Please support this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [33] -- If It Quacks Like A Lame Duck...

[ Posted Friday, May 23rd, 2008 – 16:06 UTC ]

President George W. Bush, asked in a press conference why Republicans in the House and Senate are increasingly defying him, proven by the fact that dozens of them joined with the Democrats this week in order to overturn his recent veto, replied:

"Quack! Furthermore -- quack, QUACK!!"

Well, no, actually, I made that up. The Leader of the Free World did not, in fact, quack like a duck. It was the product of a (gleeful) overly active imagination on my part. I apologize for such frivolity.

But quacking or not, lame-duckitude has settled over the Oval Office like the first snows of winter. Officially, lame duck status isn't supposed to start until the next president has been elected (but before the inauguration). But in modern politics, the term has expanded to mean "the point at which you have no power left in Washington, because everyone is waiting for your successor." Which fits Bush right now to a T.

Congress, in the past week, has overridden one Bush veto (only the second time they've been able to do so), and has passed another bill that Bush doesn't like with a veto-proof majority. It's amusing, because Democratic political consultants get paid a lot of money to identify "weak" Republican districts in both the House and Senate, but one could equally just list the Republicans who are now voting with Democrats in order to find the ones terrified at their re-election prospects. It'd be a whole lot cheaper.

Here's one some Republicans are going to have a hard time explaining to their constituents over Memorial Day Weekend: the Senate just passed, by a whopping 75-22 vote (which included 25 Republicans) Senator Webb's (D-VA) new "GI Bill" which gives veterans adequate money to go to college after they've served. Astoundingly, Bush has said he's going to veto it. John McCain (R-AZ) couldn't even be bothered to vote on it, as he was in California desperately trying to raise enough money to even compete against Barack Obama. Watch for this to come back up in the campaign later. Obama and McCain have already had one memorable exchange over this, which shows yet again that the media really should start paying attention to the crazy ramblings coming from McCain's mouth, since he shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

Later in the day, 35 Republicans in the Senate voted with the Democrats to overturn Bush's veto (again, for only the second time yet) on this year's Farm Bill. The vote was an astounding 82-13. The House did its part on the Farm Bill as well, with over a hundred Republicans joining in.

This was the perfect end to a week which began with Republican political consultant Ed Rollins saying on national television that he heard a "death knell" for the Republican Party. Midweek, General Petraeus sunk Republican hopes of using the Iraq provincial elections as an "October Surprise" in our own election season this year. Petraeus told Congress that the Iraqi vote would likely be delayed until at least November.

All in all, it's not a fun time to be a Republican. Just ask Bush. He just got back from a Middle East trip where he told the Israeli parliament that talking to terrorists made you Neville Chamberlain, appeasing Hitler. Days after Bush left, the Israelis announced they were going to hold direct talks with Syria. So much for Bush's influence with our allies.

Back at home, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was asked by The Hill about Bush's remaining influence in Congress, and he replied "What influence?" [This article is really worth a read if you want to see the depths of despair the Republicans currently find themselves in.]

If it quacks like a lame duck....


Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We have a tie this week for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

First up is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry Waxman (D-CA). His tireless efforts to uncover the slime of the Bush administration have earned him this award once before, and he probably deserves "Most Impressive Democrat in this entire session of Congress" as well. This week, he forced the Pentagon to admit that it doesn't know where $15 billion (that's billion with a "b") of U.S. taxpayers' money went in Iraq. The whole story is just revolting to read. Unsurprisingly, independent contractors were feeding from this trough of money, including (of course) the notorious KBR.

The Senate is also looking into the fact that some of this money, and also some weapons, may now be in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) get an honorable mention this week for driving this effort on the other side of the Capitol, but Waxman wins the actual MIDOTW award for prying a 69-page report out of the Pentagon's Inspector General detailing the losses and shoddy accounting.

But Waxman will have to share his award this week with John Conyers (D-MI), who as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee just issued a subpoena to Karl Rove. Rove's going to ignore it, of course, but sooner or later this is going to wind up in the Supreme Court and we're going to find out what "executive privilege" does and does not cover, and this is more ammo for that fight.

To both Waxman and Conyers, well done! You have earned the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award for your valiant efforts.

[Congratulate Chairman Henry Waxman on his House committee's contact page and Chairman John Conyers on his House committee's contact page to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]


Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

This award will have to remain anonymous, since it is being awarded to a faceless and (so far) nameless clerk. I have to say I'm just assuming it's a Democrat, too, although it could be some non-partisan bureaucrat as well.

When the House and Senate passed the Farm Bill last week, they sent it to the White House for the president to sign or veto. Bush vetoed what they sent him. But when they were about to vote on overturning this veto, it was discovered that an enrolling clerk had left out a 34-page section in what was sent to Bush. Constitutional questions were raised, but I'm certain that they'll do whatever they need to in order to make everything nice and legal.

But it shouldn't have happened in the first place. If Democrats want to run as the party of competence, they really need to double-check this kind of stuff. OK, it may have been some nameless clerk who actually made the mistake, but come on -- they knew this was going to be only the second veto overturned yet, so someone should have skimmed through the final copy before it went to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

So to that clerk, and to whoever should be responsible for checking stuff like this, you have earned the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award for your laziness.


With that out of the way, it's on to the Friday Talking Points of the week.

Friday Talking Points

Volume 33 (5/23/08)


   It's Memorial Day -- support the veterans!

The timing on this one is just perfect. Just after 22 Senate Republicans voted against giving veterans educational benefits, we head into the Memorial Day weekend. All the politicians will be heading back to their home districts, so now is the time to hammer them with their vote. Barack Obama especially, because if there was ever an issue tailor-made to win over those "working class whites," respect for the military is at the top of the list.

"I think it is disgraceful that Republicans talk a good line about 'supporting vets' but when it comes down to paying for vets' education -- on the day before the Memorial Day weekend -- 22 of them in the Senate voted to stiff America's proud veterans. Democrats wrote this bill, Democrats pushed it through, Democrats voted for it. It's shameful that some Republicans didn't. I guess all that talk about 'supporting the troops' is just that -- talk. We need more Democrats in the Senate next year so that we can truly support the troops, instead of ignoring them when they come home."


   Second veto override

This one will cause Republicans to sweat.

"The House and the Senate just overrode the second Bush veto, on the Farm Bill we just passed. As more and more Republicans realistically weigh their chances for getting re-elected this November, we are likely to see this sort of thing happen more frequently than twice in seven years. Republicans in both the House and Senate realized that their leadership is telling them to obstruct everything the Democrats try to get done, but that eventually they have to answer to their constituents back home at the ballot box. Of course, if voters elect more Democrats this fall, we won't have to worry quite so much over the only thing the Republican Party has to offer America -- endless obstructionism. If you want to see Congress get some things done, it's time to vote these obstructionist Republicans out of office."


   The Pentagon lost $15 billion in Iraq?

This one's easy, too, since nobody can defend wasting taxpayers' money. Especially not when it's obvious who is responsible.

"The Pentagon just announced it has no idea what happened to $15 billion in Iraq. It's a good thing Democrats are looking into this abuse, since the Republicans completely ignored it while they were in charge of Congress. We need to get to the bottom of this, and hold some people accountable for this shameful waste of money. Harry Truman was right, when he called such war profiteering by its proper name -- 'treason.'"


   So I guess Israel is now officially an "appeaser"

The reverberations from Bush's Knesset speech just keep on spreading. Bush is of the opinion that talking to Syria or Iran is completely out of the question, and nothing can be achieved by doing so. He forcefully made his point, invoking Nazis and Hitler to do so (in front of an audience of Jews, who are especially sensitive to such specious comparisons). Days later, Israel announced it was going to start talks with Syria.

"Funny, I didn't hear President Bush denounce the state of Israel for some Neville Chamberlain-like 'appeasement' after they announced they are going to begin talking to the Syrian government. Since he has not done so, it is obvious that his real intent in his remarks in the Knesset were to bash Barack Obama, inserting the upcoming American political season into a speech to a foreign government. His silence on Israel's action speaks volumes. I guess you're only an 'appeaser' if you're a Democrat running for an American office, huh?"


   Ap-pease-ment (noun) -- Iran/Contra

Since President Bush is having so much trouble understanding what does and what does not constitute "appeasement," perhaps he needs an example from the past.

"George Bush decries talking to Iran as 'appeasement,' which is interesting. Just talking to an enemy isn't the definition of 'appeasement,' but giving in to them in negotiations and doing secret deals with our enemies to further their goals is appeasement. Now, let's see... is there an example from Iran and America's recent past that fits that definition? Perhaps selling them weapons and spare parts after they took Americans hostage? I seem to recall that happening on a Republican's watch. Bush might want to ask his daddy about what happened when he was Ronald Reagan's Vice President with regards to 'appeasing' Iran. Maybe George H.W. Bush can help define the term for his son, with particular attention paid to Iran."


   Shocked -- shocked! -- to find lobbyists in my campaign!

I've kept away from the campaign trail this week, but I just can't resist this one. Although it's tempting to ask the mainstream media why they made the Reverend Wright story a three-ring circus for weeks but when McCain throws two preachers under his bus they barely mention it. But there's a better (more damaging) thing to hit McCain with this week: lobbyists.

"John McCain has said over and over again that he fights lobbyists in Washington and thinks lobbyists are a problem. I guess he's gotten over his distaste for lobbyists, since his entire campaign organization seems to be made up of lobbyists or former lobbyists. I guess the 'Straight Talk Express' should actually be called the 'Lobbyists Tell Me What To Say Express,' eh? Or maybe the 'Lobbyist Appeasement Express.'"


   Reagan aides see Obama in new light.

Speaking of Reagan...

I've been saying since February that Republicans looking for the spirit of Ronald Reagan need look no further than Barack Obama. It seems now that some top aides to Reagan are coming around to this point of view, in light of the "talk or don't talk" debate on American diplomacy between Obama and John McCain.

"Even top aides to Ronald Reagan are closer to Barack Obama's view of how American diplomacy should work than to John McCain's. That's a pretty strong recommendation from some pretty heavyweight Republicans. Maybe they should be talking to McCain about the effectiveness of talking to our enemies."


Cross-posted at The Huffington Post


-- Chris Weigant


18 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [33] -- If It Quacks Like A Lame Duck...”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If the Democrats don't do some serious damage in this election cycle, then there is trouble in River City, and that starts with 'T', and that rhymes with
    'V', and that stands for 'voting against interest...AGAIN!

    And as far as McCain goes...I am beginning to harbour some very serious doubts about his competency, despite the glowing medical records. The thing is, I just don't ever recall McCain sounding so wholly obtuse as he has during this campaign. Has he really always been this way and I just didn't notice? All I know is that just a couple of years ago, "obtuse" would have been that last word I would have used to describe Senator John McCain.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I think you are reading too much into the recent Democrat "victories". One, one victory was accompanied by such a bonehead move as to nearly negate the PR value of the victory. I am with Elizabeth on this one. With the current landscape, the Democrats should be hitting EVERY pitch out of the park. The fact that the get a ground rule double that SHOULD have been a home run but wasn't on account of moronicness (like it? It's an old word I just made up.. :D ) is a PLUS in the Dems column. But just barely...

    As to your MIDOTW Award, I am reminded of a commentary on HuffPo.. Some commentator was lamenting how it Democrats in charge of Committees for this and that go on to HuffPo and THEY lament about all the corruption and ickyness (another old word) of the Bush Administration.. Yet, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! And all they do is bitch and moan that it's happening..

    So, great.. Waxman uncovered corruption... Good for him....

    Now...... What's he gonna do about it??? My guess is he will quietly submit his name for a piece of the pie and that's the last we'll hear of it..

    As an aside, I just sent an XBOX 360 to a guy(I do free XBOX360 repairs to troops and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Yea, I know.. Shameless plug.. :D) who is in Iraq that works for KBR... I was kinda surprised at his mailing address..

    APO, AE 09xxx

    I don't know why it struck me, but I would not have expected such prominence in a civilian agency working with the US Military...

    Finally, with your Disappointing Dem.. OK, granted... It may have happened a little late to meet your deadline, but ya gotta admit. Hillary invoking the assassination of RFK as an explanation as to why she is staying in the race was about as low as she has gotten in a campaign replete with low spots... I'll address that in more depth in a subsequent post...

    Anyways, on to the weekly rebuttal.. :D

    1. As a veteran myself, I have to say it's disturbing, there is no doubt. However, before passing judgment I would like to know why those GOPers decided against it. But their reasoning better be pretty damn good..

    2. Actually, considering what happened, this one will cause Republicans to fall on the floor laughing. :D

    3. This one will come back and bite the Democrats on the ass if they don't have a solution for it.. It will actually make the Dems look WORSE because they discovered it and didn't do anything about it..

    4. As the Left is so fond of pointing out the distinction, there is a difference between the terrorists and the governments that supports them. So Bush is simply applying the Dems own distinction.. Personally I disagree with Bush AND the Dems on this issue. And Israel too.. Our stance with Hamas is the right stance and should be the guiding principle in dealing with ANY nation. No talkee talkee until the nation in question puplically and unequivocally renounces terrorism in word AND deed..

    5. No doubt about it. That was appeasement. But the Dems need to be careful with this one. They start trouncing on Reagan and there will be hell to pay... I guarantee....

    6. Even Obama has lobbyists in his campaign.. My take is that it is the extent that the lobbyists control the candidate that is the problem. Obama seems the best in this area with McCain a close second and Clinton a distant (way distant) third..

    7. Obama is no Reagan. Anyways, Reagan didn't "talk" to countries. He dictated. Reagan said "JUMP" and they said, "HOW HIGH??" on the way up! :D Obama doesn't have that kind of clout.. YET.. I agree he has the potential to be another Reagan.. But he ain't there yet...


  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    At the risk of hijacking the thread, what's ya'alls thoughts on Hillary's RFK statement??

    Personally, I think that NOTHING Hillary says is "off the cuff".. I think the statement was thoroughly vetted and designed to show Dean and the rest of the DNC exactly how much trouble she can cause if she doesn't get her way...

    It's highly doubtful it was an "innocent" comment devoid of any significance as Hillaryland residents want us to believe. For several reasons.

    1. It's so misleading as to be a lie. In 1968, the primary started in March. So mentioning June in 1968-speak is like mentioning August today, insofar as the primary is concerned. Her assessment of Bill's 1994 is also a lie. Bill had the primary locked in MARCH of that year..

    2. There are plenty other examples that could have been used that would have proven the point so much better than invoking the assassination of RFK.. Gary Hart in '84 comes to mind. Teddy's run in '80... etc etc...

    Hillary better hope and pray that Obama doesn't even so much as stub his toe.. There are plenty of crazies out there who would take Hillary's constant mention of the RFK assassination as a signal... And, if that (gods forbid) were to happen, you can bet that Hillary will be front and center at the roll call of "whose to blame"...


  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, the time has come..

    A while back, CW held a contest to see who could guess when Hillary Clinton would drop out of the race. In my infinite silliness, I backed up my wager with an obscene amount of quatloos, plus the promise I would dress up as GALT if I lost..

    Since then, I have reasoned my not following thru with the thought that, since no one has really won, I had not lost yet..

    Then it hit me that such rationale sounds suspiciously like Clinton's rationale for staying in the race... Which physically made me ill..

    SO..... Without further ado, here is me living up to my bargain... Enjoy....

    WARNING: Young Children or Old People with heart conditions should not view the picture below...



  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    You, sir, are an honorable man. You pay your debts.

    Oh, and thanks for the warning, too. Don't want any heart attacks here at!

    Heh heh.

    For those of you wondering what this is about, see (comments to):

    For those of you needing "quatloo" "Galt" or "Thrall" explained, see:

    Like I said, say what you want about Michale here, but never let it be said that he doesn't make good on his bets!


  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    A couple things. I just found out my own House rep is one of the "uncommitted" superdelegates. Maybe he'll have an open house in the next week or so, because I'd really like to ask him "what exactly are you waiting for?!?"

    Let's see, to answer your posts... moronicness? I prefer the more formal "moronosity." heh heh.

    I wouldn't count Waxman out. He's a pit bull with this stuff.

    You are right, Hillary's RFK reference came right after deadline, so all I can say is she's top of the list so far for next week's MDDOTW.

    1. The GOPers voted against the GI Bill for three reasons -- (1) it was written by a Democrat, (2) it costs too much, and (3) retention might dip 16% if it happens.

    Mostly (3). If you serve your tour, the GOP wants you to have to stay in the military for a few more years (another tour) before you qualify for full educational benefits. They want this because they are afraid that 16% will decide to go to college rather than re-up. Where they got this figure, I don't know, but I would bet that it doesn't take into account the fact that recruiting would be an easier job with better benefits at the end of a first tour. McCain introduced an alternate bill that gives less benefits, and you have to work longer to get them.

    So you tell me, is Webb supporting the troops, or McCain? Note that McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote.

    2. Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi was "uncharacteristically crude" when she heard what happened. Anyone care to guess what species of profanity escaped her lips when she heard about this screwup? :-)

    3. Time will tell. You're right -- they better do something about it.

    4. Again, time will tell what happens between Israel and Syria as a result.

    5. I'm actually surprised others haven't made this connection. (1) his dad was involved, (2) it's the SAME COUNTRY Bush is talking about now, and (3) it absolutely fits the description of "appeasement." Seems obvious to me. But then we never seem to remember that the Islamic government in Iran is a DIRECT RESULT of our own CIA overthrowing a democratically-elected government and putting the Shah in power. The American media can't remember last week, much less things that happened decades ago. Sheesh.

    6. Yeah, but this will hurt McCain with a segment of his base, I bet. Time (once again, I'm copping out here...) will tell.

    7. I would actually agree with you, Obama ain't there yet, but the potential exists.

    As for Hillary, I don't think that saying the word "assassination" in the middle of a presidential campaign is a "gaffe" exactly. I think she knew full well what the reaction would be when she chose not only RFK as an example, but decided to go with the word "assassination." I used to have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton. Used to.


  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I dunno if I made "Good".. :D Cuz it looks really bad. :D hehehehehehe

    If interested, here is the original:


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can understand why the GOPers who voted against it would do so..

    It IS a legitimate concern regarding retention... But, personally, I don't think it's ENOUGH of a concern to not support it.. In other words:

    Spock: "Fascinating. There is a certain scientific logic about it."
    Anan 7: "I am glad you approve."
    Spock: "I do not approve. I understand."

    Star Trek: A Taste Of Armageddon

    Regarding Israel & Syria..
    According to latest reports, one of the conditions of talking is that Syria must break ties with Iran (Did I call that or what!!??? :D)
    Syria told Israel to bugger off...

    I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when Pelosi found out about the goof.. That would have made O'reilly's Inside Edition blow up look like a church choir, I'll bet... :D

    The IranContra was definitely appeasement as I understand it.. And, it's entirely logical to connect Iran know with the actions then. Perhaps if we had nuked Iran then, it wouldn't be such a pain in the arse now..

    On the other hand, it would seem to support the idea that even appeasing Iran won't work so there is more justification for nuking them right now.. Don'tcha just LOVE how my mind works??? :D

    Regarding Hillary, the more I read about it the more I think she is not firing on all cylinders.. Over at another site, they keep going on and on about how it wasn't a misstatement, that it was perfectly logical, etc etc etc...

    The truth of the matter is, it was a misstatement, wrapped in a vieled threat and delivered as a bonehead move... Comparing the '68 Primary to the '08 Primary is even MORE ludicrous than comparing the '94 Primary to the '08 Primary...

    I think that Hillary has truly gone off the deep end.. Or (more likely) she wants the DNC to THINK she has gone off the deep end...


  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A thought about the latest Hillary Hullabaloo...

    I came to know Robert Kennedy. Robert Kennedy was a great political leader. Hillary Clinton is no Robert Kennedy!

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

    Seriously, this whole Clinton/RFK thing speaks to me on a couple of levels. First, I would like to know when people are going to grow up and get over their illogical hypersensitivity when it comes to the RFK assassination and this campaign. I mean, give me a break! Now, this is coming from someone who was, at one point, nearing the point of obsession with the assassinations of RFK, MLK, and of JFK, in particular (for example, I believe we know a lot about the JFK assassination but one thing we do not know is who shot him).

    Secondly, I would say that anyone who listens to the give and take between Senator Clinton and the editorial board is losing all touch with reality if they believe that exchange was anything other than Hillary grasping at straws (pre-planned, or not) to explain why she should stay in the race to the bitter end. Personally, I think she would be a COMPLETE idiot if she were to withdraw from the race at this late stage. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what all the fuss is about - we are talking about a lousy few weeks, for God’s sake! And, what about those poor Hillary Clinton supporters who have been waiting all this time to cast their precious vote for her - what kind of individual would deny these poor souls that ‘divine’ right?!

    People need to lighten up and finally start debating the issues that really the fact, for instance, that not one of the potential Bush successors have the first clue about what to do in Iraq. And, that’s just for starters.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The perfect argument for Hillary dropping out now is the same valid argument that has been in place since Indiana and North Carolina...

    The longer she stays in the race, the more she poisons the Party and pits Dem against Dem...

    But, you are correct in a way.. It really doesn't matter anymore whether Hillary drops out now or next week or three weeks from now.. She has already made it all but impossible for the Democrats to unite in time to take the White House..

    However, the longer she stays in, the more she will damage the chances for downstream Democratic Party wins..

    We might be looking at a GOP in the White House and full on GOP majorities in both House and Senate, thanx to Hillary..


  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    As I see it, Hillary has very little to do with damaging the Dems chances for winning the White House or Congress. The Democratic party took good care of that a long time ago...with the final nail in the coffin coming around about the time of the Iowa caucuses.

    Should the Dems lose this thing, as I suspect they will, it will be the result of a combination of a Democratic Party without leadership, an inept and incompetent national media and an ill-informed electorate that continues to vote against their own bloody interest.

    This is so much bigger than Hillary.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    and an ill-informed electorate that continues to vote against their own bloody interest.


    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
    Tommy Lee Jones, MEN IN BLACK

    On the other hand, can you really blame people??

    I mean, honestly...

    Who wants to vote for a Party that is the political equivalent of a Three Stooges act??

    You can't blame the people for not seeing what the Democratic Party is completely incapable of showing.

    Finally, consider the possibility that the people really are dead on with their votes.

    Can you imagine the mess this country would be in if Al Gore had been the one to respond to 9-11?

    You can't see me, but I am cringing at the thought..


  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding the Hillary debacle..

    This HAS to be some kind of record...

    Over 12 THOUSAND comments on this HuffPo news piece.. While it is true that HuffPo is a cheerleading site for Obama (Just as Taylor Marsh's site is a cheerleading site for Clinton) this is still pretty remarkable. I have been on HuffPo since our illustrious host dragged me in there in Sep of '05 :D and I don't think I have ever seen a piece with so many comments...

    I recall when all this kicked off, a Hillary supporter on TM was saying something along the lines of that, since it's a holiday weekend, Hillary's RFK comment probably will peter out.. I remember thinking that, because it IS a holiday weekend (and probably will be a slow news weekend) that just the opposite would be true. Drudge has been blazing this has his headline since it happened..

    I honestly think that this might be the straw that breaks the Hillary Campaign's back... Either by forcing her out or by forcing the SDs to finally declare..

    CW, if you do get some face time with that SD you mentioned earlier, I would be VERY interested in his take on things and on why the SDs are letting the Democratic Party bleed out...


  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That HP blog post and reaction goes a long way toward proving my point...and, come to think of does the fact that 'Gush and Bore' pretty much split the vote in half, more or less.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it just occurred to me.. This RFK thing will simmer down in the next day or so and then be revisted and blown wide open again on the Jun 5th which is the 40th anniversary of the death of RFK...

    My guess is that Hillary will bow out between the end of the primaries on 3 Jun and that anniversary so as not to be raked over the coals anew...

    Of course, I have such a great track record of being right, eh?? :D


  16. [16] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    "Can you imagine the mess this country would be in if Al Gore had been the one to respond to 9-11?

    You can't see me, but I am cringing at the thought.."

    I know you dislike Gore for his eco views and probably his 2000 campaign, but in this case you may be wrong. Gore was one of the few politicians who warned of this very early on. He mentioned it, probably too often, during his 92 presidental bid. It is thought to be one of the reasons he did not go far in 92. The American people did not want to hear about it at that time. Then early in to the Clinton administration Gore wanted to take on terrorism as his pet VP project but the Clintons put the kabosh on it as to not to unduly scare the American people. I'm not sure what his policies would have been but he was researching and thinking about it long before anyone in the Bush administration...

  17. [17] 
    BLaws wrote:

    "They want this because they are afraid that 16% will decide to go to college rather than re-up. Where they got this figure, I don't know, but I would bet that it doesn't take into account the fact that recruiting would be an easier job with better benefits at the end of a first tour." - CW


    They got that figure from a report by the GAO? or some other office. I can't find the link to it now but it was on HuffPo a few days ago. Basically it said they expected a 16% reduction in retention, but it would increase enlistment by an amount that offset the loss, if not outweigh it. A fact that McCain constantly ignores.

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Thanks, BLaws.

    All I remembered was the figure of 16%. But it doesn't surprise me that McCain is playing fast and loose with the facts. He's desperately trying to cover up the fact that he and Bush just think it costs too much and is too generous. Good luck with that one, John...

    I think this is a winning issue for Democrats in general, and Webb is really shining in the spotlight as a result. He should be -- he deserves it.


Comments for this article are closed.