Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is rich. Lemme get this straight. The incumbent can attack the challenger with all sorts of lowball tactics, engaging in the sleaziest of smear campaigns and personally attacking the challenger, but the challenger can't attack the incumbent back with similar smear which is BASED ON THE INCUMBENT'S RECORD? Are you seriously saying that?

It used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge. That is not the case anymore and I think we are worse off for it. READ my post, I didn't say the challenger couldn't challenge, and if done in the right manner, critism can be helpful. But its the hyperbolic houghing that is dismaying. "Bush Lied" - are you fucking kidding me. You should have a helluva a lot more evidence than they had if you are going to make this claim in war time on a war issue.

Nice Lloyd Bentsen by the way.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
Meaning.......

Doesn't this mean that Afghanistan is going fine, and that we really don't need more troops there?

Meaning, we've been there a lot longer?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well understand that no one can resonably draw any conclusion as we haven't seen the evidence of which you speak. Well Ty will draw the conclusions that Bush has lied and gotten us into a quagmire, but no one else will.

It's purely anecdotal and so has limited value.

Whether or not Bush or Cheney spoke untruths is self-evident. It's just fun to see R's making the same kind of arguments they were deriding back in the "what is the definition of 'is'" era. Here are several quotes from back when Bush and Cheney were making the case for American's dying in an invasion of a foreign country:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. -- George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it. -- Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -- Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Here is yesterday, right after the administration for the first time indicated that a reason for going to war was to rectify abuses in the oil-for-food program:

''The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that.'' -- Cheney

''Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,'' Bush said.

So tell us again why the earlier statements are not untrue or misleading?

And, tell us when Cheney and Bush knew there were no WMD and why they didn't tell us then?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Apologies for not recognizing your family members. So somehow it doesn't surprise me that now the two posters here who seem to have relatives on the ground are each people who have been shaking their head at the conduct of this war.

I note that a deep underlying problem of this administration is their myopia. With Bush in power, we will only help build a stable long term government there by accident - because we will keep making decisions to put US interests above those of the Iraqis, which will lead to undermining the government we are trying to support. The handling of construction contracts is another area where, if done correctly, we could have been playing a major role in building up Iraqi businesses and the middle class, but as done now, we are mainly building up the coffers of foreign contractors like Halliburton.

I know - we fought the war, we deserve the spoils. And with that attitude, we will end up having to fight another war down the road.

Two things. I think you've been more entertaining recently, particularly when your avatar was that unfairly-treated chick who was fired on the Apprentice.

Second, my one and only brother has not been sent there though he has been activated numerous times since 9/11 for all kinds of stuff. And he's a hard-core midlevel combat-oriented air assault/light infantry reserve/NG officer. He's senior enough that parts of his old units have been activated and sent to do all kinds of things, including taking the part of insurgents.

If anyone cares to out me based on the information I've provided here (in this post and others), feel free. I'm Right and I'm not afraid of being recognized by strangers in the same way I'm recognized by friends and family.

The bottom line of my views is that Rummy/Wolfy etc. are absolutely hated by the military. I've made numerous comments comparing them to McNamara etc. The simple fact is that the Secretary of Defense should not pretend he rose through the ranks and became a General, unless he did. He should find out what the people need to get a job done, and either give it to them or not undertake the job. Rummy did neither. My reading, and that of many others, is Rummy found generals who wouldn't disagree with his Napoleonic daydreams and made sure they were in charge, replacing others in the process.

Other than that, I'm all in favor of taking the fight to the enemy. Right idea, wrong implementation.

Of course, I have more distant relatives and friends and friends' kids who have been activated and sent there, almost entirely very junior level people. I'm not sure I'd consider their word as strongly as I consider the input I get from my brother. My brother is, like me, hard-core Right. And the input I get is that Rummy and his crew are the weakest link in the Bush Admin. Comparing a supposed "neo-con" to McNamara is no lite step, and yet, the guy is guilty of exactly what the Right (and really, anyone with a brain) complained about for 30 years after Vietnam.

Anyway, that's my input. My one and only brother is at risk. He and I are all in favor of engaging in war with our enemies, where feasible. But only if the generals are allowed to draw up a battle plan and use it. In Iraq, there is no reasonable reading that suggests they were allowed to do so. Don't believe me? Just ask Shalishkavili and Shinseki.

Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Say this aloud three times every time you feel compelled to abbreviate the "President of the United States" as "Shrub."

Respect the office, not the man.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No. I don't think they are a mess. I certainly don't think they are optimal either, and the Administration has some blame for that, but nothing like this is expected to go of as expected of planned. There is a lot of bad news coming out of Iraq, but IMHO, the good far outweighs the bad.

My quibble is that, in a time of war, instead of critisizing the president's every move (and for some, almost celebrating every misjudgement), they should be offering support. This is not to say that there shouldn't be honest policy objections, but the manner in which they are voiced should be far different than today. Comparing the president to Hitler, saying that the war was hatched in Texas for political purposes, comparing him to a Nazi, demeaning our allies, etc. How can anyone take a party like that seriously. And (to anticipate Ty) it is not just the wingnuts. It is the leaders and nearly all of the DEM presidential nominees, except for Lieberman, who to me is a responsble politician (with the exception of when he had to whore for gore in the 2000 election).


This would not be happening to Roosevelt in 1943.

Actually, Roosevelt got a whole lot of shit for entering WWII.

The fact that my first post on this subject was ass-backwards is only proof that I need coffee, not that Bush was right for entering Iraq when he did.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When I posted this quote on the old boards three years ago, Taxwonk called me an anti-semite. Sometimes being on the cultural vanguard sucks.

True, but I cut Thurgreed extra slack, because he's black

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
True, but I cut Thurgreed extra slack, because he's black

He just plays black on the boards.

[Gattigap]

Sad, sad. Has this man never heard of campaign sex? Someone buy him a copy of Primary Colors and send him to the FoxNews tent.

[bilmore]

Anyone here who knows tax (really knows, I mean, not knows, like me, merely how to spell the word) if this is nonsensical or realistic?

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

"Hooray for the AMT? Taxpayers have to either pay their regular income tax or the "Alternative Minimum Tax" (AMT)--whichever is higher. The AMT was designed to catch rich people who use loopholes and deductions to escape taxation. But because the AMT isn't indexed for inflation, more and more middle class taxpayers will have to pay it. Conventional wisdom holds that Congress will have to step in and correct this situation before middle class taxpayers revolt. Indeed, the need to do something about the horrible AMT is considered the driving political engine behind proposals for overhauling the regular tax code, according to the NYT's Edmund Andrews. ... But why isn't the unindexed AMT a feature rather than a bug? That is, why isn't it a good vehicle for gradually introducing tax reform and simplification? How? Keep all the deductions and credits in the tax code, but simplify the AMT so it's the tax code reformers really want. And keep it unindexed. Then, as the AMT hits further and further down the income scale, more and more taxpayers will have to shift to the reformed AMT system--until most Americans don't even bother with their old regular tax calculations. They just pay the simplified tax, which is maybe a little bit higher than the old complicated tax. (You want simplicity, you pay a bit more!) Presto--the old tax code has been gradually put out of its misery like the proverbial frog in slowly heated water. ...Don't fight the AMT--surrender to it!"

[Gattigap]

Slave's favorite pundit Sullivan muses:

IT WON'T BE CLOSE: Back in the early spring, I bet Michael Barone that Kerry would win this election. I'll buy him a drink if I'm wrong. And to be honest, I don't know who's more likely to win at this point. But here's a prediction I don't mind making. This election won't be close. Presidents seeking re-election very rarely win or lose a second time narrowly. Either they get trounced - Carter, Bush 41 - or they get re-elected handily - Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton. People make a simple decision whether the guy's worth re-electing.

I think this election needs to be either a decisive win or at least a clear electoral one, for either candidate. We read that both sides are preparing for a post-election fight that will make Florida 2000 look like a bake sale. Beyond the problem that a contested election will produce a crippled winner, I'm so sick of hearing about this stuff that I can't imagine us refighting these battles for another 4 years.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Beyond the problem that a contested election will produce a crippled winner, I'm so sick of hearing about this stuff that I can't imagine us refighting these battles for another 4 years.

2

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think this election needs to be either a decisive win or at least a clear electoral one, for either candidate. We read that both sides are preparing for a post-election fight that will make Florida 2000 look like a bake sale. Beyond the problem that a contested election will produce a crippled winner, I'm so sick of hearing about this stuff that I can't imagine us refighting these battles for another 4 years.

I'm thinking you'd better resign yourself to some unhappiness, then. My guess is, this one goes down to the wire, is followed by tons of court challenges based on voter fraud, polling place problems, intimidation by officials, and malfunctioning equipment, and is finally resolved sometime in late December, in a very unsatisfactory way (to many.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Over the last couple of weeks, Hank and others have been kind enough to steer us toward the electoral map at electoral-vote.com. I just thought it would be useful to see where it is before the second debate, with all of the battleground states now having been polled since the first debate:




Having trouble with the image - try the link.

edited to fix graphic -- t.s.

[SlaveNoMore]

Well, apparently, the DNC smear campaign was successful and the idiot Mtv generation fell for it hook, line and sinker:

WASHINGTON - In spite of denials by the Bush administration, half of young Americans believe President Bush wants to reinstate the military draft, a national poll suggests.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that 51 percent of adults age 18 to 29 believe Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Eight percent said Kerry supports bring back the draft, and 7 percent said both want to. A fourth of those polled said neither candidate favors the idea.

Both Bush and Kerry say they don't support a renewed military draft. Earlier this week, the House defeated a bill paving the way to a draft 402-2. House Republicans have sought to quash the persistent Internet rumor that the president wants to reinstate the draft if re-elected while Democrats have fanned the flames on the rumor.

"Young voters are much more misinformed about the presidential candidates' positions on the draft than the population in general," said Kate Kenski, an analyst at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Too bad these idiots don't vote.