Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
If they did this out of a sincere belief that any race-based qualification is racist, and that society might be better off, in both the long run and the short run, avoiding such distinctions, I don't know if you would think this tactic is ignorant.

I agree. But agreeing with the "bigots" on this level will only get the dems here to start yelling about racism, and I don't have the energy for that one again. sorry bil, I'm losing my vigor for the repeated fight here.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sorry bil, I'm losing my vigor for the repeated fight here.

I know the feeling. I'm wondering if they've come up with a political-discourse Viagra yet.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Given that all of the discussion occurred well after Turnipseed (who thinks of thse names?) did another interview that basically refuted the entire point of what he had been claimed to be saying, no, I think not.

Turnipseed never "refuted" his point, but just said that something to the effect that it was possible that Bush did show up, even if he didn't remember the event. By that time, the story had been in the press and couldn't simply be dropped. Nor should it have been, since by the anemic response from Bush created more problems for him than it solved.

The statement of a military officer who has no vested interest in the issue seems to be a slightly stronger basis for proceeding with a story than the rumor that a former intern might claim she had sex with a presidential candidate.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Like public statements are ever wrong . . . "I did not have sexual relations with that women, Ms. Lewinsky"

By god, you're right! If she denies and he denies it, that must mean that it DID happen, because Clinton denied it too!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This kind of stuff don't help in November:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02....ap/index.html

spree: College Republicans at Roger Williams U. establish a $250 yearly scholarship for "whites only" to protest AA. Yearly winner of essay contest on "Why I'm proud of my white heritage" will win prize -- must submit picture to verify whiteness.

This really is shocking! I mean, they should know that plenty of minorities, especially hispanics, often appear white and that photos alone won't do it. They should get proof of ancestry going back several generations.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If they did this out of a sincere belief that any race-based qualification is racist, and that society might be better off, in both the long run and the short run, avoiding such distinctions, I don't know if you would think this tactic is ignorant.

Possibly because the tactic by which they express this purported belief is to use a race-based qualification?

Or are you saying that their sincere belief is trumped by the notion of "you did it, so we get to do it" (aka tit-for-tat, or nyah nyah na-nyah nyah)? Or that their sincere belief is that society would be better off, in both the long run and the short run, if everyone except this chapter of the College Republicans avoided such distinctions?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
If they did this out of a sincere belief that any race-based qualification is racist, and that society might be better off, in both the long run and the short run, avoiding such distinctions, I don't know if you would think this tactic is ignorant.

Please feel free to make this point as often as you like, and to fund some of these scholarships!

Doing outrageous things to make a point is an honored tradition among those protesting on all sides; tying such things to a political party and campaign, however, is usually seen as a tactical blunder.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bingo! We have a winner!

Now, how do we do that? (Seriously).

I'd propose the term "civil marriage" be used on all state-issued marriage certificates, and henceforth we always make clear that civil marriage is a nondiscriminatory legal status. Leave the word "marriage" without any adjective for religion, and let "marriage certificates" be issued by churches, synagogues, etc. (Of course, suddenly, all gay catholics will become Unitarians).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Turnipseed never "refuted" his point, but just said that something to the effect that it was possible that Bush did show up, even if he didn't remember the event.

"Retired Brigidier General William Turnipseed, who commanded the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery, Alabama, told the Associated Press in May of 2000 that he didn't recall Bush reporting for duty there, "To my knowledge he never showed up." But on Tuesday, Turnipseed told the AP that he was not sure whether he was even on the base during the time Bush was assigned there. Moreover, he said, "In 1972, I didn't even know he was supposed to come, I didn't know that until 2000. I'm not saying he wasn't there. If he said he was there, I believe it. I don't remember seeing it."

Sounds like "no foundation", which, in my world, means "no evidence". More importantly, beyond that fairly technical point, it sounds like he's saying flat out "I'd have no way of knowing that". That's the evidence that you think should spring rumors to the main pages?

(FWIW, I think the Kerry thing should be just as out-of-bounds as this AWOL thing. There truly is no real evidence of either.)

====================================

(I'll throw in the rest, as it's revealing:

"President Bush has had a rough 10 days, beginning with the Tim Russert "Meet the Press" interview on Feb. 1 of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who charged Bush was "AWOL" and "never served in the military." Only a week later, Bush asked to appear on Russert's show in a clear attempt to stem the damage from these charges. For over a week they were endlessly repeated and never analyzed by the news media.

But the only basis for these charges was summarized by London's Sunday Telegraph on Feb. 8: "If the Vietnam veteran John Kerry becomes the next president, there will be one man to thank above all others: retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed."

It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush's National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.

But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

Sen. John Kerry got in on the act on Sunday, asking, "was he [Bush] present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question." But as Turnipseed points out, Bush was never "supposed to be" anything in Alabama. And Kerry doesn't have "the answer" because he is taking advantage of a partisan political fantasy that has stayed aloft this long because of the lousy job done by the press in reporting on it.

Now, Robinson is beginning to have second thoughts. His latest column states: "President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe." How could Robinson have gotten it so wrong?

The most charitable explanation for this distortion is the almost total ignorance the press of the realities of military service and its record-keeping. Yet Turnipseed has been repeatedly called by news organizations since the Globe reporting four years ago, and no one has chosen to correct the errors he has tried to point out or cover his denials.

The most startling aspect of this story is that the press has continually treated this affair as a political debate rather than a matter of fact.

An Air National Guard officer such as George Bush left an extensive paper trail of service. The vital summary sheet of a military record is a simple form called the DD214 or NGB 22. It covers all the basic questions being asked about Bush today. Every military veteran has one.

Kerry has one. On it are listed his dates of service, the nature of his discharge and the medals and service ribbons he has every reason to be proud of. It was filed away at the time of discharge and is almost impossible to alter.

Did a single member of the thousands in the press take the trouble to look up just one DD214 or NGB22 -- President Bush's?

Apparently not. And that is the saddest part of the story."

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/29496/view?viewtype

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Possibly because the tactic by which they express this purported belief is to use a race-based qualification?

Or are you saying that their sincere belief is trumped by the notion of "you did it, so we get to do it"

Much more basic. "You do this all of the time, but we know that, when we do this same thing, it's going to drive you to a frantic kind of bonkers, and we always like to watch that."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
tying such things to a political party and campaign, however, is usually seen as a tactical blunder.

Thank you for clearing this up for me. I had wondered about the last two sets of national elections.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd propose the term "civil marriage" be used on all state-issued marriage certificates, and henceforth we always make clear that civil marriage is a nondiscriminatory legal status. Leave the word "marriage" without any adjective for religion, and let "marriage certificates" be issued by churches, synagogues, etc. (Of course, suddenly, all gay catholics will become Unitarians).

Do you think that will get you by the fundies' unwillingness on the "spousal benefits" issues? Or, are you thinking that the ability to differentiate their own, "proper, gawd-fearin"" marriage from the blasphemous unions will be enough? (I'm thinking not - I'm thinking they don't want any money going the "wrong" way, and that that's a significant part of the fight.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
By god, you're right! If she denies and he denies it, that must mean that it DID happen, because Clinton denied it too!

Exactly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
By god, you're right! If she denies and he denies it, that must mean that it DID happen, because Clinton denied it too!

clinton wasn't lying until the dress turned up. I heard there is a tape of either kerry or intern, so stay tuned.

the Kerry thing has moved through lots of people, both parties, to be completly unfounded.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
(FWIW, I think the Kerry thing should be just as out-of-bounds as this AWOL thing. There truly is no real evidence of either.)

The Kerry thing should be out of bounds (excluding this board) whether or not there is real evidence. This is a private matter and there is no pending lawsuit in anyway relating to it.