How ironic that New York City is managing to balance a budget (in fact a surplus),and rehire city employees, but the federal government can’t do the same.
Let’s examine some of that 19 year “done nothing” record you speak of, and try and make your case:
From this site.
Cite. Doesn’t sound like “go along to get along” to me… Weak???
“Kerry’s got courage,” (Sen. John) McCain says. “He’s got courage. He’ll do what he thinks is right.” Cite.
``He’s smart, he’s tough and he’s experienced. He has the capability.’’
John McCain (R-Ariz.) June 30, 2003 Cite.
Kerry was interviewed on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago, and he was asked about voting for Bush’s War. Kerry said that he did not vote to go to war, but voted for a process the end of which would result in attacking Iraq. He said that Bush by passed the “process” part and just went to war. Now, you could say “Of course Kerry said Bush bypassed the process, but blahblahblah…” But I do remember the way I felt last year. I felt that Bush was rushing things and ignoring diplomatic solutions. So based on my personal recollections of last year, I would have to accept Kerry’s statement.
Kerry did not vote to invade Iraq. He voted for a process that the Bush regime ignored.
Johnny L.A. makes an excellent point. I know Hillary Clinton a few months back made essentially the same point…She voted for the resolution because she believed strongly that the President should not have his hands tied and should be giving maximum authority to deal with an issue like Saddam (e.g., so he knows the U.S. is serious). And, in fact, that is how the resolution was sold as I recall.
Now, my personal belief is that there was enough evidence that Bush was a liar and a fool to not grant him this sort of authority but I suppose optimists don’t like to make decisions like that on not trusting our elected leader to act responsibly.
Blaming all those who voted for the resolution is sort of like blaming all the people who gave their money to some fraudulent scheme rather than blaming the perpetrator of the fraud. After all, they freely gave their money.
Despite Andy Rooney’s assertions, maybe Gibson ins’t such a “wacko” after all:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
In a Sean Hannity interview, set to air on Tuesday , Gibson says of Bush: “I am having doubts, of late. It mainly has to do with the weapons [of mass destruction] claims.”
Now if only we can get the rest of the Christian right to follow suit. 
No direct word has come to me on this, but it would square with some tune fragments the birdies have been singing to me.
The first one I can speak of directly, as others have directly spoken it to me. Apparently the Pentagon has been dragging its heels on Donald Rumsfeld’s efforts to completely overhaul the structure of the armed forces. I suspect that most of the heel-dragging is simple bureaucratic inertia. But combined with far less credible information it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if some of the lethargy is also a bit of bet-hedging against Rumsfeld’s timely departure.
On to the less credible stuff. There is a palpable air of… I don’t want to call it anticipation, so I’ll just call it “studied reticence”… among some of the uniformed folks I know. Another way to put it might be to say that this President is not nearly so beloved as the last one was reviled.
This last bit is based on some stuff I don’t want to directly speak about, so I apologize if it makes little sense.
The bottom line is that some less-than-competitive contractors are paying kids six figures a year to work twelve hours a day, seven days a week in air-conditioned ship-containers in nameless deserts across the globe.
In a completely unrelated matter, if asked to create a short list of candidates for a Secretary of Defense under a new regime, the wonks would probably include Senator Carl Levin… Levin is well known for his persistent crackdowns on lavish defense contractor spending.
Anyway, it’s almost as if those DoD contractors are shoveling as much cash as possible into the vault before someone comes along and shuts the door.
Like I said, nothing concrete. But I strongly suspect that “nothing concrete” is exactly the way a lot of folks in the know see it, too.
Shodan
Hey, glad you could make it back, guy! Say, you know, in your haste to keep us apprised of Kerry’s shortcoming, you neglected to answer the question about your assertion that Clinton “sold secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions.” Since, as you know, this skins pretty close to the line for what we call “treason”, I’m going to have to insist you back this up, or eat the crow.
Surely a person like yourself, with your deep and abiding concern with truth and credibility, will not hesitate to clear this up for us. Now, remember, its “sold secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions”, not overtipped the waiter when ordering dim sun. If you already posted your proof or your abject apology for a bald slur, kindly disregard this notice.
Oh, as long as we’re at it…
“…basically lying about how he voted. elucidator (of all people) cited him on this - I can dig it up if you like…”
Not perzackly. I referred to “evidence” offered by National Review Online, with the big fat hairy caveat that the source is dubious at best, having just recently posted an opinion piece insinuating that Kerry was under KGB control and support during his anti-war days. Oddly enough, given the Bushiviks eagerness to portray Kerry as a Fonda reptile, they haven’t attempted to exploit this to any degree. Personally, I remain suspect.
As well, I note with some mild pique that this is the second time you have gasped with surprise that I might display some evenhandedness and objectivity. I daresay your own behavior in this regard is due some attention as well. So, yeah, digging that up and proving it beyond the dubious confines of NRO seems a good idea as well. If you’re not too tired from squirming out of the “treason” position noted above.
But lets start with that, shall we? When may be expect your proof or your public crow-munching?
Dagnabbit, some doofus forgot to log out! Again! (Gets it from his mom…)
Previous post, obviously, mine.
(Can you put somebody up for adoption on Ebay?)
Let me the one to say from first-hand experience that crow tastes good. There is, of course, an appropriate desert that goes with crow.
It’s the kind of pie you should always bring and never forget because even if you don’t need any, maybe someone needs you to serve them a slice.
What’s with all this feigned outrage about the accusation about Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese. It is obviously a reference to the Loral issue. Some details from CNN, the Washington Post, & Judicial Watch (court filing).
This demand for proof is disingenuous, IMHO. OK, so no one found a document signed by Clinton offering a quid pro quo. But everyone is entitled to make their own judgment on the motives of those involved, just as many of the righteous liberals here do about GWB with such frequency.
(OTOH, see this article from Newsmax))
Thanks, Sofa King.
If I may, a follow-up: is the war profiteering really as bad as you imply?
I suppose it depends upon how you look at it. There really weren’t all that many no-bid contracts handed out. It just happens that the companies which can supply the necessary services have practically monopolized the industry by buying up the smaller competing firms.
Those few remaining companies very likely won their contracts by placing the lowest bid, so the process was probably as fair as it can be, given the distinct lack of competition.
But on the other hand I happen to know that some of those contract winners are rushing as quickly as possible–not to complete the contracts, necessarily, but rushing to spend as much of the money they were awarded as quickly as possible.
I’m guessing–totally guessing, mind you–that part of the reason for that frenetic spending is so that if the Bush Administration is kicked out the federal government will be unable to withdraw its contract support from the bid winners.
Why would the federal government want to do something like that if the process was fair and honest? It reminds me of that scene from the classic film To Live and Die in L.A.:
“Why’re you chasing me, man?”
“Why’re you runnin’?”
Hmmm. It occurs to me that I really should have more liberally seasoned those comments with far more “I don’t know this for sure” than I did.
And you, too, should take what I’ve said with a healthy dose of salt, pantom. As with all rumor emanating from inside the Beltway, there’s a pretty good chance that some of it is bullshit.
But there’s also a pretty good chance that some of isn’t bullshit. Some of what I’ve told comes so straight from the horse’s mouth that I have teeth marks on my ear.
Another illustration of Kerry’s problems. He has to explain so often that he voted against something, but really supported it. Which leads him so often to talking out of both sides of his mouth, as in “I really wanted to pay for the war, so I voted against paying for the war”, or the gobbledygook posted elsewhere about how he voted to authorize the use of military force, but didn’t want Bush to use military force. As I said, Kerry is a weak character, and desperate to cover everything.
Again, I will point out that the budget deficit was eliminated by a Republican controlled Congress, and that Clinton shut down the federal government in his efforts to forestall Republican spending cuts. Clinton’s first economic act as President was an attempt to increase the budget deficit.
Gee, The Nation endorses a liberal for President! Imagine my shock. And Kerry is going to have to come up with a more courageous stand than “Don’t be idiotic - all the POWs are home” to impress me. Tell him to try, say, that Bigfoot doesn’t exist or that Oswald acted alone if he wants to demonstrate political courage.
As far as campaign reform, I think Kerry may want to skip away from that issue if he knows what is good for his image -
It seems our boy is talking out of both sides of his mouth as well as orifices below about soft money. And the Chinese.
There is an article in the latest National Review (hey, if you can quote The Nation, I get NR) about Kerry promising not to accept soft money for his PAC - about three months before accepting soft money for his PAC. As well as waking from his legislative torpor long enough to sponsor a bill to allow telecom firms to bid on wireless services - shortly after receiving twenty-seven grand from telecom firms. Can we say “appearance of conflict of interest” for anyone besides Scalia?
Of course, I am sure Kerry will an explanation for all this. Several, no doubt, all of which will be enthusiastically endorsed by the Usual Suspects.
Regards,
Shodan
I was surprised that I agreed with just about every stand Dropzone enumerated in his “liberal Republican” comment, especially since I’m a former-Green who’s probably gonna vote for Kerry in November. Dropzone, I have a feeling that at least 60% of voting-age Americans agree with you on these - we just disagree with what to do with each of them, e.g. “sense of responsibility to those less fortunate than us”. It’s just that instead of electing, for example, 10 liberals, 10 conservatives, and 80 moderates to the Senate, 40 of which would, if pressed, call themselves conservative and 40 who would reluctantly wear the liberal label, we’ve managed to get at least 40 extremists from each side and of the remainder, at least a dozen will just toe the party line each time, giving decisive power to McCain, Jeffords, et al. , and when these guys have their doubts, they cannot get an intelligent debate going with the other 80.
Well, yes, I could see how this would be a problem for people who deal with the world in sound bites and “this bad, evil”, “this good.”
Well, the fact remains that the correlation between budget deficits growing or shrinking and who is in power seems to be stronger in regards to whether it is a Dem or Rep President than whether it is a Dem or Rep Congress. (There may be some truth to a correlation between having divided government too although that didn’t seem to help in much of Reagan’s time.) The Republicans now control both Houses of Congress and the deficit has ballooned.
You might want an actual cite for that latter fact. (If you are talking about the debt ceiling, that has to be raised all the time and Bush has done the same.)
Well, that was just one of the thiongs he did. And, I do think it takes some courage in an era where there were a lot of people who believed strongly that they weren’t all home and for whom this was as big a single issue as guns are to some people on this board. Like I said, I didn’t provide that link for your benefit but rather for those who are actually willing to entertain facts other than those that completely coincide with what they already believe.
I also actually provide links when possible so people can analyze the evidence for themselves.
Well, this is exactly the reason why we need comprehensive campaign finance reform that would put in public financing and practically eliminate to the extent possible all these special interest monies. But, I find it fascinating that you have discovered such appearances of conflict of interest but seem to be oblivious to facts regarding, e.g., how much money the Bush campaign has received from energy companies both before and after relaxing the New Source Review laws or how much money he’s received from the financial industry both before and after pushing legislation to toughen bankrupcy laws. Hell, there have been cases where regulated folks have basically written portions of proposed regulations. You seem to be wearing very selective glasses. [Judges, by the way, because of the nature of their job…i.e., the fact that they are not supposed to take competing interests into account but rule in regards to the law…have traditionally been held to different, higher ethical standards than politicians in this regard.]
Shodan: I should add that although you would never favor unilateral disarmament of the U.S., you do seem to favor unilateral disarmament of Democrats like Kerry. I.e., if they think the present system of campaign financing is not good, they are supposed to stick up for these principles by unilaterally disadvantaging themselves while Bush goes out and whores himself for all sorts of special interests and raises a record amount of money! I suppose that since Bush doesn’t have any principles in regards to this, he is not being hypocritical.
Ahh, the one thing I thank Clinton for is giving the Republicans the same feeling the rest of us had under two god-Awful terms of Reagan… 
By Golly, Shodan’s on to something! Let’s make the entire campaign revolve around which candidate most panders to the interests of rich businessmen (of any ethnic persuasion)! Comparitively speaking, Sen Kerry looks like Rebecca of Sonnybrook Farm standing next to the Whore of Babylon. Shit, the White House must budget $100 a week just on kneepads and mouthwash.
This might, however, entail some passing reference to facts and the establishment of cites, something friend Shodan finds distasteful, and much less efficient than a simple slur.
Of course you know, Bush had the family dog done in because he knew too much, and was selling the story to Bat Boy. By brother has a friend who’s wife heard it on TV! Hey, this groundless slur stuff is cool! Thanks for the tip, Shodan!
Just to make it perfectly clear to you since you really seem to have a hard time if we don’t spell all the little details out for you, what Kerry is saying might be more like, “I really wanted to pay for the war, but I voted against a bill that authorized the money in ways that did not have the proper accountability (like for contracts awarded to overcharging Halliburton) because, strangely enough, I don’t think every word written down by this Administration in a bill is the received word of God.” And, in the second case, it might be, “I voted to authorize the use of military force in order to give Bush the maximum latitude to push Saddam to allow inspectors in and allow them freedom to go where they wanted to…And, the possibility to use military force if he exhausted all reasonable diplomatic options and Saddam remained intransigent. I did not think I authorized Bush to use force because he decided that he was bored with the inspections process or because he felt that Saddam was not turning over the weapons Bush ‘knew’ (wrongly, as it turns out) that Saddam had.”