Thursday, November 02, 2006
The Import of John Kerry's Remarks
Let me suggest that this perspective is of one piece with John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971 when he accused American military personnel - in general, not a specific accusation - of war crimes akin to the armies of Genghis Khan.
Kerry is a vile and small man, to be forgotten with the passage of time. He is irrelevant. His primary skill seems to be marrying money. Enough said.
More critical though, is the emerging clarity that one can have about the Democratic Party's institutional view of the Armed Forces. And it is not good. The Party's last President was a draft avoider who explicitly wrote of his disdain for the military. Its last candidate for President has testified and been quoted on camera as described above.
There will be a tendency on the part of apologists on this subject to change the subject; to dissemble on the nature, tone and severity of the commentary; to attack their critics. In a word, they will come back around to the same silly thesis of "supporting the troops, but not the war." Because these apologists ain't that stupid. They understand it is political suicide in America to spit on the integrity, honor and intellect of those who choose to serve.
Put that entirely to one side. Let them apologize all that they can and will. They cannot govern this country if this is their institutional view of the military. And it plainly is. So, it may be that the Democratic Party will pick up seats in the House of Representatives, sufficient to grant it a majority in the house. It may even be the case that they pick up a few Senate seats, though I think it highly unlikely that it will be sufficient to take control of the Senate. But, and this is a very early prediction -- it is virtually assured that a Republican will win the Presidency in 2008 and beyond -- until the Democrats recruit a respected General to lead them.
35 Comments:
By 
tarpon, at
Thu Nov 02, 07:14:00 PM:
I think one thing the Democrats forget is the attacks were real, the citizens lying dead in our streets were real. Democrats, here is a news flash just for you, you voted for the Iraq war, you voted to send the troops into battle there, you voted to oust Saddam Hussein, you do not get to draw a mulligan, no matter how hard you try. Hindsight does not substitute for wisdom, and second guessing is not a strategy.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Nov 02, 09:24:00 PM:
Yet another revealing quotation...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23193_Nine_Of_Ten_Jihadis_Agree-_Vote_Democrat&only
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Nov 02, 10:13:00 PM:
Even without a speck of additional information, every military veteran who saw Kerry's silly salute (he looked like he was shading his eyes) at the last Democratic national convention knew exactly what kind of military man Kerry had been.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Nov 03, 01:00:00 AM:
Grasping. At. Straws.
John Who? Oh, you mean the vacillating fellow who wasn't a very good candidate and who shouldn't be allowed, by executive order if necessary, to tell jokes at any time, in any situation?
Your'e generalizing him into the whole party?
That's called overgeneralizing, and it's silly.
This blog is known for the nuance and charm of its better writers, and it's unfortunate to see such a reductionist, boilerplate, pedestrian viewpoint here.
Kerry is not running for re-election. He's something of a windsock, I admit, but each party's got their fair share of that. He's a target identified by a few in the hopes of creating a national issue in the days before a dissatisfied electorate goes to oust the incompetent, unethical Republicans from seats across the nation.
Politically, I get what you're doing, Cardinal Park. But morally and intellectually, it's a twisted way to seek to hold onto a failed period of Republican leadership.
Anyway, have fun with that, and don't forget to compare Kerry to Dean and call them both crazy. Crazy! Crazy! Crazy!
By 
, at
Fri Nov 03, 01:05:00 AM:
Screwy:
Sorry. The Dems picked him. They get to keep him and the like minded leadership of the party. Bu hey, he mispoke so there is no problem. Right?
By , at
Fri Nov 03, 06:53:00 AM:
A joke?
Give me and effing break.
Kerry voiced an opinion deeply held by those on the elitist left. This disrespectful, condescending attitude towards the military dominates in the intellectual circles that run the party and form a large proportion of its loyalist members.
Don't excuse it as a "joke", and don't fault Kerry for actually voicing what a good chunk of the Democrat party actually feels.
I was staying home on election day. I'm not anymore.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Nov 03, 10:20:00 AM:
I would note, Screwy, that in your commentary you chose not to refute the core observation of the post -- Kerry's comment reflects the view of a significant portion of the left, and therefore the Democratic Party.
I mean, let's face it, how do you feel about the American Military, eh? How do you feel about those who join? Hmmm? I didn't say everybody in the Democratic Party, just a significant portion. And it's hard to run away from the observation when the Party's last President and its last candidate for President both publically and loudly proclaim their disrespect for the Military.
Remember Screwy, you called me a militarist, right? I love them. I do. Really. More importantly, I respect them.
Now, you can say all you like about politics and republicanship and partisan nastiness and Rovian evil genius. Irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is that picture zooming around the web of a volunteer regiment "Jon Carry...Stuck N Irak." It says it all, Screwy. It says it all. They're smart, their funny, their volunteers and they've been dissed. they are none too happy about it.
You can't run a country that way.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Nov 03, 11:06:00 AM:
They've been dissed by a President sending them into an unnecessary war to die by the thousands for no great benefit. That's some real dissing.
They've been dissed by getting their benefits cut by a Republican government.
They've been dissed by having dollars that could've gone to adequate body armor instead being given to Halliburton, which burns taxpayer funded vehicles rather than repairing them.
They've been dissed by stop-loss.
They've been dissed by those who purport to support them.
John Kerry said something either mistaken or offensive.
The Republican pro-war has been pushing them to their breaking point while cutting them off at the knees here at home.
Dozens of Iraq War vets are running against Republicans in Congressional elections across America this cycle. Are they anti-military too?
As I said, I hold most of the writers here in high regard, but his post is not about supporting the troops, it's about obscuring the truth.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Nov 03, 11:59:00 AM:
It so obvious what the Repubs are doing. They're slipping down and they've been given this handhold by Kerry, as thin as it is, and they're going to hang on to it as long as they can.
"I didn't say everybody in the Democratic Party, just a significant portion." That's saying "all" while trying to make yourself look reasonable. You know it's sillyness. As much as you pretend outrage, we know what's going on. Your using the mispoken words of an idiot to brand an entire party in hopes of gaining some votes next week. Talk about thinking people are dumb. Do you think the American public can't see through that crap. Give us some credit.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Nov 03, 12:30:00 PM:
Screwy and Catchy:
What about that picture of the troops in Iraq, eh?
What about it? It wasn't addressed to President Bush. It was addressed to John Kerry.
Look, I won't begrudge your disagreement with the decision to go to war. It's a free country and your entitled to it. As we've said countless times, we disagree with one another. So be it.
What you are avoiding is the obvious disrespect leaders of the Democratic Party have for the military. It's not something I am making up because I offend you. It's something they have repeatedly articulated. They just hate it. Resent it. Disrespect it. That's why the soldiers, without Karl Rove's urging, responded so perfectly and appropriately.
So go on and insult me. I guess I struck a nerve. But you cannot ultimately disagree. ANd by abdicating on a substantive answer and changing the subject, I will draw the conclusion that you simply feel the same way.
Semper fi.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Nov 03, 12:41:00 PM:
You always do this:
Whenever I respond in a way that trumps your argument, you accuse me of not responding.
Back to Debate 101 for you, Mr. Nuance.
-------
"repeatedly articulated"? That's why people are getting so upset about Kerry's gaffe? Because it's so often articulated?
Give the troops their benefits back.
Don't send them into unnecessary wars of choice.
Have an exit strategy.
It seems so basic to me that Democrats have more respect for individual human lives, especially those serving our country.
And, just so you'll stop carping, the troops with that funny sign addressed to Kerry - it'll get emailed to every Republican in the nation in an effort to somehow link John Kerry, who's not on any ballot and doesn't hold any formal Democratic Party leadership position, to whatever races Republicans are in danger of losing.
It's a campaign prop, and that's fine. I'm sure those soldiers knew they'd make a big splash. It's good politics, obscuring the real issues by conflating and creating some bogeyman Democrat who hates the troops.
Hint: There is no such thing.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Nov 03, 12:55:00 PM:
"What about that picture of the troops in Iraq, eh? What about it? It wasn't addressed to President Bush. It was addressed to John Kerry." -- That's your arguement?
"Go ahead insult me" -- Who insulted you? I think I know who had their nerves struck.
"What you are avoiding is the obvious disrespect leaders of the Democratic Party have for the military." -- It's not so obvious, especailly in the terms Screwy has highlighted. This is an "opinion" you hold. You're opinion is not factual. It's a feeling you have. Screwy and I disagree and also feel that you are using Kerry's short-bus intellect to brand your belief onto the Democrats.
I didn't mean to insult. I just wanted to tell you that I know what you're up to, and that most Americans will see through that BS when they're at the polls.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Nov 03, 12:57:00 PM:
By skipsailing, at
Fri Nov 03, 01:30:00 PM:
this is too important to ignore.
When Cindy Bleeping Sheehan burst on the scene Maureen Al-Dowd granted her something like "absolute moral authority".
Unlike Ms Sheehan I'm a blue star parent, not a gold star parent. (I thank God daily). Still, I'll gladly compare my 'moral authority' to screwy's any day of the week.
so let me take a whack at his arguments here:
first, dissed by the president? Is that why they voted for him in overwhelming numbers? you have no standing to say this screwy. Just as the military and ONLY the military can decide if Kerry's apology is adequate, only they can decide if they've been "dissed" by the president for sending them to war. Sorry pal, they don't see it your way at all.
Next, I have literally hundreds of photos of my son doing his duty in Iraq. I have seen thousands of others as well. I cannot recall a single photo wherein my son was not completely equipped with absolutely everything he needed to not only survive a fight but to kill our enemies.
The body armor pseudo scandal is just more bullsh*t created by ignorant liberals. I asked my son, days after the Rumsfeld up armor ambush, about the status of his unit's hummvees. His response: "Dad, the guy that asked that question is pussy, pure and simple." This is a non issue that you anti victory nitwits keep alive because you've convinced yourself its true.
In fact my son has been issued THREE different types of body armor. The Marines have been opposed to the latest version because it sacrifices too much agility. Imagine that screwy, they actually want LESS body armor. I guess they're just not up to date on the socialist play book, eh?
Frankly screwy I doubt you could lift the breast plate from my son's body armor.
Stop loss is it? When my son enlisted he KNEW he made an eight year committment. he's a marine and the marines recently announced that they would activate some guys via IRR. Unlike many, my son at 21 years of age understands the term commitment. If they need him he'll be there and gladly. He's a Marine.
Loss of benefits? Do you even know what you're talking about? My son was home on leave last week and we discussed the future. He has reached the conclusion that his hitch in the Marines has given him a great boost in this life. He's amassed a large endowment for school, he made good, tax free, money while in Iraq and his resume will proudly note his service.
and he had the adventure of a lifetime. Benefit? Not everyone measures everything by the cynical standards of the feckless left screwy.
This is just so damned typical:
They've been dissed by those who purport to support them.
John Kerry said something either mistaken or offensive.
The first sentence is an total non sequitar. It makes no kind of sense what so ever.
the second statement is completely diagnostic of who you are screwy. Let me translate your sentence from liberalese to standard english:
"A liberal Icon said something that even mom and pop living in a shack in fly over country could interpret as insulting to America's fighting men, so I'll do the only thing I know how to do, attack President Bush".
I mean look at your postings pal, one could easily draw the conclusion that your entire life is about attacking the president.
Kerry screwed up and you attack the president? is that really a rational reaction to a public blunder screwy? or is this all you know how to do? or is it "when in doubt change the subject"?
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Nov 03, 02:39:00 PM:
Screwy - Perhaps you're dyslexic. The leadership of the Democratic Party has, as I said in the original post, repeatedly articulated its disdain for the American military. Its last President, and its last candidate for President have both done so, publicly and privately. It's not a flub. It's their heartfelt view.
You've not rejected that perpsective. Noted.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Nov 03, 02:41:00 PM:
You're using your son to support your argument instead of facts. That's a play straight from the Sheehan playbook. Your son is not a combination of all of the armed forces. I'm sure there are many different experiences to the same war.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 03, 03:07:00 PM:
"It seems so basic to me that Democrats have more respect for individual human lives..."
Meanwhile:
- 1.5 to 3 million people died in the killing fields of Cambodia while the Democrats twiddled their thumbs, pretending not to notice.
- 800,000 died in Rwanda while the Clinton adminstration talked and talked and talked.
By , at
Fri Nov 03, 04:01:00 PM:
Wow. I love learning about history. It turns out the Cambodian genocide was the Democrats' fault. I mean, I already knew Pol Pot was a Democrat, but all along the lying liberal media had me convinced Nixon and Kissinger were actually Republicans.
On a less snarky note, I don't know any liberal who views John Kerry as an icon. Sure we'd rather have him president now than W, but most of us would rather have a ham sandwich as president too. He was nominated because enough of us mistakenly believed that his military experience would somehow put a stop to the whole Democrats-are-draft-dodging-pot-smoking-pussies attack, and therefore he was the most "electable", momentarily ignoring that he's an annoying boring blowhard who can't help speaking like a senator. Even before this all happened, there was no way in hell Kerry could have been nominated in 2008.
Cardinalpark seems to think that Kerry's words -- I don't know or care if it was a botched joke or not -- are proof that the whole democratic establishment hates the military. I think it's only proof if you already believe it. Just like Macaca only proved that the entire Republican establishment is racist or half-Tunisian or whatever if you already believed that too.
JK
By skipsailing, at
Fri Nov 03, 04:21:00 PM:
In other words screwy, you have no response to my comments. I'm shocked, shocked I say!
further, I completely agree with CP on this. Kerry said what he thinks. We used to call these Freudian slips.
As for Kerry's statement representing the underlying attitude of the Democrat party I believe that the recent tribulations of Mr Lieberman amply illustrate the facts here. the angry left and their concubines in the Democrat party threw that guy overboard because of his support for the war. they sold him out for a few sheckels. A very few shekels as it turns out.
If you lefty anti victory pin heads really wanted to support the troops you'd bite your tongues and let the enemy conclude that we're united in our fight against them.
but oh noooooo, you have your sacred right to say whatever the hell you please even if it endangers the troops and provides hope to our enemies.
You really want to show support Screwy (and others who fit in the angry anti victory pinhead category) try thinking about something other than your overdeveloped sense of outrage. Show some self restraint and use your rights in a responsible manner.
what the hell ever happened to being a loyal opposition?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 03, 04:28:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Nov 03, 04:48:00 PM:
JK, Nixon left office in 1974.
The Cambodian genocide was 1975 to 1979. (See http://www.yale.edu/cgp/). Carter was President in 1977, 1978, 1979. If you look at old newspaper clips, you will see the Carter Administration's criticism of the North Vietnamese government for invading Cambodia in November 1978. The North Vietnamese are the ones who drove Pol Pot into jungle and ended the slaughter in Cambodia.
The only left-wing "peacenik" I remember screaming loudly about Pol Pot's murderous activities in Cambodia was singer Joan Baez.
I won't bother to go into how the Democrat-controlled Congress undercut President Ford immediately before the fall of Saigon. You can do your own homework.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Nov 03, 05:56:00 PM:
my apologies to Screwy, it is catchy who didn't have a response to my comments.
apparently catchy seeks to impeach the credibility of my comments by comparing moi with Cindy sheehan.
As a matter of fact I mentioned Cindy Sheehan specifically because she uses her brave son's experience as a tool to advance her own sorry agenda.
Here's the "morphology"
In the beginning there was Max Cleland. He fought in Viet Nam, he was horribly injured, he was an unassailable "victim" that the left USED to advance thier own agenda.
then there was Cindy Sheehan who lost a son and proceeded to piss on his grave. She was a "victim" as was therefore unassailable and the left used her to advance their agenda.
now there is Michael J Fox and he's ill and it's not pretty and he's a "victim" and is therefore unassailable.
Essentially Catchy, you be undermining your own self over here.
I'm making a couple of points:
(1) much of the left's caterwauling is based on manufactured myths. Apparently it is fine for them to do so because it just seems to them that they have so much more respect for individuals and blah blah blah.
(2) "moral authority" cannot be granted by some snotty pompous gasbag with a byline and not much else. If you think Cindy Sheehan should be granted an audience, then you should also listen to other military parents who find her behavior appalling.
(3) anybody anywhere who claims to speak for the guys in the military about their reaction to the Kerry episode is essentially usurping thier rights. I sincerely doubt that my son would shake John Kerry's hand and he's not alone in his loathing of the man, not by a long chalk.
By , at
Fri Nov 03, 06:25:00 PM:
Have you read the book UNFIT FOR COMMAND? written by someone from the SWFTBOAT vets a interesting picture in the book shows JOHN KERRY and HANOI JANE in the same place
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 03, 08:59:00 PM:
"They've been dissed by...
...those who purport to support them."
Garbage. 95% of us vote Republican, and probably a quarter of those *loathe* Democrats. A crusty old master sergeant once explained to me when I was a private that he hated the Democrats and was and would forever remain a Republican voter. I asked why. He said, "Because when the Democrats are in power, our money goes away."
We've gotten more pay raises in higher amounts in the 6 years under Bush than ever before. It almost makes up for the terrible slashes that Clinton oversaw; most of us make living wages now. Did you know that a lot of junior enlisted troops had to sign up for Welfare to pay the bills in the 90s? There's a dirty little military secret the NYT won't publish.
It's getting easier to use the GI Bill. Within the next year or so, we'll be able to extend it to our dependants in full amount. Our SGLI (life insurance) rates went up. Where are these missing benefits you reference?
Stop loss has been built into the system for many years. It's not a secret. I'm pretty sure it's in the freaking contract that you read and HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU when you enlist. I certainly knew about it. If you don't like it, don't sign. That's like these idiot assholes who throw a fit when they get deployed. 'I didn't know I would get shot at, I just wanted the college money.' Cowards.
There is overwhelming support among the Army for the President for a simple reason; we feel that he's the 1st President we've had since Reagan with a pair of balls. Instead of getting exploded in our barracks because the ROE says our guards can't have loaded guns, we're out chasing the fuckers down in their holes. Two of the most odious states of our era have been crushed and have installed representative governments. Could you have even imagined such a thing 10 years ago? Iraqis voting fair and free? We are re-enlisting in record numbers because we are finally doing something. We're changing the world. We finally feel like its worth putting up with all the bullshit to be and to continue to be American Soldiers.
Do you know that just by wearing that flag on my shoulder I'm a target? Off duty. Even aside from the terrorists, who have put out bulletins urging their members/sympathizers to attack us and our families whenever possible, there are groups here in the US (liberal anti-war groups, mind you) who seek out and physically attack US military personnel in civilian areas. We've had it happen 6 times in this area over the last few months. One suffered brain damage. But we continue to sign up during a time of war, and we're proud to serve and bear hardships so others don't have to.
Regarding the "Oh the poor troops were sent to Iraq against their will, bring them home now!" line of thinking:
A lot of us volunteer for duty in Iraq. I did twice myself. We *want* to go. 'You must be a psycho hyper-conservative warmonger,' I hear. No. I want to serve. And moreso, I want to help prevent that poor country from falling into the Iranian-born chaos that is sure to come following a mass withdrawal. Maybe it's hard for folks like you to believe, but there are things in this world more important than my meager safety.
Hasn't it struck you as strange that you always seem to be across the fence from people here who are or who have immediate family in the military? But I guess you know better than we do.
I feel absolutely confident that you're going to blow me off as some anomaly, like you have in the past. In one ear and out the other. But consider this. If you really cared about 'the troops,' you'd listen to us, instead of talking over us. You just say you stick up for us for the same reason that most liberals do; because to say otherwise strikes most people as un-American. And gods forbid that anyone question your patriotism.
By , at
Fri Nov 03, 11:19:00 PM:
No doubt the military is more Republican than the general public, but the 95% number seems a tad far-fetched. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for that beyond the anecdotal.
Out of curiousity, do you think this varies at all by service? What about the reserves?
jk
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Nov 04, 12:56:00 AM:
Please slow down and explain how all the Democrats are anti-what?
"forty Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress - all veterans - gathered between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument to tell the American people that this "Band of Brothers" was coming together to take "The Hill" ... again. They came together as part of a group who recognizes the current administration doesn't hesitate to stand infront of the troops when it comes to a photo-op, but never stands behind them when it comes to providing the armor necessary to fight in Iraq, or the benefits promised when they return home."
Forty veterans are running for office under the Democratic Party banner. Stop insulting our veterans by saying they disrespect the military. Democrats, it seems, are the military. Shall we go through a list of prominent Republicans to see who chose to serve and who didn't?
We'll skip the embarrassment, eh?
CP's seemingly intuitive assertion that Dems hate the military isn't bolstered by anything except a remarkably shallow reading of Kerry's remarks.
Anyway. Done here. Fun thread. Keep up the good work, CardinalPark, you'll win the war any minute with this kind of 101st Fighting Keyboardist genius.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Sat Nov 04, 03:49:00 AM:
"Hmmm? I didn't say everybody in the Democratic Party, just a significant portion"
Significant portion being, the Democratic Leadership
"Anyway, have fun with that, and don't forget to compare Kerry to Dean and call them both crazy. Crazy! Crazy! Crazy! "
Refresh my memory Screwy Hoolie what exactly is Dean's position in the Democratic Party?
By skipsailing, at
Sat Nov 04, 09:47:00 AM:
Aw come on Screwy, come back and tell us again how much you care.
Dawnfire makes a series of excellent points. I spent the first 16 years of my life in the Navy. I understand the grinding poverty of being an enlisted man's child. Shopping at the commissary, healthcare via corpsmen in the base hospital, living on navy issue canned good.
My personal favorite: as a child a friend asked me what kind of syrup I liked on my pancakes. My reply:
Syrup, breakfast, type seven, class four, order number 11334477676.
Yes Dawnfire got this one right, the military has to stick up for itself against the endless carpings of the peace weenies.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 04, 01:06:00 PM:
"No doubt the military is more Republican than the general public, but the 95% number seems a tad far-fetched. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for that beyond the anecdotal."
It is anecdotal. I doubt that hard stats showing military voting patterns even exist, seeing as how we're scattered all over the world, all of us vote in our districts of origin, and such things are supposed to be secret anyway. There's no exit poll when you send in a ballot from overseas, you know, and they get mixed in with ex-patriates and such.
I said 95% because in my years in the Army I can count on one hand the number of Democrats I've met; Four. One in Psy-ops, two in HUMINT, and one in SIGINT. Bearing in mind that I'm in MI and most of us are better educated and somewhat more liberal than, say, the Infantry, I think that 95% is a better guess than it seems at first glance.
"Out of curiousity, do you think this varies at all by service? What about the reserves?"
Yes. The Marines and Army are much more solidly Republican than the Navy and Air Force. The Marines especially are very conservative in their political beliefs, and the Air Force is probably the most liberal. But, like most soldiers, I've had a lot less interaction with the other services.
The Reserves tend to be older and better educated than the active Army. I spent a year in the Reserves before I re-enlisted Active again, and most everyone in my (again, MI unit) had or was pursuing a college degree, some of them their second. Most of them would probably be classified as moderates. Note also that Reserve units are organized geographically, so that a unit in Texas will probably think differently than one in Massachussetts.
And Screwie; I know you probably won't read this, but your silence to my rebuttal and sudden abandonment of the thread speaks volumes.
By , at
Sat Nov 04, 06:52:00 PM:
So in other words, pretty much all of the Democratic-leaning soldiers are already running for Congress?
Do you think it's possible that given an environment that's majority conservative, and given the culture of the military, that liberal-leaning soldiers don't broadcast their views? Just like I imagine the population of Princeton may seem to be 95% Democrat, but really is crawling with secret TigerHawks?
I still doubt your number. (Not that it really changes either one of our interpretations of this Kerry-flap). I mean, even in Utah, Kerry got 26%.
jk
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Nov 04, 08:01:00 PM:
This is unscientific but it may help the debate here. From USA Today, 3 October 2004:
"Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
By , at
Sat Nov 04, 11:36:00 PM:
That sounds a little more plausible, even if it is unscientific. Interesting that 59% identify as Republican. No discernible difference among the 4 branches And that in 2000 unnamed "experts" believed it was 2:1 Bush.
Good find DEC. What's the consensus on how the skew towards older, higher-ranking personnel might have affected the results?
jk
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Nov 04, 11:54:00 PM:
That's the only article on the topic that I remember from the 2004 election, JK. Sorry I can't be of more help to either you or Dawnfire82.
By , at
Sun Nov 05, 05:52:00 PM:
I'm a moderate and one who believes that if McCain, Lieberman and Giuliani formed a Centrist Party, 60% of the country would join it and render the Dean wing of the Democrats and the Theocracy wing of the Republicans obsolete.
That said, I agree with Cardinalpark's initial impression about Kerry's remarks -- they were elitist and insulting. The substance of Kerry's gaffe is what bedevils the Democratic party and what makes the center (which is critical for either party to win an election) skeptical about the Democrats -- that they know better than the rest of us and that they are above us. Putting all politics about the war in Iraq aside, Kerry did show reveal an ugly truth about some of the Democratic Party's establishment.
The arrival of many military veterans to the Democratic party (House candidates especially) will make the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination sweepstakes very interesting, and between now and then there could be a civil war within the party between the Dean/Kerry wing and those who are more centrist in their approach. Hopefully, the Democratic Party and the country will be better off for it. If the Democrats don't shed the attitude that Kerry revealed with his misstep, they'll get walloped in 2008 (especially if John McCain is the Republican nominee).
The center is the critical battleground for 2008 and beyond. If the Democrats continue to let people like Howard Dean and John Kerry lead them, they'll be in trouble in 2008. They simply cannot continue to be negative without substance and, in the public's mind, let the Republicans carry the flag while they run against it.
The Centrist
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Nov 07, 01:06:00 AM:
I'm with you, Centrist. I started calling (almost seriously) for a third party on this very blog back in May or so. Oh how I wish.
Thanks for the stats DEC. I noted this at the end, since it's relevant to the thread here.
"Of those responding to the survey, about three-fifths said they approve of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq; one-quarter said they disapprove.
Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist."
