McCain campaign takes the low road on Clark comments
I am beginning to dislike the McCain campaign, and here is an example of why. Over the weekend, Hillary supporter General Wesley Clark reiterated that McCain's service, while admirable, does not in and of itself convey the experience of being Commander in Chief. This is not a controversial position; in fact, I remember at Redstate whenever some lefty would trot out a survey or anecdote that showed troops disagreeing with Bush on something to do with Iraq, the standard response was that the troops on the ground were not in a position to judge the overall strategy, which is certainly accurate. It's also not in any way demeaning of McCain's service, anymore than the folks at Redstate were demeaning the troops when noting the limitations of their experiences. In fact, Clark went to some lengths to praise McCain's service: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war."
(Clark quote edited, fixed to change to his remark Sunday rather than his similarly-themed comment from March; thanks tomsyl for the catch.)
A fair response from the McCain campaign would have attempted to establish that McCain does, in fact, possess the high-level experience he claims, perhaps from his work in the Senate in addition to his time in the military. Instead, we get this dishonest characterization of Clark's comment, and for a bonus the whole thing is blamed on Obama: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said after Clark's appearance Sunday. "But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."
What utter rot. How Rogers can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
For some reason the Obama campaign was kind enough to essentially renounce a slight that was never even given (by someone who supported his primary opponent) but which the McCain campaign conveniently perceived: Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."
Would McCain reciprocate the gesture by stepping up to say that of course he agrees with Clark that on-the-ground military service doesn't confer the strategic experience of C-in-C, and that he apologizes for his campaign spokesperson mischaracterizing Clark's innocuous statement and dishonestly attempting to portray it as an attack on McCain's service, and that he understands this has nothing to do with Obama but he appreciates the Obama campaign reiterating yet again their respect for his service, and that in the future his campaign will not try to hide behind his military record and manufactured outrage but will instead engage in issue-oriented debate and reply substantively and respectfully to legitimate criticism?
Not so much.
From the Bourbon room (Fox News) via dKos, describing a McCain campaign conference call:
And in remarks sure to aggravate the situation, Swindle and Day both said Clark’s comments were way out of bounds but questions raised by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" during the 2004 campaign against John Kerry were not.Day said the criticisms of Kerry’s war record were factual while Clark’s assessment of McCain was inaccurate.
Who is this Day gentleman, you ask? A member of the SBVT, natch.
Col. Bud Day, now on McCain's "Truth Squad" was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that McCain attacked during the 2004 campaign for airing "dishonest and dishonorable" attacks against Kerry that amounted to a "cheap stunt."As other money-watchers have also noticed, McCain accepted at least $61,000 in direct and bundled contributions this campaign from three top funders of the Swift Boat Veterans, among them Bob Perry, T. Boone Pickens and Harold Simmons.
Bah.
--
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
--
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
--
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- brendanm98's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
)Clark was just fine with John Kerry and his Vietnam experience as preparation for commander-in-chief. Bah indeed, Brendan.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)Did Clark "demean and attack John McCain's military service record" or not?
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )When Clark said that he didn't know how getting shot down qualified McCain for the job of president, he was talking down McCain's military experience.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let me say this as someone whose top choice in the primaries was McCain and who plans on voting for McCain in the general:
What you are saying now is absurd partisan talking-point nonsense. Clark initially made the point that, while he has "certainly honor[s]" McCain's service and considers him a "hero", the kind of military experience McCain had does not represent much in terms of qualifications to be president. Whether you agree or not, it's not an unreasonable view. He was then confronted by Schieffer with an implication that McCain's having piloted a fighter pilot and having been shot down somehow refuted or diminished the validity of Clark's argument, and Clark responded very directly and sensibly, given the argument he was making -- did you SEE the friggin' interview?? Let me help you out with context:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )When Clark said, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he sure the hell was talking down McCain's experience.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I get the sense that when Bird Dog sees a counter-argument addressing an argument he has made, he actually reads it as "Please just repeat what you said before." It's kind of like dyslexia, but I'd call it "repitexia".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )qualifications for being POTUS? Duke Cunningham is another example we can discuss. He actually scored a bunch of kills as I recall.
Yes, Wes Clark was tone-deaf however McCain's people are waaaay over-reacting. Which may have been the strategy all along. The Obama spokesman's over-reaction to Wes Clark's tone deafness might merely be a fumbled bit of kabuki.
And, given the Purple Heart band-aids worn at the 2004 GOP Convention, McCain's complaints about Wes Clark (who was tone deaf IMHO) also deserve a visit by the Waaaaaambulance.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh, brother. Here, let me pull this fainting couch a little closer... (screeeeeech) You might bruise a cheek.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )his commander in chief experience. You guys need to get a handle on the non sequitur thing.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What exactly did Clark say about Kerry in 2004? Have a link? I'd like to see if your charge of hypocrisy on Clark's part is valid or not.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.clark.transcript/index.ht...
He was making a service-based argument for Kerry in 2004. You could argue that Clark was saying that Kerry knows how awful war can be and that he'd end the war sooner, but either way, it's yet another example of military fetishism that we don't need infecting our politics anymore.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for the quote. I think the quotes I heard earlier (on NPR, quoted to Clark in an interview for his reaction to his supposed double-standard -- an implication he failed to refute) included parts of your longer quote, including:
John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.
He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice...he proved his physical courage under fire.
John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior...He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle...
As I said, it does indeed seem that Clark is being hypocritical and applying a double standard (one for Kerry, another for McCain) re: the relevance of combat experience at the lower levels to qualifications to be president.
By the way, I don't consider it "military fetishism" to consider a candidate's (lower level) military service and combat experience, particularly if he wasn't drafted, but even if he was. While I am not a veteran, I assume that such service can reflect one's values, can give one insight into what is asked of our troops and the sacrifices they (and their families) make, and can therefore add to one's moral authority if he asks for such sacrifices. It may also provide a certain ability to handle pressure and crises.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I just heard on the radio a quote of something Clark said about Kerry in 2004 and it does indeed seem that Clark is being hypocritical re: the relevance of having been in battle to qualifications to be president.
That said, Bird Dog's contention that Clark said something very inappropriate last Sunday is just silly partisanship.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Get ready. It's just starting.
The McCain people know full well that were being dishonest about Clarke's comment. They have to. Either that or they're just plain stupid.
But regardless, as funny as it is to see disgusting politics in action, it isn't going to change anything.
Liberals will flock to Obama, Conservatives will flock to MCain and the rest will decide the election.
And I would hope that pithy episodes like this Clarke affair, from either side, will have no bearing on people's views....nor the rest of the pithy episodes that will come out in full force over the summer and into the fall.
- Login or register to post comments
)"Both" works for me.
After further review, Obama's repudiation of Clark could have been more nuanced however I can see Obama wanting to stay far far away from the utterly unacceptable attacks made on Democratic veterans in 2004.
Frankly, I also think Obama is doing a combination of rope-a-dope and maskirovka hoping to induce knotted knickers over what is truly an irrelevancy.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it really is either or.
I lean toward the former. That's what spin machines are for. They know what the truth is on a he said/she said level. But if they took he said/she said material at face value, the campaigns would dull and productive.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I just found out about this thing. Just saw Clark interviewed on Dan Abrams show on MSNBC.
Brendan, I agree with you 100%. Good call, and excellent diary in terms of both topic and argument.
I still plan to vote for McCain (albeit not particularly enthusiastically -- he's a far cry from the man he was, or at least seemed to be, in 2000 when I was enthusiastic), but I have to acknowledge that you are completely right. The relevance of McCain's military service to the role of Commander in Chief is fair game, Clark's points were sensible, and his most contraversial line (which I assume has been jumped on and used out of context) was simply a direct (and sensible) answer to a direct (and somewhat stupid) question from the interviewer (Face the Nation's Bob Shieffer).
I think Obama's "rejection" of Clark's "statement" is disingenuous. I think Obama knows there is nothing in anything Clark said that warrants rejection. And (and this is the only thing in your diary with which I'd take issue -- so I guess I need to say I agree with you, say, 95%) I doubt the Obama campaign's statement was due to their being "kind enough". It was a political calculation, including the part in which they insincerely and unjustifiably threw Clark under the bus. There's a good chance it was coordinated with Clark and even that Clark was ok with it, but still, it's insincerity as a political tactic, and it feeds into this whole silly Jerry Springerization of political races. But this point is minor compared to your larger point, on which your are dead on correct, hence the 95% agreement.
There is a chance that I will end up staying home in November if McCain's policy positions and campaign tactics reach a point at which I just feel too disgusted to vote for him. (And voting for Obama is out, because I just don't think Obama is qualified for the office, nor do I agree with his Iraq position, nor the overall level of spending he'd bring)
- Login or register to post comments
)"It was a political calculation, including the part in which they insincerely and unjustifiably threw Clark under the bus."
It was political calculation but I think the rest is wrong. He was expended, not thrown under the bus. The sole advantage Clark provided to the Dems was downplaying the signifigance of McCain's military experience. He fell on his sword for the team.
--It's not only redundant, it's also repetitive
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I doubt the Obama campaign's statement was due to their being "kind enough". It was a political calculation, including the part in which they insincerely and unjustifiably threw Clark under the bus.
You're probably right. Obama's campaign has seemingly gone into "safe" mode after wrapping up the nomination and is consequently (and predictably) pleasing nobody.
Clark's points were sensible, and his most contraversial line (which I assume has been jumped on and used out of context) was simply a direct (and sensible) answer to a direct (and somewhat stupid) question from the interviewer (Face the Nation's Bob Shieffer).
Yes, exactly -- he just repeated back Schieffer's phrasing.
I appreciate your take on this given that you currently support McCain. I should say I don't think this is a huge issue as far as whether someone should vote for him or not, it's more a reflection of my personal disappointment with his campaign (and with him to the extent that he controls his campaign, but obviously I don't hold him responsible for everything said on his behalf).
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's a shame that giving a direct answer to a question as phrased is such a big risk in campaigns these days because statements are taken out of context and exploited in a deliberately misleading manner.
By the way, while not the same thing (but related to the whole disingenuous exploitation of quotes out of context), I think that whole big deal that was made over Kerry's voting "for the $87 billion before voting against it" was pathetically absurd. The guy just meant that he voted for a different, earlier version of the bill, but against the later version, just as (if my recollection is correct) Republicans generally voted against the earlier bill, then voted for the later bill (why wasn't THAT flip-flopping?).
There's a lot of blame to go around. Yes, the campaigns are probably most to blame (although, playing devil's advocate, perhaps we could say that each side anticipates that the other will engage in such tactics, and that it must do so in order not to be at a disadvantage), but we have to ask why it works, and the answer is that much of the public doesn't get the relevant info and think critically and independently about it. And the media has turned the whole thing into the Jerry Springer show to boost ratings. Reminds me of the Bugs Bunny episode in which Bugs eggs on the two French chefs to fight each other, starting at 2:23 of this video:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you do know that between tax cuts and spending increases, McCain plans to spend far more than Obama, right?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'll check out that link beyond the headline I saw there, but are you categorizing tax cuts (and/or lack of tax increase) as a type of "spending"?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that if the debt increases, you are spending more than you are taking in. The bigger the increase in the debt, the more you are spending. Tax cuts during a time of deficits are not tax cuts at all, they're just deferred taxes that must be paid back with interest.
The interesting part of the article (to me) showed the projected taxes and spending as % of GDP. The tax percentage will have to exceed the spending percentage if we ever plan to pay off the debt.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I see that I inadvertently gave rise to a threadjack and that I've contributed to that theadjack, so I'm going to back away from this topic on this thread. I only mentioned Obama's plans for higher spending as part of my explanation of why disappointment and growing dissatisfaction with McCain could lead me to stay home in November as opposed to voting for Obama. Didn't mean to get into that topic on this thread.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )don't get too worked up about letting conversations go where they will. At least I don't, and I don't recall hearing complaints from other members here.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )just curious
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )with respect to the concept of spending.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )hmm, one would think that a comment like that would be accompanied by at least a bit of explanation (i.e., supporting argument). But apparently one would be wrong.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if you enjoy asking questions that rarely get answered, Timmy's your man.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )hence the puzzled and cofused observation.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, NOW I know what your point was, and I had the same criticism of that analysis and the reporting of that analysis. It looks at differences in deficits only from the revenue side. Unless there's more to it than what I saw (and than is in that post), I agree that anyone who points to it as evidence that McCain would "spend" more than Obama is misusing the term "spending".
What I still don't get is why you included ME when you said "you are both puzzled and confused with respect to the concept of spending." What did I say that gave you that impression?
Also, as a general rule, I think it's better to add at least a clause or sentence of explanation if you're going to tell people they are "puzzled and confused".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I prefer to read the operative document A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plan where they "base line" a Bush Admin Budget projection and discuss the implications.
The analysis and commentary are misleading and Hank ran with it; I followed with a sharp retort. I do understand your concern, however.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it mentions spending as a % of GDP.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )right
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you don't understand the effect of cutting taxes while running a deficit. McCain's projected budget increases the debt by more than a trillion over Obama's budget. Cutting taxes while running a deficit is exactly the same as increasing spending.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, lower revenues (due to tax cuts) has the same effect on the deficit as the same amount of higher spending*, but that doesn't mean that tax cuts ARE a form of spending. They are categorically different, from a number of perspectives. They have different impacts on GDP, they have different sets of net winners and net losers, they are different from an ideological standpoint (extent to which people should be able to keep what they earn and spend as they choose vs. higher taxation and government allocation, including wealth transfers, etc.)
* It should be noted that what matters most as far as fiscal health is the debt-to-GDP ratio (particularly, in my opinion, the publicly held debt-to-GDP ratio), and that $100 billion in lower revenues due to tax cuts may have a different impact on GDP than $100 billion in additional spending (specifically, in our current fiscal context, I'd expect the additional spending to have a greater immediate impact on GDP, but a lesser impact -- actually a more severe negative impact -- on GDP long term).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yet despite the growth and savings that the Bush tax cuts promised, we see mediocre growth and very low savings rates. I remember all the stuff over the past thirty years, supply side voodoo, reducing regulation, moving risk from institutions to individuals. Debt has been extended so far in our economy (not just in government, but that's been a big driver) that all the other considerations you mention have become less and less important. What I see when I look at 30 years of Republican driven economic policies is a huge failure, and it appears to be getting worse as we speak.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think you're reading into my comment assertions that aren't there, and characterizing these supposed assertions as overstatements or erroneous. If you disagree with anything that's actually in my comment, please specify and explain. As for "all the other considerations you mention have become less and less important", I'd need you to specify if you'd like a reply.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You are misunderstanding my comment and missing my point, and I'd be glad to explain and discuss via email (BrooksBud@aol.com), but I think we're in threadjack territory, so I don't want to continue here on this topic.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't recall anyone ever complaining about threadjacking around here, but if you're uncomfortable that's fine. Since I may actually get a weekend off this weekend, I'll see if I can put together a diary.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, thanks. As you know, I'm new here, so I don't know what's customary and considered appropriate here, and of course I bring my own sense of what is appropriate and considerate, which I don't want to blindly follow, lest THAT become inconsiderate. So I'll feel my way around and hopefully reduce/mitigate any gap between the two.
I look forward to your diary if you post one.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as a threadjack here. It isn't unusual for a side discussion to develop into something more involved and interesting than the original diary subject (not saying that applies here, brendan %^>) and people go on as much as they like on that new tack.
One of my favorites was when a Forvm member (who doesn't seem to come around anymore) posted a diary heavy in Biblical quotations, to the effect that free will doesn't exist. From some counterposts on randomness, a subthread on quantum physics developed and lengthened past the posts on the original diary topic. Things like the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, probability functions w/r/t the location of individual electrons, the uncertainty principle, Schroedinger's Cat, and lots of other stuff got thrown into the mix, and a good time was had by all except perhaps the original diarist.
So by all means go for it. I personally am interested in an exploration of the meme that making (or maintaining) tax cuts in times of deficit automatically equates to increased government spending. The argument seems strained and heavily politicized by the Obamafans to me, so I'd like to see Hank defend the point. Which I'm certain he will.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )are the equivalent of reducing the minimum payment on outstanding credit card debts. The debt doesn't go away it increases and is compounded by additional interest as the repayment is pushed further back in time, but at least you have some extra cash to spend in the irresponsible here and now. Except that credit card debt isn't a perfect analogy because government indebtedness unlike credit card debt does get passed onto your kids and heirs who will have to pay for your irresponsible here and now.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is where the theme becomes heavily politicized, and to me, a transparent attempt to give Obama supporters a "McCain does it too" argument when confronted with Obama's potentially huge spending increases.
If the only focus is the national debt, then the best solution is raising taxes and lowering spending, right? So anyone focusing on that measure (which I agree is key) should oppose both candidates' fiscal policies if they are being consistent. IMO, anyway.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would be for all taxpayers to self identify their political affiliation and make R's assume that portion of government indebtedness incurred since year zero (end of Clinton presidency) and D's assume any indebtedness incurred post Bush, or should the worst happen, McCain.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ds are responsible for the recurring costs of all social programs instituted by their people going back to the time each program began.
Let's pick one at random - the envelope, please, Vanna . . . Ah, we have a winner - Social Security! Courtesy of FDR!
Let's get those bills out to the Dems pronto, along with the generous finance programs and that set of snakeknives, plus a year's supply of Poppycock to each of our twenty million winners!
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )established prior to year zero don't count. Such programs were in balance before year zero, are still in balance and can likely remain in balance in perpetuity with just a little tweaking as long as no one makes off with the surplus to pay for other indebtedness. Medicare and the drug benefit are the real problem going forward and courtesy of dubya and the GOP Congress that one's all yours buddy.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I simply want to be relieved of my share of the Democrat-instigated SS burden in a manner consistent with the philosophy of your original post on this subject, meaning I want a refund of every dime of SS payments I've made, all of which are going directly to someone else, not me.
I'll waive interest and will accept a reasonable repayment plan OAC. To simplify things and cut down on admininstrative overhead, let's just make this a one-on-one kind of deal, meaning I get to pick the specific Dem who has to reimburse me. That Dem's SS paycheck deductions just get paid directly to me instead of the govt.
BTW, what's this about Medicare being a Republican program? The Dems controlled 87th and 88th Congresses by huge margins, and LBJ ran the show IIRC. Plus, Medicare is simply an amendment to SS.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It stays at 2000 or no deal.
Medicare drug benefit - dubya/GOP controlled Congress, care of.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )fiscal/budgetary decision he's seen made during his tenure - scary when you realize he's been there since the early '90's.
But keep trying - I'm generally pretty easy to fool on this stuff. Note I haven't committed to the currency I'll be paying in yet - right now I'm favoring the Argentine peso.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and that you will no doubt vote your own economic interests in the coming election. I just wish that everyone else would take the time to determine which candidate offered them the best deal and vote accordingly. That one simple calculation repeated across the nation would likely consign the current crop of Republicans to political oblivion, right quick.
How do the candidates competing tax plans stack up for you? I make out significantly better under Obama than McSame, which is a neat bonus since I would actually be prepared to chip in a little more to help get the country back on track.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I still plan to let my 14 y/o pick my vote because he will turn 18 when whoever is elected is still President. I am trying now to get him to consider both sides of the picture, as he very strongly favors a Republican (his grandfather's influence, not mine - really) even though Obama went to his school.
I haven't studied the tax picture closely enough to answer your question. I heard some very scary figures about the effect of Obama's tax plan on certain brackets etc. but haven't sourced or verified them. (I'm at the point where I doubt just about everything I hear on the radio or see on TV about either candidate, regardless of the source.) Figuring that out is high on my list, but not as high as completely understanding each of their energy policies. It didn't occur to me, though, that I might do better under an Obama plan.
Re your last sentence, I wouldn't like it, but I could (just barely) stand a 5-10% hit if I knew the $ would go directly into meaningful steps towards alternative energy development/fossil fuel phaseouts by the govt. under a NASA-like structure with no chance of diversion, earmarking, pork-barreling, greater than normal graft and theft, homebasing by senior and senile Congresscritters, corporate giveaways to ADM, ethanol for anything other than drinking while in gas lines, etc. Easy enough to say, since that will never happen.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If I were a 14 year old son of a lawyer living in Hawaii, I'd be a republican too.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The ones I know now are still 14. Even when they're 40.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/17/3749301.html
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I agree on all points in your comment.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but bringing up unrelated past postings does occasionally occurr.
... but that wuz a good example of the benefits of keeping things organic. HankP was admirably clear on some important QM results and I certainly benefitted.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, gents. I'll resume my exchange w/ HankP, probably tonight or tomorrow.
In fact, I'll even seize on a tangent myself: I often see QM brought up in the context of the free will debate in a way that doesn't seem to me to make sense. I don't see how the randomness associate with quantum mechanics supports the contention that we have free will. It's an argument against determinism, but not an argument for free will. How can randomness represent free will?
If it's not too much trouble, please provide link to that thread. I'd like to see the arguments.
To me it's quite clear: we have no free will in any meaningful sense. My argument is at http://swordscrossed.org/node/1658#comment-72398
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but this is where I think you go off the tracks:
but randomness is, by definition, not an argument for free will.
A decision to do things in a random fashion may not be an exercise of free will by your definition, but a decision that you will act or not act according to the result of a random number generator is not the same as the action itself that results. That action is inherently unpredictable, so cannot be the result of the internal calculus assumed for purposes of your point.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I wasn't speaking of "a decision to do things in a random fashion" (and I'm not sure if one CAN deliberately do things in a random fashion, but that's probably beside the point), and I'm afraid I don't get what point you're making in the rest of your comment (re: acting per result of random number generator). I haven't read that thread yet, but I read part of your comment at that link, and you go wrong in your first sentence, asserting an invalid premise on which your argument is based. You write "If there is no free will, then the future is preordained." No, not true, and that's the point I was making re: quantum mechanics and randomness. A refutation of determinism based on the existence of randomness is NOT an argument for free will. Again, how can randomness be an argument for free will, if, by definition, we have no control over randomness?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Chance events aren't 'up to us' anymore than determined events.
I'll link to that old thread, but pls. understand that the main post and many of timothy's comments are kind of embarrassing and not exactly representative of our best efforts here.
OTOH the fact that it was somewhat salvaged shows the community's propensity for makin lemonade.
http://theforvm.org/diary/timothy/advantages-graces-of-understanding-you...
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-o-o--
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, maybe I should expect little more from him than his South Park namesake. (But of course, I won't judge based on this encounter alone or on others' opinions, which means if you're right, I'll waste some more of my time finding out for myself)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My preferred stance is to assume Timmy is a script written by some code monkeys rather than a real person. If you fancy a somewhat ornery version of ELIZA . . .
Of course, I do not assert that Timmy is actually nothing but a bundle of computer code, although our evolution discussions might suggest we are ALL merely code -- even if the Gospel of John opens with a line suggesting that might not be a bad thing.
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . . this is who "this Day gentleman" is. Good luck trying to turn him into a boogeyman--other than in the moonbat collectives at dKos and Huffingtonpost, and occasional random foaming elsewhere.
--- Login or register to post comments
)but when he associated with the Swift Boaters, he became just another f^&%ing liar.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )then compare and contrast to Kerry's testimony before the Senate, speaking of being a m$%%^#f$%*(
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"I condemn the ad, it is dishonest and dishonorable, I think it is very, very wrong." - John McCain on the Swift Boat Liars ad
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I believe John also mentioned that Kerry's Nam's testimony before the Senate was fair game.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He's become a hack. Disgraceful.
edit:
I'll add that Clark is right. He should have also said that being a fighter ace doesn't make you qualified for anything besides being a fighter pilot.
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Part of the point of this post is that distinguished military service is not necessarily indicative of excellent judgment.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Bud's friends at SBVT have made it a political liability.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but I gather one conclusion is that the McCain campaign should now apologize to someone - Clark? Obama? - for its response to Clark's comments on Face the Nation, which Obama has already either apologized for or distanced himself from, or both. Okay . . .
I don't think the Clark quote that ends your last para was said by Clark yesterday; it's actually something he said in March when he was still backing Hillary Clinton. You might want to clarify that in the diary.
I'm interested in (and suspicious about) whether Clark had coordinated his TV remarks with the Obama campaign in advance. Curiously, Obama campaign head David Axelrod doesn't deny Clark's status as an Obama campaign surrogate when directly asked that question in this video.
Needless to say, Wesley Clark himself was a complete joke as a presidential candidate, and remains one to this day. He was a laughingstock as SACEUR before he was fired (well, not to the Kosovans, Serbs and Albanians killed in various massacres and indiscriminate NATO bombings, perhaps), and IIRC he found his own level of competence developing solar-powered bicycles or somesuch.
You mention Day but not Swindle. Assuming that's part-time Hawaii resident Orson Swindle, he also is a certified war hero, having been shot down over North Vietnam and then spending seven years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, among other hellholes. Just saying.
All of that being said, I agree that the fact that McCain was "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" is not, in and of itself, a qualification to be president.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)Apologize to Clark for suggesting that his remarks constituted an attack on McCain's service record, and to Obama for suggesting he approved of attacking McCain's service record.
But given the way things have played out so far I'm hardly holding my breath.
Re: Clark, perhaps you can agree with John Cole's take? "I really can not believe the crap Clark is going through for merely pointing out that military service does not make one fit for President (someone alert Admiral Stockdale), and I can not tell you how much it pisses me off to have to defend someone I don’t really like."
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for mixing up the quotes, I fixed it. I will say that his message of praising McCain's service is essentially the same in either quote.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )%^>
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A perfect match.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)I just don't see on what basis the news media and McSame supporters are making such a hoo ha.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
)hoping for logic and decency to win out.
Disappointed, am I.
(Diary is a mashup of comments made at SC as the news unfolded)
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
)