Bush’s National Guard service, or lack of same, has been quite the topic on the political internet lately. I must say it’s been fun watching Scott McClellan squirm under the gaze of the wakened-from-slumber White House press corps. Right wingers are fond of saying, “They shouldn’t have released *any* records. It’ll never be enough to satisfy them. NEVER!”
Well unfortunately, the opposite is also true. No matter how many inconsistencies, torn and blacked-out documents, and conflicting testimonies come out of this, it will never be enough to convince Bush loyalists (or even undecideds) that anything important happened.
I understand why the Dems latched onto this. With an actual war veteran as a candidate, they thought exposing Bush’s lackadaisical service record would make a huge dent in his main selling point these days – his “regular guy” image. But the problem is, most people already know Bush was a pampered kid who got a lot of breaks, and they don’t care. The only thing remaining that might *possibly* make a dent is drugs, and that’s virtually impossible to prove.
So everyone’s running around like chickens with their heads cut off. And with so much in the here-and-now to hammer Bush on, I think they should stop running.
Well, there’s also the notion that for swing voters who went with Bush last time around mainly because they bought into his campaign’s portrayal of him as being an anti-Clinton in terms of having lots of honesty and personal integrity, this issue actually might make a significant difference. A lot of those people actually _don’t_ know all the stuff us more-skeptical types do about his real track record.
It’s kind of like the sudden plunge in Bush’s approval ratings that accompanied David Kay’s resignation and subsequent appearances to assert that there weren’t any WMDs. Now, you and I (and most others who follow this stuff obsessively) knew that months before. But for those middle-of-the-country types, it was news, apparently.
Everyone did more or less know the Bush stories, and it really didn’t matter. (no more than it did with Clinton or Gore, or anyone else). Maybe I’m just a generation removed from “military is important to be President” or maybe I just don’t care.
It’s really a non issue to me, I don’t care where Bush was every day in 1973. The problem for the Dems is it is likely to backfire. You already have:
– A look into the Kerry post-war movement. having people ask themselves, “is it worse to have a guy who served part of the time and didn’t protest the war, or a guy who served all the time and will be seen as a traitor/protester?” Ths has already raised some livid responses from Democrats in Congress.
– hint: Kerry is also a spoiled rich kid (with privilidge, Yale, background, etc)… not good to point out since he is running as a “hate the rich” candidate. The word “hypocrite” flows quickly from the mouthes of voters.
– Is it just me, or have you been seeing a lot of photos on the news of Bush as a soilder, taking the oath, in uniform, smiling, sitting in a plane, etc. How is everyone having those images burned in their head good for the Democrats?
– It was WAY early to do this. 8 months is a lot of time and even if people cared they’d forget by November. Why didn’t the Democrats trrot this out after conventions (where now the GOP can refute it with a 6 minute video in primetime) and so it was fresh.
If you remember whitewater was put out there in October. No one cared AND it was so damn complicated it didn’t matter. But the timine was in place.
The impeachment killed Clinton’s numbers, but the Republicans did it in January, not July. If it happens in July his numbers still suck in November instead of rebounding in August.
Lastly, you can’t disprove a negative. Not just logically, but in the simple thought processes. It is far, far easier to prove something *did* happen. You have evidence (a photo, a record and so on) but proving something didn’t happen you have to NOT have something and say, “not only don’t we have it, we will never have it.” That’s tougher since you can’t be sure you won’t have it, ever. Weak record keeping or whatever is an easy “reasonable doubt” for independants (likewise with WMD or Kerry’s affair).
Kerry’s platform is “hate the rich”? Who’s putting words in who’s mouth now, considering Kerry’s rich corporate coffer?
Say his ads, anti-anything-rich-peple-have. “roll back taxes for the rich, close loop holes for the rich, hate the corporations because they have money.” (paraphrased obviously; he does says “the rich” about 5 times, none of them good.)
At BEST he is trying to create a class war and more so, against a class he is in.
Oh yeah, there is that hypocrite thing. huh, I mentioned it first and you still acted like it couldn’t be.
Or wait, are you saying he is trying to help the rich?
“Tax” the rich and “hate” the rich are two different things. This isn’t an archive of Mosey’s thoughtful writings on economics, politics, history and gay rights — it’s just Adam’s personal site (which I don’t really have the right to post on — I do it at his pleasure [or displeasure]). Kerry believes, as do many Americans, that the super-rich and large corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes in this country, and that in order to fund a civil society and a government that acts for the benefit of the people, the people who have the most money can pay more, as they have in the past.
That isn’t hate. You degrade the word by using it in that manner, just like gay rights activists degrade the word hate by using it to describe people with personal reservations about gay marriage.
The rich don’t need help.
The rich do need help. Lots of it, Kerry apparently wants to take away things they have through law. That sounds like something that needs “help.”
I’ll say it again, at best he is creating a class war so other people will hate the rich, and/or give them blame for “the way things are.”
The people who have things have them for a reason, and any effort to take that away just because they have them is a good thing. Oh yeah, that’s a right, even if no one ever used it.
If you look at the entire history of America, and some European history before that, there has *always* been a class war between people who have a lot of money and stuff (and who want even more money and stuff) and people who don’t have a lot of money *or* stuff (and who want just a little more money and stuff). This is hardly a new phenomenon, and if you look at the taxation habits of our government versus its spending habits, I think people would be looking to tax the rich less if the government did more for the vast majority of citizens instead of doing things for large corporations at the expense of citizens. Corporations, by the way, tend to be run and owned in majority by people with lots of money and stuff (who want more money and stuff). To talk about higher taxation of the rich like it’s a CIVIL RIGHT or something is a rather new and revolutionary idea, since the government’s stance toward the rich and the poor has *always* been inequitable.
“The people who have things have them for a reason…”
That reason is usually luck or connections. The implication is that the rich are rich because they work harder or are more deserving, but that does not hold up to analysis. I will put the hard work of a housecleaner next to the hard work of a movie studio chairman every day, and the housecleaner will win. Who is rich? The movie studio chairman. Who gets the tax breaks – passed by law but not guaranteed as a right? The movie studio chairman.
Look, I wish that we lived in a world of such abundance that everyone could be taxed equally and it wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, that’s a dream world. In the real world, if you are middle class or poorer (especially if you are without children or real estate), you pay a lot of taxes compared to your income. The richer you get, the more perks there are. Since 2000, the situation has gotten vastly worse with the reckless tax cuts Bush pushed through. Any sane politician would speak out against the kind of class warfare Bush wages. Hate the rich? Let’s talk about how Bush hates the poor. There’s actual evidence of that, given his tax plans.
Two ways to increase the amount of taxes that directly serve the people:
1) Decrease military spending.
2) Reform current “Free Trade” agreements.
One way to take care of all this?
Vote for Howard Dean.
Wow aparently the thing liberals are even worse than history is economics and math.
Most people with money are just lucky? Gee I didn’t know there were that many lotto winners out there.
Simple test: people qualified to be the CEO of a studio ~300-500. People qualified to clean a house for a living, ~300 million
Huh, gee, imagine that the studio exec gets more.
And of course anyone who has ever worked for even a small business in management knows that a CEO for almost any company works harder than a housekeeper. Hell, the average day for one is 14 hours or so. And witha skillset well past that of a housekeeper and usually with years of training to do it (how long would it take to teach you how to clean a house?)
You know, basic law of supply and demand.
Anyone who tried to imply rich people are rich because they know the right people and just sit on their fat asses is beyond stupid. The number of millionares and hundred-thousandaires in this country had boomed in the last 40 years or so. This is not just a small group. And hundreds, probably thousands join this group out of no where (hint: they didn’t win the lotto, they worked their ases off) every month.
Gee, maybe that MBA or years of learning how to manage a budget, or read preferances for sales was “luck” and “connections.” Are you this obtuse? You think anyone earning 100k a year is just some Kennedy or guy who knows a guy and didn’t work for it?
You honestly believe that? Do you even know anyone who earns that kind of money?
Nah, maybe they are smarter, or work harder, or have a great natural skillset the person with the Formula 409 doesn’t have. Which one should earn more money? The one that can’t be replaced with anyone having an IQ over 80. Seems pretty simple.
Oh yeah, since your grasp of economics is nearly nill, tell me what a housekeeper with a kid earning oh say 17 grand pays in federal taxes. (hint: $0) I’d say that’s a pretty good rate.
But hey, I’m not shocked you made stuff up to justify taking things that aren’t yours, small children do it too. (also hint: you can cut hundreds of programs, what yo udid is called a flase delimmia becuase there are only two options you want, therefore you act as if only two options exist).
PS John’s “view” of history is so stupid it’s not even worth commenting on. your knowledge of tax history is worse than lies.
Rich people deserve to be rich except when they’re liberals, in which case they’re ambulance chasers (John Edwards) or gigolos (John Kerry).
I know you didn’t say that, Mosey — but plenty of right-wingers who share your view of the hard-working rich have, so I can only conclude they mean only Republicans deserve to be rich.
Myself, I see nothing noble in being poor — what is that Yiddish saying? There’s no shame in being poor but it’s no honor either? I think the same applies to being rich, though.
I have never, ever seen any “Republican” or right-winger say anything like that. (if you find one, let me know)
You might hear some “Kerry has rich guilt” going on though.
There might be no shame or honor in being poor, but it is a lot more fun being rich.
Both Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have called Kerry a gigolo (just google “kerry gigolo”), and I’ve heard many right-wingers refer to Edwards as an ambulance chaser (on ‘Net forums — I haven’t heard anyone well-known call Edwards that).
Oh yeah, since your grasp of economics is nearly nill, tell me what a housekeeper with a kid earning oh say 17 grand pays in federal taxes. (hint: $0) I’d say that’s a pretty good rate.
Thanks for the propoganda but it is simply not true. There is a difference between income tax and payroll tax. The poor pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax. The rich pay more in income tax than they do in payroll tax. When you cut the income taxes, only the rich benefit from it. The poor are still shouldering about the same burden they were before.