As the meme rushes out everywhere that the media is "harder on women than it is on a man" in relation to Barack and Hillary, I notice that everyone with that position seems to forget the absolute fawning she got when she was the presumptive candidate. Or that she absolutely trounced the other men. Obama's popularity is assumed to be "because he's a man"? Jeeze. And it's oh-so-hard to be a woman out there, as Hillary says over and over again, making a major campaign point out of her gender. By my count, she and her surrogates mention gender about three times as often as Obama and his surrogates mention race. I think he'd be happy to forget about it. I haven't seen a moment as potentially uncomfortable for Hillary as the "Louis Farrakhan" question was for Obama. They knew they had him on a tightrope, one that was specifically racial. He has gotten where he is without any of the usual support from the usual "black" political establishment (Saturday Night Live did an hysterical sketch about Obama keeping Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton completely hidden). But...that's politics. All of that is just business as usual.
But the Florida and Michigan votes are different. That feels very clearly, to me at least, like cheating: agreeing to play by one set of rules at one point, and then shifting at another. (Similar but not as egregious would be Obama saying that he'd use public funds, and then waffling later. Personally, I think it would be insane to limit himself to public funds if the Republicans resort to the 527-style "Swift Boat" attacks. Any agreement would have to be very very carefully worked out.)
I'd be perfectly cool with several different plans for Michigan and Florida, including not seating the delegates, seating them after a candidate is chosen, seating equal numbers of Obama and Clinton deligates, a primary do-over, a caucus do-over, etc.
But if she can win in Ohio and Texas, and convince the Superdelegates to come to her...I won't like it, but I'll vote for her. If she twists arms to get Michigan and Florida seated, I'll consider voting for McCain.
##
Got about 10 hours left on "Shadow Valley." Keep you posted.
##
I left out one critically important piece of the "Seven Secrets" puzzle: the "Golden Hour." This is the concept of fighting, clawing, negotiating, and sacrificing to get one hour out of the day that belongs to YOU, and no one but you. With one hour per day you can do ALL of the following:
1) Meditate to drop stress levels through the floor.
2) Get into the best shape of your life
3) Write a book a year
4) Read a book a month, or gain almost any skill you desire (assuming it can be done at or near home.)
5) Work out your time-management program, and prioritize your tasks for maximum efficiency
6) Change your entire life for the better.
It is key. People lie to themselves horribly about how little time they have. The average person thinks they have no time. The average person also watches about three hours of television a day. What the hell is THAT?
##
So the question of the day is: If you had one hour a day to dedicate to what YOU want, and only what YOU want...what would you do with it?
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Golden Hour forgotten?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I totally agree with the fact that people lie to themselves about how little time they have - I've even told this lie to myself a time or 2. Guess it's just easier to complain than to do.
If I did have an hour to devote to what I wanted - it would be to write another novel. I have an idea brewing in my head that I'm dying to get out.
What's holding me back at the moment? Hmm, full-time job, managing a website, blogging, reading (and the ever expanding list of things I want to read) and Yoga. All time sappers, but they won't stop me. :-)
Steve said
I haven't seen a moment as potentially uncomfortable for Hillary as the "Louis Farrakhan" question was for Obama. They knew they had him on a tightrope, one that was specifically racial.
You miss the point of that attack: It wasn't racial so much as it was to get the Jewish vote. Farrakhan is an anti-Semite and Jewish voters know it. Given that many in the netroots and the leftist activists are also anti-Israel, this was a perfect opportunity for her to gather the Jewish vote without alienating the Leftists.
You have to walk a very slim tightrope when running for the Democratic nomination.
I think it would be insane to limit himself to public funds if the Republicans resort to the 527-style "Swift Boat" attacks.
Um, you don't think MoveOn.org and other such 527s are not going to be running ads for Obama?
Think again.
And I will point out that "swift-boating" does not mean what the Left apparently thinks it means. I will point out that the Swift-boat folks forced Kerry to recant while the swift-boaters never had to.
And Kerry has yet to release his war records even though he promised.
If she twists arms to get Michigan and Florida seated, I'll consider voting for McCain.
"Consider"? That's a pretty weak statement.
Golden hour
3) Write a book a year
I am doing it. In part, because of this blog and your newsletter. I am receiving a message that pushes your memes to me. Thanks Steve!
Fawning and Hillary: What is coming now is in the majority as a result of that fawning. The Hillary Haters were biding their time until their hate would matter. Frank's comments are on target.
Frank--you're right that it was angling for the Jewish vote. But YOU miss that it was also an attempt to drive a wedge between Obama and his black supporters, many of whom have already accused him of "throwing Farrakhan under the bus."
##
You might be right about MoveOn--but I wasn't aware of anything I thought as unfair as the Swiftboat ads coming from the left.
#
"Think of voting for McCain" is weak support for McCain. But not a weak statement. I'll have to look carefully at what exactly is done, decide if how unethical I consider it to be and the consequences for her presidency. Then look again at McCain. If he has maintained a higher ethical standard, then that will weigh heavily. Too many factors to make a solid statement until the data is in.
I agree with Frank that "swift-boating" is being retconned into a euphemism for "lying" when in fact it was Kerry who had to recant. I'm sure those attack ads were unpleasant and unpopular, but that's politics. They were also true.
As for "I'll consider supporting McCain" being a weak statement--given Steve's political leanings, I think suggesting that he might consider voting for McCain under any circumstance is a fairly strong statement. In the past I've sworn that I'd never, ever support McCain...but if came down to McCain vs Clinton, well...politics is the art of the possible, as they say. I might have to hold my nose and vote for him after all. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, it would be a much tougher choice.
Hmmm. I have never before heard that the swiftboaters were anything but complete liars. Anyone have a reference to Kerry's retraction?
I've heard nothing of a Kerry retraction, nothing official validating the Swift Boat vets, and tons of stuff from the men who served in Kerry's boat affirming his side of the story. Where did Kerry admit to having lied about something, or where is there an official statement to that effect from the government? I would trust nothing else.
"I will point out that the Swift-boat folks forced Kerry to recant while the swift-boaters never had to."
I haven't heard about this one myself. The SwiftBoaters are a pack of liars, however.
Recently someone asked me what I thought two terms of Obama would be like and I posted the following:
Off the top of my head?
Some type of national health care would probably be the biggest
day-to-day change for Americans, and I think Obama is smart enough and
will have the political capital to pass one in his first term. The
Bush tax cuts will be allowed to lapse. Estate taxes are likely to go
up too, and would certainly not be eliminated. Some of that money
will go towards his national health-care plan, but I think most of it
will be eaten up by the baby-boomers retirement costs and that most of
Obama's other programs will never materialize for lack of money.
Social Security will chug along without serious problems, but Medicare
is going to explode. I think the odds are good that the national-debt
to GDP ratio in 2017 will be about the same it is now, despite efforts
to lower it.
He'll likely have to deal with some type of economic problems in 2009,
but the US economy is pretty sound and resilient and will recover
within a year or two and will continue to grow at around 1% more per
year average than the rest of the developed world, as it has for the
last generation. The gap between the US and the Rest, already large,
will become impossible to ignore.
Some of the anti-terror measures introduced by Bush will be repealed,
but not nearly as many as his supporters hope for.
There will be some type of natural disaster during his eight years.
At a guess the response will be more effectively than what happened
with Katrina, but that will probably mostly due to the disaster not
happening in New Orleans.
No change in the war on drugs. I think he secretly believes that dope
should be legalized, but has had to retract earlier statements to that
effect for political reasons and that will be true when he is
President as well.
He really does have very little administrative experience, so I would
expect some bone headed moves and some administrative chaos, but he
seems to be a fast leaner so I would guess that he'd get a grip on
things within one or two years.
The US will continue to receive large numbers of legal and illegal
immigrants. Attempts will be made to address the illegal immigrant
problem but they will come to nothing. There will be no amnesty and
no effective reform, and things will continue to chug along as they
have for the last generation.
The US Supreme court will move to the left and be more interventionist
than it is now.
Slight chance that Puerto Rico could achieve statehood, but no greater
or less than if McCain is elected.
Internationally, I don't think he'll pull the troops out of Iraq
within 18 months of taking office, but I do think he probably will by
2013 except for a isolated and inactive bases. I'm of the opinion
that the surge has been pretty successful and that if the policies are
continued for a few more years some type of functional democracy in
Iraq (or at least on the scale of democracy in South Africa or
Columbia anyways) is likely to last. I think a President Obama would
be smart enough to look at the ground in 2009 and make some sort of
face saving compromise over his promises made in the primaries ("We've
pulled out 60% of our troops since I became President two years ago,
and our casualties are down to 15% of what they were in the worst of
the Bush years, and that's what I _really_ meant by withdrawing the
troops.") and that would largely satisfy the voters of 2011 if Iraq
looks like it is continually improving. But that's not completely
guaranteed at all - he really could pull out all US troops by 2011 and
to hell if the Iraq government collapses or falls into despotism. But
if Iraq falls under his watch, the Democrats will be tarred for it for
a generation, regardless of the fact that the war was started and
mostly fought under a Republican President and Congress (this is one
reason, but not the only, that I don't think he will actually pull out
all troops in 18 months). Americans may not like the current Iraq
War, but they will like loosing it a hell of a lot more. If we win it
(defined as a democratic Iraq that is a US ally and in which
significant amounts of US troops are no longer in active combat
positions) then the US's reputation will be higher from having won an
insurgency war. Either way, I predict no more significant military
actions during Obama's terms unless the US is directly attacked. Even
in victory the US would be too war-weary.
It's a big wild card because it'll effect everything else on the
international scene and even the domestic scene.
Well not everything; I doubt the US relation with China will be much
effect by how Iraq goes. They _might_ think they have a better shot
at taking Taiwan if the US cuts and runs, but I just don't think China
is stupid enough to make a major move against Taiwan in the next eight
years. China's situation is just improving and improving. In 2017 we
are likely to owe them 2 trillion dollars, at least, for one thing.
Relations with India will also continue to improve under Obama, as
they have under Bush. There is a chance that some major alliance
could be made in the next 8 years, but I think that's more of a 10 -
20 year outcome. India and the US are likely to be major partners in
the 21st century, IMO.
Relationships with Europe will probably improve. Bush is seriously
unpopular their that I think Obama would represent enough of a change
that some problems could be patched up, but others would be revealed
to be deeply rooted and structural in nature.
He'll make some serious efforts to patch things up with the Muslim
world - this will receive much press but will not produce any tangible
results. There will be multiple attacks carried out by Muslim
extremists against the West over his presidency. It's doubtful that
they'll succeed in attacking the US, but there will likely be some
successful attacks in Europe. If there are any significant successful
attacks in the US it will be pointed out that none took place under
Bush post-9-11 (assuming none happen between now and when Obama
becomes President) - most of the anti-terror measures that he will
have had repealed will be reinstated under a different name.
He'll probably try to work out some fix to the Palestine's problem -
this will fail.
Some other country will join the nuclear club during his presidency.
It will be a country that everyone was saying was "five-to-ten years
away from the bomb" up to the day they explode one. Probably Iran.
The odds of it starting a nuclear conflict with Israel are low, but
not non-existent.
Some significant country that almost nobody expected to go democratic
will. Some country that is democratic will become despotic. He will
have almost no influence on this but will get the kudos or blame for
each instance regardless.
Having a black President will have non-trivial effects on the US's
image abroad; it will be a lot harder to portray it as racist for one
thing.
That's off the top of my head.
--
I'm curious about your thoughts. What do you find a reasonable scenario for two terms of Obama?
From The Washington Post August 24, 2004
Kerry's Cambodia Whopper
Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia....
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.
Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty.
Then there was the whole Winter Soldier testimony before Congress which is what really pissed off Vietnam Veterans
o In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..." War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.
o Asked for a recommendation about possible courses of action for Congress to pursue, Kerry stated that he had talked with representatives from Hanoi and from the PRG (Viet Cong) at the Paris peace talks, and mentioned his support for "Madam Binh's points." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was at that time the Foreign Minister for the PRG. These meetings took place in the spring of 1970, before Kerry ever joined the VVAW.
o Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'"
o Kerry's used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. Later investigators were unable to confirm any of the reported atrocities, and in fact discovered that a number of the witnesses had never been in Vietnam, had never been in combat, or were impostors who had assumed the identity of real veterans.
o Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered.
From the Boston Globe, August 18, 204
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia/
Kerry disputes allegations on Cambodia
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 18, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry is disputing an allegation made by a group of veterans opposed to his presidential candidacy that he never operated inside Cambodia during the Vietnam War.
But the Kerry campaign said that the group, which calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is wrong and that Kerry was inside Cambodia to drop off special forces on one mission and was at the border on other occasions.
"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien," Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement. The statement did not say when the cross-border mission took place.
At the time of Kerry's service, the official policy was that US forces were supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Cambodia, but they occasionally went inside Cambodia either secretly or in pursuit of the enemy.
For years, Kerry has said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He gave a detailed view of that experience in an article he wrote for the Boston Herald in 1979. "I remember spending Christmas Eve five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." A similar recollection by Kerry was mentioned in a Globe biography of the Massachusetts senator published earlier this year.
The anti-Kerry veterans have said Kerry's recollection does not make sense because Nixon was not inaugurated until January 1969. But Kerry campaign spokesman Meehan said Kerry was referring to a range of time that included when Nixon was president-elect and president. During the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon opposed a change in US policy that would allow "hot pursuit" of enemy forces into Cambodia; in March 1969 he authorized the secret bombing of Cambodia, which was followed by the 1970 invasion of Cambodia.
Kerry said in a 2003 interview that after the Christmas Eve 1968 engagement, he asked his crew to write a caustic telegram to the chief of naval forces in Vietnam, Elmo Zumwalt Jr., to wish him "Merry Christmas from the troops that weren't in Cambodia, which was us. We were."
Meehan, in his statement issued last week, described the incident this way:
"On December 24, 1968, Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire."
James Wasser, who accompanied Kerry on that mission aboard patrol boat No. 44 and who supports Kerry's candidacy, said that while he believes they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, he did not think they entered Cambodia on that mission. Yet he added: "It is very hard to tell. There are no signs."
More at url.
That's a hell of a recantation from Kerry.
The Swift Boaties themselves are provably liars.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
August 6, 2004
Updated: August 22, 2004
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
Summary
A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
More at url.
Thanks, Dan, for the article.
I know for a fact that many US soldiers were in Cambodia when the US was not supposed to be there. It caused a lot of problems when it came to light later in the 1970s.
These medals are not given lightly. Just because someone is wounded does not automatically mean they receive a medal. A superior officer recommends the potential recipient for the medal. The person, and the incident/situation are investigated, then the military does background interviews. The incident is written up by each person involved, or each person is interviewed. For a medal to be falsely given is unusual because it would take a fairly large conspiracy. Usually the case is that medals are not given out when they should be.
I wish I were as good at old article research as Dan, because at least one Swift Boat accuser recanted his statements when he found he was dying.
Dan
The article you reprinted preceded mine by 6 days.
I am not going to dispute Kerry's medals as the Swift Boat Vets did, or as the Fact Check article refutes: I'm not qualified to speak on it.
But it is clear from Kerry's own team that the event that was seared in his memory did not happen. Period.
And another Fact Check Piece discredits Kerry's claims that "genocide" was being committed by US troops as a matter of policy.
In Kerry's own words:
Kerry (May 6, 2001; Meet the Press): I don't stand by the genocide I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim....
I think our soldiers served as nobly, on the whole, as in any war, and people need to understand that.
Q: You committed atrocities?
Kerry (Meet the Press Apr. 18, 2004:) ...I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive....
Q:You used the word "war criminals."
Kerry: It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them....
Q: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...
Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.
Q: So you stand by that?
Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim....
You really have no idea how much animosity there is among Vietnam era Vets because of Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony.
And if you want the other side of the story about the Swift Boat funding and the support for the Medal accusations you can read To set the Record Straight if you so inclined.
But to me even without the medal controversy, these two aspects of the Swift Boat campaign were clearly valid.
mjholt said
I know for a fact that many US soldiers were in Cambodia when the US was not supposed to be there. It caused a lot of problems when it came to light later in the 1970s.
You are correct. It's just that Kerry wasn't there.
These medals are not given lightly.
Actually, Vietnam was (and is) known for Medal Inflation. Some say that as a result, Medals in Iraq and Afghanistan are too hard to come by.
Steve,
I think you would very much enjoy this post about a long conversation with Obama that took place about a year ago.
Sorry, I goofed. Here's the real link I was trying to post.
As the meme rushes out everywhere that the media is "harder on women than it is on a man" in relation to Barack and Hillary,
Clinton must be perceived as a must pick-up/click-through headline. Even when the headline would be better if it read:
"Obama moving ahead in Texas"
the headline reads:
"Clinton falling behind in Texas"
I won't clip dozens of these -- no point -- but I see this type of headline many times per day. I think this may be what is making feminists crazed. Obama is no feminist -- he probably can't afford to be because there are only so many fronts one can fight battles on and win.
For most white men with whom I speak, Obama is a more comfortable choice. There are many reasons for this, but it seems to me that in the male culture, one sticks by your team mate (a male) because that is how your team wins. Women are often left out of the equation. I say this because the men physically look more comfortable talking about Obama. Physical comfort is body language. When I say, what if Hillary gets the nomination, they say something like "Well, of course, I would vote for her," while hunching up their shoulders.
This is why O'Reilly is calling for his listeners to vote for Hillary, he believes that when the chips are down in Nov., he believes a man will always beat a woman.
I think I would be a crazed feminist except for reading your blog, Steve. It adds another depth of perception that tempers my views on the topic.
Frank,
The article you reprinted preceded mine by 6 days.
Yep. And the recantation you suggest Kerry came forward with didn't happen during that six days, either.
But it is clear from Kerry's own team that the event that was seared in his memory did not happen. Period.
Clear to you, I've no doubt. Of course, if I recall, you thought that Joseph Wilson had stated that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons ... because Wilson had met someone who thought that someday Iraq would try. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but the standards of what convinces you, where Democrats are concerned, doesn't work for me.
And another Fact Check Piece discredits Kerry's claims that "genocide" was being committed by US troops as a matter of policy.
In Kerry's own words:
Kerry (May 6, 2001; Meet the Press): I don't stand by the genocide I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim....
I read Kerry saying "I don't stand by the genocide ... we did not try to do that."
OK, there you've got a recantation. Or do the words of Kerry, angry young 27 year old, trump those of Kerry the 60 year old Presidential candidate? I assume, for your purposes, those of the 27 year old.
You really have no idea how much animosity there is among Vietnam era Vets because of Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony.
I have a perfectly good understanding of how much animosiry there is among conservative Vietnam era vets. I also have a very clear image of how liberal vets view the man. Not surprisingly, there's a difference.
Those same conservative vets were angry at Clinton for not serving during Viet Nam, but apparently had no problem with Bush guarding the border from Mexican invasion, when he could be bothered to show up. So I suspect a certain bias in this area. People conservatives are mad at:
Bill Clinton, draft dodger ... and:
John Kerry, war hero in a war he didn't support, Bronze & Silver Star, 3 Purple Hearts
John McCain, war hero in a war he did support, refused release from the Hanoi Hilton while other POWs were being kept
Al Gore, served honorably in Viet Nam in a war he didn't support
George McGovern, flew 35 bomber missions -- the maximum allowed
Bob Kerrey, Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea
Jack Murtha - 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
Gray Davis, former governor of California, Bronze Star in Viet Nam
Just for contrast, here are some people conservatives like:
George Bush, Jeb Bush, Marvin Bush, Neil Bush; Dick Cheney; Mitch McConnell; Bill Frist; Trent Lott; Saxy Chambliss; Rick Santorum; John Ashcroft; Phil Gramm; Dick Army; John Delay; Jack Kemp; David Dreier; Christopher Cox; Bob Barr; Mitt Romney; Kenneth Starr; Bill Bennet; Ted Olson; Karl Rove; Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle; Rudy Giuliani; Antonin Scalia; Clarence Thomas; John G. Roberts; Samuel Alito; Rush Limbaugh; George Will; Pat Buchanan; Pat Robertson; Sean Hannity; Bill O'Reilly; Matt Drudge; Michael "Savage" Weiner; Brit Hume; Roger Ailes; Bill Kristol; Ralph Reed ... and Joe Lieberman.
What's the difference between the people conservatives like and dislike? It can't possibly be military service or courage under fire. We know that much. Since not one person in that second group ever served ...
And if you want the other side of the story about the Swift Boat funding and the support for the Medal accusations you can read To set the Record Straight if you so inclined.
But to me even without the medal controversy, these two aspects of the Swift Boat campaign were clearly valid.
What medal controversy? The one where the Swifties lied repeatedly and were caught at it? I'm guessing that's not what you mean.
"a primary do-over, a caucus do-over, etc."
That would be mega-cool - a runoff! It would be especially useful for the voters who voted Edwards last time. OTOH, it could end up being an incentive for even more states to schedule insanely early primaries and/or caucuses next time around ("we'll get a runoff too!"). Also, is there even time to schedule fair runoffs in FL and MI?
"Obama is no feminist -- he probably can't afford to be because there are only so many fronts one can fight battles on and win."
He seems feminist to me! :)
One hour a day to do what I want ... except that I no longer know what I want.
Is there a part of the "Seven Secrets" that helps a person figure out what they want ... as opposed to what other people think they should want? How do you choose a goal when you realize that your old goals are no longer viable?
Or is that an entirely different book?
I was reading these secrets backward. So I read the one about practicing several times a day before this one and was wondering if this one hour for oneself a day could be done in smaller increments as well or if it's important for it to be a contiguous hour? I think that if it were in smaller parts then you would have less difficulty convincing people that they can devote time to this.
Post a Comment