Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

The Place Where I Happen To Be today is, happily, only a few blocks from The Place Where Bush Will Be Later. So, during a break, I strolled out there to scope it out.

People are lining up to get in already, in a line ten people across and several hundred yards long. (It's a big venue.) Across the major street are several hundred protesters.

The line to get in is quite the family-centric mix, with lots of parents with their kids, all carrying little plastic flags, and sporting B-C stickers.

Then there's the line of heavily-armed police and soldiers, on the curb. Big black cars, Humvees, jeeps, trucks - quite the military display.

The protesters are all yelling and chanting and waving signs that have a fair preponderance of obscenities. Likewise, their chants contain the same. You can see parents on one side looking quite uncomfortable as their little kids are assaulted by the "F**K Bush" chants.

As I walked by, one kid asked his mom "why are those people yelling those words at us?"

Mom said "they're Democrats, dear."

So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why? Frankly, if I were on the fence, seeing that kind of conduct would make me lean towards choosing differently than the protesters, simply because their behavior would seem to speak to the merit of their cause, and to the thoughtfulness of their response.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore

So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why?

Halliburton or Ashcroft. I know one of those is the right answer (it always is) but I get confused which one goes where.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why? Frankly, if I were on the fence, seeing that kind of conduct would make me lean towards choosing differently than the protesters, simply because their behavior would seem to speak to the merit of their cause, and to the thoughtfulness of their response.

I'm not going to defend them, just note that unfortunately one can not choose one's fellow members in a political party here in the US. If so, I'd make sure all the obscenity using people joined Cheney* and the Republicans.

OTOH, every time some assjack with a Bush sticker on the back of his SUV cuts me off in traffic, I have much the same negative reaction: he's not helping you guys any.


* Cheap shot. Sorry.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Mom said "they're Democrats, dear."

So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why? Frankly, if I were on the fence, seeing that kind of conduct would make me lean towards choosing differently than the protesters, simply because their behavior would seem to speak to the merit of their cause, and to the thoughtfulness of their response.

Some additional thoughts:

I like the way Mom tarred us all with the same brush.

They do it for the same reason that abortion opponents spit on abortion advocates: they're pissed off. They aren't being rational. They aren't trying to persuade. They are trying to convey the raw message that Mr. Bush and the people who support him deeply offend them through actions and beliefs. The protests aren't aimed at the voter on the edge; they're aimed at Bush himself.

[Replaced_Texan]

Just for clarification purposes yesterday, after a PM discussion with Wonk, I edited one of Wonk's posts on the PB.

I thought, on my own and without having seen any other reactions to the post, that it was potentially threatening to the President, and I responded. Later, I received a PM from a moderator with similar concerns suggesting that the post be considered for deletion. I responded that I'd talk to Wonk.

I sent Wonk a PM asking him if he could soften the language a bit. I did not tell him that I would delete the post and I never really considered deleting the post, though in retrospect, given that I am the admin of lawtalkers, it could have been construed as a "change it or else" PM. I also posted a thread on the admin board asking for input from other admins. Wonk responded via PM with suggested softer language. When I saw Wonk's response, I deleted the admin thread, thinking the issue had been resolved. I thanked him via PM, and I clarified why I was concerned, citing what I thought was applicable statutory language that I had found on my own. I found the language, unfortunately, through having to deal with the Secret Service following up percieved threats to the President and I related that to Wonk. Wonk's follow up PM disputed the applicability of the statute, but he allowed me to use my judgment about whether or not to delete the post if I felt that it may cause harm to the community.

Wonk then amended his earlier statement on the PB in a follow up post.

Seeing his amendment on the PB, I edited "that I would rather see Bush dead than re-elected" to "[that any man who is willing to put my life and the lives of millions of people at risk in order to curry favor with a small but vocal voting bloc deserves to find himself the victim of the sort of poetic justice that would result from him being in the position one day of having his life dependent upon a cure that won't be found in his lifetime for a disease that could have been treated with the appropriate measure of stem cell research.]" and I noted at the bottom that I changed the post to reflect Wonk's own amendment.

If I read things correctly, Wonk just posted that he edited the original post as well, and we may have been editing at the same time.

Then I went to the meeting that I was already late for.

When I came back, I saw that Wonk was objecting to my edit, and I posted that I had thought that he had agreed to the edit, and if that was not the case, he was more than free to change it back.

Anyone who has been following the politics board knows that I am supportive of neither the current administration nor its position on stem cell research. I brought the issue up to Wonk because I saw that two posters (myself and Aloha) independently came to the same conclusion that it was the type of statement that the Secret Service could have an interest in investigating. Our responsive posts were nearly identical, though neither one of us had seen the other's response before posting. I honestly thought I had consent to alter the post, and I would not have done so without that consent.

Obviously, I would have never gotten involved had I not been the moderator of this board, and my PM to Wonk was definitely sent in my capacity as moderator. If I hadn't been late for a meeting, I probably would have tried to get a little more consensus from the other admins and mods on the situation, but I made a judgment call, and clearly it is one that can be disputed.

I take censorship very seriously, and I welcome any comments on how better to handle a situation like this one.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why? Frankly, if I were on the fence, seeing that kind of conduct would make me lean towards choosing differently than the protesters, simply because their behavior would seem to speak to the merit of their cause, and to the thoughtfulness of their response.

They probably doubt that the folks in line are even close to the fence, what with the reports of the required pre-speech loyalty oaths and all.

For the record, I don't much like that brand of protest, esp after watching the black bloc morons here in SF over the last few years. But you should look on the bright side; those kids are going to be GOPers for life after the unpleasantness of this situation is implanted on their subconscious. It's better than electroshock (which we Dems have not yet perfected, unfortunately).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I like the way Mom tarred us all with the same brush.

She should have said "they're deranged," "they're UM students," or "they're vegetarians," since each of these groups doubtless is statistically much more likely to be a member of the protest.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But you should look on the bright side; those kids are going to be GOPers for life after the unpleasantness of this situation is implanted on their subconscious.

Are you kidding? This is like signing them up for the Young Democrats. Mom was basically saying, when you start to rebel, this is how you do it. Think Alex Keaton in reverse.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Self-proclaimed former girlfriend of Kerry sets up scrapbook tribute website to him:

Link

Spree: Looks like book promotion website. Contains one drawn image of nudity on book cover.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Just for clarification purposes yesterday, after a PM discussion with Wonk, I edited one of Wonk's posts on the PB.

I thought, on my own and without having seen any other reactions to the post, that it was potentially threatening to the President, and I responded. Later, I received a PM from a moderator with similar concerns suggesting that the post be considered for deletion. I responded that I'd talk to Wonk.

I sent Wonk a PM asking him if he could soften the language a bit. I did not tell him that I would delete the post and I never really considered deleting the post, though in retrospect, given that I am the admin of lawtalkers, it could have been construed as a "change it or else" PM. I also posted a thread on the admin board asking for input from other admins. Wonk responded via PM with suggested softer language. When I saw Wonk's response, I deleted the admin thread, thinking the issue had been resolved. I thanked him via PM, and I clarified why I was concerned, citing what I thought was applicable statutory language that I had found on my own. I found the language, unfortunately, through having to deal with the Secret Service following up percieved threats to the President and I related that to Wonk. Wonk's follow up PM disputed the applicability of the statute, but he allowed me to use my judgment about whether or not to delete the post if I felt that it may cause harm to the community.

Wonk then amended his earlier statement on the PB in a follow up post.

Seeing his amendment on the PB, I edited "that I would rather see Bush dead than re-elected" to "[that any man who is willing to put my life and the lives of millions of people at risk in order to curry favor with a small but vocal voting bloc deserves to find himself the victim of the sort of poetic justice that would result from him being in the position one day of having his life dependent upon a cure that won't be found in his lifetime for a disease that could have been treated with the appropriate measure of stem cell research.]" and I noted at the bottom that I changed the post to reflect Wonk's own amendment.

If I read things correctly, Wonk just posted that he edited the original post as well, and we may have been editing at the same time.

Then I went to the meeting that I was already late for.

When I came back, I saw that Wonk was objecting to my edit, and I posted that I had thought that he had agreed to the edit, and if that was not the case, he was more than free to change it back.

Anyone who has been following the politics board knows that I am supportive of neither the current administration nor its position on stem cell research. I brought the issue up to Wonk because I saw that two posters (myself and Aloha) independently came to the same conclusion that it was the type of statement that the Secret Service could have an interest in investigating. Our responsive posts were nearly identical, though neither one of us had seen the other's response before posting. I honestly thought I had consent to alter the post, and I would not have done so without that consent.

Obviously, I would have never gotten involved had I not been the moderator of this board, and my PM to Wonk was definitely sent in my capacity as moderator. If I hadn't been late for a meeting, I probably would have tried to get a little more consensus from the other admins and mods on the situation, but I made a judgment call, and clearly it is one that can be disputed.

I take censorship very seriously, and I welcome any comments on how better to handle a situation like this one.

It appears that we both had a bit of a miscommunication. I felt that I was being put in a position of being told to edit the post or it would be deleted. I also was quite certain that I had understood you to say that you were reacting to PMs received from other posters.

My problem was not with you, personally. As you should know, I like you and respect you. My distaste was for the notion that I could be put in a position of having to censor myself, or be pressured by others to censor myself in a free-flowing political forum.

So I offended some people. Tough Shit. The same people I offended frequently offend me. That's the nature of partisan politics. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I got the impression you were acting at the behest of others, and that the statutory argument you made was pure smokescreen. If that isn't the case, then I stand corrected. But don't go throwing federal criminal law at me unless you are prepared to offer up proof that each and every element of that statute has been met, and the statute in question hasn't been held unconsitutional on it face or as applied in facts substantially similar to the ones presented.

On the other hand, I will not take part in a forum where people operate in an atmosphere of fear. I demand thee right to post what I want, provided it isn't targeted at a member of the community (even fringe) or clearly designed to incite mayhem or violence.

If you have a problem with that, say so now. I'll simply refrain from taking part in the discussion. If you don't, I consider the matter at an end.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, I wonder if people go to such protests and yell obscenities because they think such conduct has persuasive value, or . . . why?

You've been posting on Politics for how many years and you're just now asking this question?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It appears that we both had a bit of a miscommunication. I felt that I was being put in a position of being told to edit the post or it would be deleted. I also was quite certain that I had understood you to say that you were reacting to PMs received from other posters.

I had received PMs, but I was also concerned independently of the PMs.

So I offended some people. Tough Shit. The same people I offended frequently offend me. That's the nature of partisan politics. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I got the impression you were acting at the behest of others, and that the statutory argument you made was pure smokescreen. If that isn't the case, then I stand corrected. But don't go throwing federal criminal law at me unless you are prepared to offer up proof that each and every element of that statute has been met, and the statute in question hasn't been held unconsitutional on it face or as applied in facts substantially similar to the ones presented.

On the other hand, I will not take part in a forum where people operate in an atmosphere of fear. I demand thee right to post what I want, provided it isn't targeted at a member of the community (even fringe) or clearly designed to incite mayhem or violence.

If you have a problem with that, say so now. I'll simply refrain from taking part in the discussion. If you don't, I consider the matter at an end.

Though I had received PMs, I was generally acting on my own, feeling my way through a situation that I thought was dicey, and had I not been running late, I probably would have solicited for more input. I wouldn't have cared if the language could be interpreted as offensive. But it could have been interpreted as threatening, and I wasn't the only one who thought so. I offered up the statutory language and my own personal experience with such matters after I thought the matter had been resolved, just so you could see where I was coming from. That was supposed to be for clarification, not for coersion, and if it was taken that way, I apologize. I'm not used to wearing the admin hat.

I don't have a problem with your posting under the terms that you outlined. In fact, I would insist on those terms.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In Slate, William Saletan examines -- and rejects -- the claims in the advertisement by the Swift veterans:

• The Swiftvets' allegations are deliberately blurred. Their ad starts with John Edwards urging people to talk to "the men who served with" Kerry. Several Swiftvets then appear on the screen, saying they "served with" Kerry. This is a semantic trick. Edwards is talking about crewmates who, at one time or another, accompanied Kerry on his six-man boat. The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.
  
  Thirteen vets make 15 statements in the ad. Let's discard the unfalsifiable ones: "You could not count on John Kerry," "John Kerry is no war hero," "John Kerry has not been honest," "John Kerry cannot be trusted," "He is lying about his record," and "He lacks the capacity to lead." There's no way to fact-check these because they cite no facts.
  
  Next, let's distinguish Kerry's statements about what he did from his statements about what others did. Most of the Swiftvets' material complaints address the latter: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam," "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did," "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate." Phrases such as "what happened in Vietnam," "dishonored his country," "lied before the Senate," and "the men and women he served with" (there were no women on Kerry's boat) give away that these claims have nothing to do with Kerry's service. They're about his allegations afterward that American forces participated in war crimes.
  
  The war crimes debate is murky. Kerry testified not about what he had seen but about what other servicemen had told him. And some war crimes clearly occurred. So at a minimum, in both spirit and substance, he didn't lie.
  
  That brings us to the allegations that he misrepresented his own experiences. Here, Kerry's testimony was firsthand, so his veracity is on the line. Only two statements in the ad fall into this category. One comes from Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The other comes from Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."
  
  Letson loses credibility right away for implying that he has firsthand knowledge about his allegation. He doesn't. The allegation has to do with the source of Kerry's injury, not its severity. According to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times, Letson told the paper that after treating Kerry, "[Letson] learned from some medical corpsmen that other crewmen had confided that there was no exchange of fire and that Kerry had accidentally wounded himself as he fired at the guerrillas. Letson said he didn't know if the crewmen giving this account were in the boat with Kerry or on other boats."
  
  That's third-hand testimony from somebody who doesn't even know the identity or location of the firsthand source. Pretty lousy stuff. Furthermore, the Times notes, "Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity—and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.' … A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." Case closed.
  
  O'Dell, on the other hand, really "was there" when Kerry earned his Bronze Star. This was the incident in which Kerry pulled Jim Rassman, a green beret, from a river. Nobody disputes that it happened or that mines had gone off. Kerry says the rescue happened under fire. O'Dell and some others who were in boats nearby say it didn't. Rassman backs up Kerry's version. So does Del Sandusky, a crewman on Kerry's boat, who told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week, "I saw the gunflashes shooting at us from the shore. I saw the rounds hitting the water." So does the Navy's official after-action report. Such reports normally included input from all Swift boat officers involved in a battle. Bottom line: Everyone agrees that there were explosions, and among the men who were on Kerry's boat or in the water next to it, the record of testimony on Kerry's account that shots were fired is 2-0 for Kerry. So much for the Swiftvets ad.

eta:

In the same piece, Jacob Weisberg agrees:

• The ad is a carefully crafted lie. The Swift Boat Veterans ad is beyond vile. You nail many of its distortions. There's a useful survey of some others at Fact check.org. Suffice it to say that the spot packs an impressive amount of deceit into 60 seconds. Without entering into every detail of the "controversy," it pretends, as you note, that people who weren't present when Kerry sustained injuries were eyewitnesses. It implies that Kerry wouldn't deserve his Purple Hearts if his injuries had been caused by friendly fire, when in fact he would still qualify. It implies he has said things about his experience that he hasn't. It blurs the distinction between friendly fire and "self-inflicted wounds," implying that Kerry intentionally harmed himself to receive medals and escape Vietnam. It makes criticism of his activities after returning home sound like criticism of his activities in Vietnam. "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Predictably, conservative mud-slingers will advance other allegations once these fail. There's always more mud to be had.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.instapundit.com

Re Instapundit's discussion of Tommy Franks' new book -- actually, Glenn Reynolds was just quoting from a review by Max Boot -- you should take a look at this. Phil Carter is a former Army officer who has a blog and writes for Slate. He quotes extensively from Franks' book to refure Boot. This is only part of his conclusion:

• I think that Mr. Boot's review misses the mark in two major ways. First, Mr. Boot says that Gen. Franks does not "seriously ponder what more he could have done to foster a secure postwar environment in Iraq and Afghanistan." That's not true. He does ponder it, and at some length. But as a good soldier, Gen. Franks is not going to come out and say that the White House and Pentagon screwed the pooch on Phase IV — he's going to imply it in subtle ways, by shifting responsibility for certain segments of the operation or levels of command. That's exactly what he does in the book, but Mr. Boot misses it.
  
  Second, the review implies that the other post-war criticisms of the Bush administration are unfounded — that the administration's judgment on this operation has been borne out by events. I just don't think you can make a colorable argument to support that point. The fact of the matter is that this administration latched onto every optimistic assumption in the book, as James Fallows reported in the Atlantic Monthly, and failed to effectively plan for the chaos and instability that followed the war. Of course, you couldn't foresee that with any certainty. But you sure as hell could plan for it — and in my opinion, it was derelict not to at least anticipate (and plan for) a worst-case scenario. As I wrote in June 2003 for the Washington Monthly, we have always known that it takes more troops and time to secure the peace than to win the war — it's simply a more complicated endeavor. We ignored the lessons of Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo in Iraq, and we are now paying the price.

BTW, when you quote from something like a blog and use the QUOTE tags, and include only the cite outside those tags, it's hard to respond to you because when somewhere quotes your post, the software omits from that quote whatever was in your QUOTE tags. This is one reason to use the LIST tags instead. Just FYI.

[Dave]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
For the record, I don't much like that brand of protest, esp after watching the black bloc morons here in SF over the last few years.

Concur. I've always thought that most protestors would be more effective if they were (a) original every once in a while*, and (b) funnier. If I could go back to the old school days (undergraduate, when your time was your own if you had at least six brain cells), I would enjoy assembling a group of crack protestors with a commitment to mounting a fine theater of the absurd.



* I swear I once heard a "hey-hey, ho-ho, mystery meat has got to go" chant when passing a picketed cafeteria.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
myriad confused arguments

I thought they were guys from a photo Kerry was using in ads. If it were a lie the NYT would cover the unmasking, since the NYT won't touch the story, we can be sure its true.