Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Now that you mention it, I wonder if he wasn't paying attention to his facial expressions because he was trying to listen to Kerry and Rove at the same time.

I don't think it took that much. I'm sure I had the same facial expressions as I listened to Kerry that night.

Problem is, I ended up with those same facial expressions as I watched Bush display his public speaking skills.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think it took that much. I'm sure I had the same facial expressions as I listened to Kerry that night.

Problem is, I ended up with those same facial expressions as I watched Bush display his public speaking skills.

Presumably you weren't under the impression that you were being watched by millions of people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's something that Kevin Drum posted four days ago, before this photo surfaced:

THE EARPIECE....The internet is your go-to medium for news of the weird, and this weekend's clear winner in the world of weird speculation was the buzz about George Bush's earpiece.

It all started when Bush looked up halfway though an answer during Thursday's debate and snapped petulantly, "Let me finish." This is a trademark Bush line and normally wouldn't draw any comment except for one thing: no one had interrupted him. He had plenty of time left, Kerry hadn't said anything, and Jim Lehrer hadn't said anything either. So who was he talking to?

The theory making the rounds is that he was wearing an implanted earpiece of some kind and was reacting to advice from whatever handler was on the other end. The hard evidence for this is approximately zero, but it did bring back memories of an odd incident a few months ago: Bush was at a press conference with Jacques Chirac and really was wearing an earpiece, and it appeared that his responses to questions were being fed to him a few moments before the words came out of his mouth. You could hear it on every network that carried the event.

And for even more weirdness, there's the mystery of the strange lump in the back of his jacket. It's been there before at press conferences, and it was there again at the debate (Digby has a picture). What is it?

Weird, weird, weird. But I'm sure there's a good explanation that doesn't involve tinfoil hats. Comments are open.

As he says, weird.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
. . brought to you by club:

96,000 jobs created in September, 2004. Weak performance and missed projections.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/08/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Confidential to Slave -- This is one reason why even folks without cars should care about oil selling for $45-51 per barrel.

S_A_M

Yet, unemployment remained at 5.4% - lower than 1996

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by dtb
Why did it have no credibility when Hank was trumpeting it?

I actually didn't look at the charts then. They mean very little to me so far out.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably you weren't under the impression that you were being watched by millions of people.

Not sure Bush was under such an impression, either. Apparently, it took his handlers a while to convince him that he bombed. Not good news for the Bubble Candidate.

Bush will have learned his lesson by Friday's debate. It took his top aides some time after the first debate to convince him he looked annoyed. Karen Hughes, who probably has more weight with him than any of his top staff, took some pains to make him come around, but finally got the point across. Bush will probably make fun of his smirk Friday night and try to turn his public sour puss to his favor. Whatever he does, he's been told to smile, even if the questioners at the second debate insult his mother.

Time

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Perhaps they're just listening to the presidential promises of a continued activist foreign policy and doing the math.

or maybe they just got the candidates mixed up, what with Kerry proposing mandatory gov't service...

http://web.archive.org/web/200402100...es/natservice/

Creating a New Army of Patriots
John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Heh. OK, it's a stretch to see college kids doing math, but you get the point.

Look at the current resources we've dedicated to Iraq, and ask yourself how we can easily continue at current levels, much less undertake any other initiative involving forces, absent significant changes to the system.

The fiction that we can do it enables both candidates to talk tough about chasing Terrorist Fuckheads across the globe without facing the problem.

This well all be true, but it is not the reason they have the impression they do. It is because the DEMs have been pushing that BS. Same with the suppression of the black vote. That is just some dirty fucking shit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This well all be true, but it is not the reason they have the impression they do. It is because the DEMs have been pushing that BS. Same with the suppression of the black vote. That is just some dirty fucking shit.

The blogosphere lied! The blogosphere lied!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I actually didn't look at the charts then. They mean very little to me so far out.

I have actually been saying they're meaningless myself. They are far too volatile. Michigan was tied yesterday now Kerry is up 10%.

www.realclearpolitics.com has been more consistant, but there isn't a pretty map.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or maybe they just got the candidates mixed up, what with Kerry proposing mandatory gov't service...

http://web.archive.org/web/200402100...es/natservice/

Where do you see the word "mandatory" in there? It's not even implied, and references to "helping young people serve their country in return for college" and the setting of a "goal" of one million demonstrate that Kerry is not even suggesting it be mandatory.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have actually been saying they're meaningless myself. They are far too volatile. Michigan was tied yesterday now Kerry is up 10%.

www.realclearpolitics.com has been more consistant, but there isn't a pretty map.

Actually, Hank, there is a map!

I regularly check them myself, and they follow the 3 poll averaging approach. Neither is fully satisfactory, but the raw data is addictive - even if it doesn't say whether or not any of the Candidates are a FOD.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This well all be true, but it is not the reason they have the impression they do. It is because the DEMs have been pushing that BS. Same with the suppression of the black vote. That is just some dirty fucking shit.

As dirty as "the dems want to ban your bible"? I'm just trying to set up my dirty fucking shit continuum here.

[Gattigap]

Newsflash - Kerry guides Bush policy in Iraq.

Recent operations to stamp out unrest in Tal Afar, Samarra and the area south of Baghdad are the first signs of a new, six-pronged strategy for Iraq that has been approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration, the Times said.


Places specifically being looked at, according to unnamed administration officials, include Falluja, Ramadi and the northern Babil Province.


"What you have here is a new approach," a senior administration official said.


"We have to work Samarra. We have to work Ramadi. We've done our bit in Samarra. Now we're consolidating and cleaning up. We're doing kinetic strikes in Falluja."


Civilians involved in the process also told the Times that the new approach was formulated in part to counter criticism from President Bush (news - web sites)'s Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), that the administration has no plan for Iraq.

Now, if the Bush Administration couldn't stand up to the pressures that John Kerry represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
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

I think the "listen to the Generals" theme is a consistent, right or left, from those with some level of military background (OK, I'm basically the only male in family in the last 100 years without at least bars, but I know enough to respect years of training and experience). Best to your brother.