up:
Double standards – Check.
Name calling – Check.
Cahnging the subject – Check.
Lying – Check.
Duplicity – Check.
General pettiness – Check.
You sure know how to rack ’em up, chief. Although unlike you, I wouldn’t stoop to blaming your shortcomings on the fact that you are a Republican/conservative, because that would be an unfair insult to millions of Americans. Why should they have to bear the brunt of your stupidity?
ppGaz
John, I think that Mr. L is in line for the Ass Whipping of the Year Award. There are still more than 24 hours left in the year, but I can’t imagine that anyone is going to take the award away from him in that time.
Your thoughts?
Theseus
Sure, cause they’d rather be expending resources and fighting on, ostensibly, their own turf, “Dar al Islam”, rather than going on the offensive on infidel soil, “Dar al Harb”. What general or military strategist wouldn’t want to be in that position? I’m sure this is exactly what they wanted or expected; the satanic, lazy, immoral, cowardly, godless, spoiled, gutless, spineless, sinful “infidels” to fight back and put them on the defensive, militarily, strategically, politically, economically, etc…right. I’m sure that that’s what AQs’ little Mo’ and Abdy are thinking as talk of reform and democracy is increasingly in the air in their home countries, as their extremist views are becoming more and more intolarable and toxic and as their adoptive countries are becoming increasingly less hospitable.
Sojourner
Um, no. Bin Laden wanted the the Muslim world to know that America is anti-Muslim. Also, he wanted America to bankrupt itself fighting against him. He also wanted to weaken the US military.
Bush has been very helpful with all of Bin Laden’s objectives. What a dumb ass.
Kirk Spencer
Paul L.,
While others have taken you to task for the point of Kerry’s records, none have challenged the other half, which is actually a point that annoys me more.
President Bush did not release all his records. He did not sign a release form (as he, like Kerry, promised) to allow independent review of the records. Do you recall what he did? He had his staff pull the records. His staff vetted the records, and they were released. They claimed all the records had been released – that the staff was only holding redundant, duplicative materials. When a paper (using a FOIA request) got some of the records that showed there were more records not released, two things happened. First, and publicly, there was a “Oh, and we just happened to discover these, which aren’t the duplicates of things we already released.” The second thing that happened was that all further FOIA requests to the DoD regarding Bush’s records no longer went to DoD but to the White House for approval.
Maybe the papers covered for failed candidate Kerry. But he DID sign an SF-71. He handed the papers copies of the documentation, but he gave those papers the power to double-check – to prove him a liar. The president didn’t do that. I no longer expect him to fulfill that little promise. But I will not allow folk to mistakenly believe he DID fulfill it. [Can’t stop folk from denying it, but I can certainly demand they show me the proof – a PDF of the signed SF-71 would be sufficient. After all, Kerry’s release is all over the place. How hard do you suppose it would be to see the President’s?]
Paul L.
I believe Bush signed a executive order releasing his Military records.
Kirk Spencer check John S. link.
The Bush records work unlike the Kerry records.
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html
and these links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm
http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html
Using the John S. standard, I guess that makes you a liar.
The Moveon.org/moonbat crowd of Balloon Juice declares victory.
Of course, you are the Guys that believe white phosphorus is a chemical weapons and our troops did war crimes.
Hey John you care to give examples of how I got these scores?
Double standards – Check.
Name calling – Check. General pettiness – Check.
Changing the subject – Check.
Lying – Check. Duplicity – Check.
I never claim any of you are liars I just think you are misinformed/mistaken/thick-headed.
Of course, liberals can not think anyone is being misinformed/mistaken/thick-headed. You are a liar!!!!
Which is why I used above
“Using the John S. standard, I guess that makes you a liar.
Here is story about a true liar
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003762.php
“Another John Kerry Flip-Flop
John Kerry did it again. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Kerry insists that his full military records have been made public, and challenges his critics to do the same, and George Bush as well:
The furor over military credentials hasn’t ended with the campaign. Kerry pledged to sign Form 180, releasing all of his military records, but challenged his critics, including Bush, to do the same.
”I want them to sign it, I want [swift boat veterans] John O’Neill, Roy Hoffmann, and what’s their names, the guys on the other boat,” Kerry said. ”I want their records out there. They have made specific allegations about my record, I know things about their records, I want them out there. I’m willing to sign it, to put all my records out there. I’m willing to sign it, but I want them to sign it, too.”
Kerry later confirmed that his decision to sign the form is not conditional on any others signing, but he expressed lingering bitterness over double standards on military service.
”Let me make this clear: My full military record has been made public,” Kerry said. ”All of my medical records and all of my fitness reports, every fitness report involving each place I served, is public. Where are George Bush’s still? Where are his military records? End of issue.”
Er, no. Kerry knows that this isn’t true, because he told Tom Brokaw that very thing just before the election. Perhaps John Kerry doesn’t want to recall it now, but on October 28th, the week before the election, Brokaw asked him about the IQ tests that he took in the military, which I noted in this post:
Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.
Kerry: That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
Later on, when NBC aired the interview a second time, they edited that response down to exclude the admission, although the transcript remains on their site. Perhaps John Kerry thought that NBC’s historical revisionism had gotten him off the hook.
The fact is that Kerry’s full Navy records have never been released, and probably never will, unless someone sues the military for a Freedom of Information Act release. Kerry isn’t about to allow that file out, as his discharge papers will show that Kerry got booted out on a bad-conduct discharge due to his post-Viet Nam activities, which Thomas Lipscomb and the New York Sun confirmed two days after the interview. If they are released, his political career is over.
Kerry may well believe that a good offense makes for the best defense. It’s likely the only defense he truly has left. (See Beldar for more details.)”
ppGaz
You can write a 20,000 word post, or a 50,000 thousand word post ….. the fact is, your blog is still a piece of crap.
See, it isn’t petty if the blog actually sucks.
Anyone can visit the blog and judge for himself.
But please, keep battling it. I need the straight lines.
Sojourner
That and a handful of medals. How many did W get awarded? Was that… zero?