Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The other interesting piece was that they actually expected the BBC to have journalistic standards. THAT is amazing.

Next big story will be the changes in the BBC funding scheme.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You are reaching new levels of inanity.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I thought I was articulating what you were saying.

I nominate this for Archetypical PB Exchange of the Week. (APBEW?)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
That's because you've got it on MPR, ya dumbshit.

(One question answered.)

Wait - you're implying that the Minnesota version of NPR would be more conservative than the national?

Minnesota? One of the two Mondale states? Home of Wellstone?

(Or, I've missed your point here, and will feel foolish once you explain.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I nominate this for Archetypical PB Exchange of the Week. (APBEW?)

You're a Kerry Guy, aren't you?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Remember the BBC and Gilligan saying that Blair made up the 45 minute claim?

Remember the whole Kelly-suicide mess? Remember "Kelly was an intelligence insider"?

Now, the investigation concludes that the BBC published lies, failed to research the basic allegations, and was completely at fault, and that Blair et al. were blameless.

And, the BBC chairman resigns in disgrace.

(How come this kind of stuff gets page 47, after filling page 1 for weeks when the lies were being made?)

FWIW, it was the top story this morning on NPR's morning edition.

ETA: Scroll, then post. Scroll, then post.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, it was the top story this morning on NPR's morning edition.

Okay, in the face of two such assertions, I have to concede. I must have just missed it on ME.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, in the face of two such assertions, I have to concede. I must have just missed it on ME.

If you missed it, you can listen here.

edited to say, well, that didn't work, let me try that again

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

I cannot believe that there is a single person in this country who would vote for Hillary but not for Kerry. OK, make that a "single, non-institutionalized person".

Aren't there a bunch of people who would vote for Hillary who otherwise wouldn't vote?

Of course, there are probably even more people who would vote against Hillary that wouldn't otherwise vote.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I would not quibble with GWB's military record -- because I think there is no profit in it for the Democratic party in the 2004 elections.

However, while I would not characterize it the way Ty has done, I think that there are enough legitimate questions about Bush's situation that (particularly when combined with Cheney's five deferments) Sen. Kerry will or should be largely insulated from such charges during the campaign.

Consider -- It is no distortion to say that there appear to be serious and legitimate questions about whether Pres. Bush, as a young man, fulfilled his obligations as a member of the NG (?) in the early to mid-1970s.

It is also no distortion to say that there appear to be serious and legitimate questions about whether Pres. Bush, as a young man and the son of the (former) local Congressman and U.N. ambassador, received preferential treatment by being assigned a highly coveted slot in the local unit of the Texas Air National Guard, while there was a waiting list for such positions.

Now, some who have reason to know have said YES, and some have said NO, on each of these issues. That was then, this is now, and in any event nothing can be proven. However, when you combine this with Kerry's unquestioned war record and the lack therof for GWB or Cheney, I think that Kerry will be relatively safe from charges of opportunism and exploitation -- even if lots of people don't like him.

S_A_M

Did you all vote for the first time in 2000? The whole "he fucked the military and dodged his duty" argument pretty much died as an issue round about Nov. 1992.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, in the face of two such assertions, I have to concede. I must have just missed it on ME.

I heard it on BBC world news on NPR, but the intro indicated that it was already covered on ME.

BBC gave it very extensive coverage, mostly live clips from Lord whatever and Blair. If anything, the coverage focused on the criticisms of the BBC -- again, not exactly what we'd see on ABC, CBS or (even moreso) Fox!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Did you all vote for the first time in 2000? The whole "he fucked the military and dodged his duty" argument pretty much died as an issue round about Nov. 1992.

Remember, issues about how two different candidates avoided service are a bit less compelling that issues about one candidate serving honorably while the other avoided service (and couldn't even get up in the morning to make his alternative service-lite).

Bush will try to quiet this issue by emphasizing how commandingly he has sent more kids into a war many of them took issue with.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Did you all vote for the first time in 2000? The whole "he fucked the military and dodged his duty" argument pretty much died as an issue round about Nov. 1992.

Disliking Kerry as I do, I still have to say - the VN war introduced a new issue into the "military service for pols" theme, allowing for an honorable out. Kerry, both before and after the war, made no secret of his antipathy towards it, and then still went, voluntarily (well, as in, he chose his duty instead of waiting for the number to pop up) and did it well. There is a reason why every other sentence he speaks involves Viet Nam. It was a high point with no downside for him, really.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
There is a reason why every other sentence he speaks involves Viet Nam. It was a high point with no downside for him, really.

Potential Death?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Remember, issues about how two different candidates avoided service are a bit less compelling that issues about one candidate serving honorably while the other avoided service (and couldn't even get up in the morning to make his alternative service-lite).

Bush will try to quiet this issue by emphasizing how commandingly he has sent more kids into a war many of them took issue with.

Clinton beat Bush's dad in 1992. Bush's dad had a good record. Issues with fucking around to avoid military were discounted, I submit forever.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I heard it on BBC world news on NPR, but the intro indicated that it was already covered on ME.

BBC gave it very extensive coverage, mostly live clips from Lord whatever and Blair. If anything, the coverage focused on the criticisms of the BBC -- again, not exactly what we'd see on ABC, CBS or (even moreso) Fox!

The Beeb sort of fell on their sword about the whole thing with a Panorama last week (before the report came out - I was wondering if they had got a tip), but were doing an impressive job of preemptively spinning it nevertheless (basically, the tone was "what we reported was wrong and was never reviewed, but if we'd done proper reporting like we were supposed to we might have been able to justify lesser anti-war assertions"). The footage of Kelly himself telling the Beeb that SH had WMD that, if not already assembled, could be assembled and deployed in days or weeks and therefore were an immediate threat was, um, bad, though.

This, combined with Blair's (narrow) win on school fees is probably a lucky save for Labor. Gordon Brown is a better post-coup bet than Major, but it's still distressing watching Labor trying to commit suicide so soon after getting its act together for the first time in decades.