Comments: A Modest Proposal

I hope Kerry is exactly like Bill Clinton, if so I will be a happy voter. I miss Bill Clinton warts and all and he can have all the interns he wants.

Posted by: amitaba at February 12, 2004 at 11:05 PM

So far I have come to two conclusions about the AWOL dust up.

One, Bush appears to have been a shallow, horny, partying, immature frat boy who had a free ride that saved him from Vietnam and having to make any real effort to serve (I use that term lightly) in the National Guard.

Two, the flip side of that is that the Guard was prone to political favoritism and sloppily run.

Makes good history and even better gossip but don't know how relevant it is to the upcoming election.

Some "problem" could still come up that makes Bush look worse than he already does but I will believe that when I see it.


As to who Kerry has or has not screwed in the last two years - that is still far off on horizon as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: j Swift at February 13, 2004 at 04:45 PM

The dust up over Bush's repeated lying about his past is relevant precisely because it shows how he operates. Bush seems to lie about damn near everything, from his budget to WMDs in Iraq. From his ties to Enron and Ken Lay to his drug use and absence from the National Guard. The man is a fraud. This is why people should everyday and every way bring it up. Bush is the worst president we have ever suffered under. It will be a great day when he is out of office.

Posted by: weborch at February 14, 2004 at 02:55 AM

I see you have attracted some of the Bush Liieeeddd!! trolls. I see also that they didn't do what you asked, merely repeated the same old canards: "frat boy," "rich," "lying," "Enron," "Ken Lay" -- and so on. Yawn.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 16, 2004 at 12:31 PM

Oh yeah, and can't forget this tired slam -- "effort to serve (I use that term lightly)" -- from "jswift" against the National Guard. Do these guys keep this stuff stored as macros on their computers?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 16, 2004 at 12:33 PM

Well, some are important for credibility. Most are more useful for determining exactly how much credence should be given the speaker.
For instance, if Enron=Haliburton=Bushitler to a speaker but Global Crossing is ignored, you can see the agenda and vice versa. Ignoring exculpatory evidence further shows the respect a speaker deserves.
j Swift is a good example. There are only two explanations as far as he (she?) is concerned and both prove Bush lied. The fact that all the people who claimed that Bush wasn't there or that his records have been scrubbed have since recanted means nothing. Bush lied/people died.
Or the people who claim Kerry was botoxed when it appears that he wasn't.
I tend not to pay much attention to people who ignore facts and just go with the script. These lame scandals serve as good indicators of the intellectual honesty of the speaker.

They're also good for getting a feel for the candidates. For instance, how many times has a Democratic candidate said something along the lines of "What did Bush know and when?" Dean thought it was "an interesting theory", Clark says that it wouldn't have happened on his watch. Kerry dipped his toe with some snide remarks about Bush being AWOL but stopped when it was shown to be a bogus, media driven scandal. He gets some credit for that. Let's see how he does when the real race begins.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 17, 2004 at 09:45 AM