Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...s-teach26.html

38% in Chicago. The article notes that, at least on some basis, the numbers are consistent between teachers and their non-teacher peers for economic classes. Which would seem to indicate that the teachers aren't any more discouraged about the public schools than the rest of their economic peers in the country, if taken as true.

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From the October 4, 2004 issue of the Weekly Standard:

The disgraceful behavior of John Kerry and his team is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president
by William Kristol
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

• WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?)--all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows?
  
  What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president.
  
  On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Senator Kerry decided not to say anything supportive of the president as he made the American case to the "international community." Nor did he simply campaign that day on other issues. No. Less than an hour after President Bush finished speaking in New York, Kerry was criticizing his remarks in Jacksonville, Florida: "At the United Nations today, the president failed to level with the world's leaders. Moments after Kofi Annan, the secretary general, talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the president of the United States stood before a stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. . . . He does not have the credibility to lead the world."
  
  So Kerry credits Kofi Annan--who a few days before had condemned the "illegal" American war in Iraq--as a more accurate source of information on the subject than the president of the United States. Kerry also seems to think it significant that the General Assembly sat "stony-faced" while the president spoke. Would the applause of delegates from China, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France, have made the president's speech more praiseworthy in Kerry's eyes?
  
  Then Kerry was asked about Kofi Annan's description of the war in Iraq as an "illegal" invasion. Kerry answered: "I don't know what the law, the legalities are that he's referring to. I don't know." So the U.S. government is accused of breaking international law, and Kerry chooses not to defend his country against the charge, or to label it ridiculous or offensive. He is agnostic.
  
  Then Kerry continued: "Well, let me say this to all of you: That underscores what I am saying. If the leader of the United Nations is at odds with the legality, and we're not working at getting over that hurdle and bringing people to the table, as I said in my speech yesterday, it's imperative to be able to build international cooperation." It's our fault that the U.N. is doing almost nothing to help in Iraq. After all, according to Kerry, "Kofi Annan offered the help of the United Nations months ago. This president chose to go the other way."
  
  Leave aside the rewriting of history going on here. The president of the United States had just appealed for help from the United Nations and its member states to ensure that elections go forward in Iraq. Kerry could have reinforced that appeal for help with his own, thereby making it a bipartisan request. He chose instead to give the U.N., France, Germany, and everyone else an excuse to do nothing over these next crucial five weeks, with voter registration scheduled to begin November 1. If other nations prefer not to help the United States, the Democratic presidential candidate has given them his blessing.
  
  Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.
  
  But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."
  
  Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?
  
  John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible--and not even in his own best interest.
  
  There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?
  
  --William Kristol

Jesus Christ, when will these waterheads run out of unjustified indignation? You know you've got two real class A losers on the tickets when they debate is over who's more unfairly and "unpatriotically" villifiying the other.

Have a beer and shut the fuck up Bill. You're lucky to even get air time, since your sole claim to fame is cribbing your old man's policies.

This ain't the best you can give in support of Bush, is it, Slave? I mean, really, whining about how mean and evil-spirited Kerry is? These absurd charges from either side take "throwing stones from glass houses" to a new level. And don't make a fool of yourself by arguing the Kerry has been sleazier and more unpatriotic the Bush in this campaign. You'll get treated - and you should if you raise such an unsustainable argument - like a prison bitch in that debate.

I'll probably still vote for W for purely financial self-interest. But I ain't drinking any of the goddamned kool aid his people are selling, and you'd do well to put down that Big Gulp of it you're holding. The sugar's going to your brain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your guys diminished Allawi by using him as a campaign prop. What you're saying is like complaining that it's dangerous to our troops to point out what a mess Iraq is. What's dangerous is the mess. Pointing it out is likely to save some lives down the road.

Whats most comical is for the right to bash Kerry for making absolutely valid comments about Allawi. He IS a puppet - its a fact, and you'd have to have shit for brains to argue otherwise. So when did telling the truth become treasonous?

My folks are arch GOP nuts, and I take spins through their Coulter and Kristol books when I'm visiting because, well, they're pretty funny. But I never thought that sort of idiot-speak would become the method of battle between the parties. Somewhere, Moore and Coulter are having drinks giggling "Fuck, can you believe that this gimickry has actually transformed how the pros do it?"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
What is "the left?" Its hard to name a "true" voice of the left, because the left is no monolith. You have labor, you have progressives, you have barely reformed socialists, and you have DLC/Clinton-style new democrats. Which one would you like a voice for?

You can point to "true" voices of the right because the right seems to have largely reduced itself to two basic types. You have your bible-thumping social conservatives and you have your classic fiscal consersatives who are rapidly abandoning their principles in and effort to stay in power by prentending to be bible-thumping social conservatives.

As to voices, the only truth I've found so far is that the very lowest common demoninator is the party loyalist/staunch supporter. The staunch supporters of either candidate are consistently the dumbest people in the room. Don't believe me? Ask anyone holding a Kerry or Bush sign or wearing a button. Most Kerry nuts are too young to know better or wealthy enough not to give a shit about the tax implications of his presidency. Most Bush supporters think we're in WWIII and that the nation is embroiled in some "battle for its moral soul", whatever that means.

Those with more than basal matabolism taking place in their brains readily admit the only question this November is "Which guy will hurt me less?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jesus Christ, when will these waterheads run out of unjustified indignation? You know you've got two real class A losers on the tickets when they debate is over who's more unfairly and "unpatriotically" villifiying the other.

This campaign is biased towards mud, but there are types of mud. Some mud has a high shit content. If it happens to be bullshit, you should think twice before you throw it. Kerry's boys should have learned that with its Rathergate memos, but apparently not.

Most people who plan to vote for Kerry dislike him. Most are planning on voting for him because they are against Bush and what has happened in Iraq. All okay, except Kerry has proposed only one change in Iraq. He would "get our allies involved."
I'll put aside the absurdity of this as a goal, both as to liklihood of achievement and benefits from achievement. Kerry's initial steps in his promised greater diplomacy are to ridicule the allies we do have, and call into question the government in Iraq.

Alienating the UK/Australia etc. doesn't bode well for his diplomatic abilities. Questioning the legitimacy of a government that, today, US trops are dying to establish doesn't bode well for his having any ability to make one brave decision.

Assume Allawi's visit was pure a campaign spot for Bush, Kerry has to pass on the attack. If he doesn't have the guts to pass on making some stupid point where discresion demands he pass, how the fuck can anyone trust him with making real hard choices?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Those with more than basal matabolism taking place in their brains readily admit the only question this November is "Which guy will hurt me less?"

Amen brother. Amen.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
As to voices, the only truth I've found so far is that the very lowest common demoninator is the party loyalist/staunch supporter. The staunch supporters of either candidate are consistently the dumbest people in the room. Don't believe me? Ask anyone holding a Kerry or Bush sign or wearing a button. Most Kerry nuts are too young to know better or wealthy enough not to give a shit about the tax implications of his presidency. Most Bush supporters think we're in WWIII and that the nation is embroiled in some "battle for its moral soul", whatever that means.

Those with more than basal matabolism taking place in their brains readily admit the only question this November is "Which guy will hurt me less?"

Agreed as to the loyalist, disagree somewhat as to the "stauch supporter". If by "staunch supporter", you mean someone who thinks the candidate really is the top person for the job (i.e., Bush or Kerry), than I'd tend to agree. People that dumb should be shot. On the other hand, not_dumb people can legitimately think that they are much more likely to be safe, fat and happy under one than the other, and only a stillborn crackhead wouldn't think this a valid reason to be a "staunch supporter"of the one. Its as much being a staunch opponent of the other as being a staunch supporter of the one. Hell, if anything, I'm becoming a staunch supporter of Bush become I'm a staunch supporter of myself and my own interests. I want to live.


Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Assume Allawi's visit was pure a campaign spot for Bush, Kerry has to pass on the attack. If he doesn't have the guts to pass on making some stupid point where discresion demands he pass, how the fuck can anyone trust him with making real hard choices?

Why? On what basis do we have to give Allawi a free ride, or Bush a free pass on trooping his bitch out to garner votes? Because he is the face of the "free" Iraq? Gimme a fucking break.

Lockhart spoke the truth. Allawi's appearance in the US was a cynical move by the Administration and calling them on it was perfectly valid.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why? On what basis do we have to give Allawi a free ride, or Bush a free pass on trooping his bitch out to garner votes? Because he is the face of the "free" Iraq? Gimme a fucking break.

Lockhart spoke the truth. Allawi's appearance in the US was a cynical move by the Administration and calling them on it was perfectly valid.

Is replacing Allawi a part of Kerry's grand plan? If not, he severely compromised a guy who has to do a lot in the future. Not very smart.

If he plans to replace Allawi, then who is treating the government of Iraq as a puppet?

American soldiers will keep dying until there is some semblance of a Government in Iraq. Calling what is there now a puppet, simply because you fear you've lost some votes, is desparate and frankly sick. If JFK felt he had to say something, he could have deflected the allawi statements with something much less damaging:

"Mr. Allawi seemed to say things are going fine. I strongly disagree, and feel things can be a lot better, and shortly after I'm elected I believe Mr. Allawi will agree."

In the end they're both running to run the country. They shouldn't be doing crap to achieve that goal which ultimately hurts the country.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is replacing Allawi a part of Kerry's grand plan? If not, he severely compromised a guy who has to do a lot in the future. Not very smart.

If he plans to replace Allawi, then who is treating the government of Iraq as a puppet?

I thought the plan was to stabilize the country to the point where elections could be held. Then nobody would need a puppet.

American soldiers will keep dying until there is some semblance of a Government in Iraq. Calling what is there now a puppet, simply because you fear you've lost some votes, is desparate and frankly sick. If JFK felt he had to say something, he could have deflected the allawi statements with something much less damaging:

"Mr. Allawi seemed to say things are going fine. I strongly disagree, and feel things can be a lot better, and shortly after I'm elected I believe Mr. Allawi will agree."

In the end they're both running to run the country. They shouldn't be doing crap to achieve that goal which ultimately hurts the country.

American soldiers will keep dying because Kerry's people called Allawi a puppet? C'mon Hank. You may be that much of an idealogue, but you aren't really that stupid, are you? American soldiers will keep dying there no matter what Kerry says, until the political environment is stabilized. And I hate to break it to you, but supporting Allawi just because the US-appointed council named him Big Kahuna isn't stabilizing the situation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is replacing Allawi a part of Kerry's grand plan? If not, he severely compromised a guy who has to do a lot in the future. Not very smart.

If he plans to replace Allawi, then who is treating the government of Iraq as a puppet?

American soldiers will keep dying until there is some semblance of a Government in Iraq. Calling what is there now a puppet, simply because you fear you've lost some votes, is desparate and frankly sick. If JFK felt he had to say something, he could have deflected the allawi statements with something much less damaging:

"Mr. Allawi seemed to say things are going fine. I strongly disagree, and feel things can be a lot better, and shortly after I'm elected I believe Mr. Allawi will agree."

In the end they're both running to run the country. They shouldn't be doing crap to achieve that goal which ultimately hurts the country.

1. Bush's trotting Allawi out made his puppetness fair game. Caveat emptor. And Allawi IS a puppet.

2. The criticism that Kerry somehow endangered soldiers is crap. No kid in Baghdad watched Kerry on the news and said "Damnit, Allawi is a fraud - I'm joining the jihad!" Likewise, the jihadis didn't hold a meeting and say "now its officiial - the American with the long face says Allawi is a fraud! We must double our efforts."

3. To stifle legitimate criticism by calling it unpatriotic is about as treasonous as it gets. Perhaps you've forgotten that this nation was built on people registering dissatisfaction and airing impolite truths. Allawi is a puppet - that's a fact. It deserves air, and to argue that it puts soldiers in harm's way, even though it clearly does not, is pretty damn shitty and low.

4. Its not OK to tell the truth about Allawi, but its ok on rebuttal to exploit the troops by arguing, falsely, that Kerry's comments somehow put the troops in danger?

I see no patriots on either side, just chickenshits and chickenhawks. I'd like to slap some sense into the Dem chickenshits and just slap the teeth out of the Chickenhawks. I mean, really, is there anything lower than a person like Dick Cheney? His hard on for conflict and view that war is a natural condition indicates a man who you'd think would have gone to war. But he had "other priorities" during Vietnam. Really? So did a lot of people. I hate voting for these people, which makes me hate Kerry all the more for being such a collosal failure.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I mean, really, is there anything lower than a person like Dick Cheney? His hard on for conflict and view that war is a natural condition indicates a man who you'd think would have gone to war.

Actually, I think the only people who are really are capable of believing this are those who have never been put in harm's way. I've known enough vets personally and have talked with them enough about their experiences to know that very few, except for the most gung ho of them, are eager to see this country enter into war, unless it's absolutely necessary. Now, there are some (relatively few, from my admittedly small sample) who still believe that the action in Iraq was justified, but I consider that something a little different from what you're talking about.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why? On what basis do we have to give Allawi a free ride, or Bush a free pass on trooping his bitch out to garner votes? Because he is the face of the "free" Iraq? Gimme a fucking break.

Lockhart spoke the truth. Allawi's appearance in the US was a cynical move by the Administration and calling them on it was perfectly valid.

Let me get this straight. Allawi is a puppet, but Araphat is leader worthy of respect, the undivided attention of the American president for several weeks at Camp David, and the Nobel Peace Price.

This is why the DEMs have become a minority party.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me get this straight. Allawi is a puppet, but Araphat is leader worthy of respect, the undivided attention of the American president for several weeks at Camp David, and the Nobel Peace Price.

This is why the DEMs have become a minority party.

The Dems award the Nobel Peace prize? Who knew?

BTW, pointing out that Arafat is an idiot is nice, but does nothing to make Allawi less of a puppet. As Hank would say, you know this, but I thought you should know that I know.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The Dems award the Nobel Peace prize? Who knew?

BTW, pointing out that Arafat is an idiot is nice, but does nothing to make Allawi less of a puppet. As Hank would say, you know this, but I thought you should know that I know.

Cite please. Wasn't Allawi blessed by the UN? Or is the UN now a puppet of the US as well.

Regardless, that is not the point. The point is that Kerry's/Lockhart's choice of words was, and this is an understatement, extremely undiplomatic.