I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Silly rabbit, money is for Republicans.
Oops. Just posted this in the previous "hypocrisy" thread!
Here's the rule: Republicans get to do whatever they want, because they're hard-driving businessman-type ideologues, and that's just what the world expects of them. Democrats are expected to play nice, because they--"we", thinks the Post--are better than all that. Another absurd and self-inflicted disadvantage for the SCLM.
There's also a cartoon that Glenn has up on the same issue - it's even dumber than this, because it compares direct political giving to candidates to financing think tanks - and then declares that Republicans basically don't benefit from wealthy financiers at all.
Here's the rule: Republicans get to do whatever they want, because they're hard-driving businessman-type ideologues, and that's just what the world expects of them. Democrats are expected to play nice, because they--"we", thinks the Post--are better than all that. Another absurd and self-inflicted disadvantage for the SCLM.
If we don't name it, and keep naming it over and over and over, it will not exist in the public/media sphere. (Existence in some Platonic sphere of Objective Truth doesn't count, at least in the short term, during an election.)
The very fact that the GOP has gotten away with, and continues to get away with, talking about the Dems "financial advantage" due to "special interests" like labor and the much-hated "trial lawyers" proves it.
Dean, Clark, Kerry, whoever (just not Lieberman, OK?): FOLLOW THE MONEY. It's all about the little guy and the American Way of Life vs. a corrupt crony capitalist machine, backed by sex-obsessed apocalyptic lynch-mob nutcases.
There's the story. We have to run with it.
By the way, this in one place were the Dem Party (and the left in general) has to inure itself to charges of hypocrisy. Look at what happened to Dean when he decided to not take federal money--all of a sudden he was the one who was selling out the system. That is simply just going to happen, and we should ignore it and GET BACK ON MESSAGE. We're not the party of corruption, moral relativism, and authoritarianism. They are. They are. They are.
The GOP is the party of the little guy.
The GOP is the party of the little guy.
That's true, NTodd. Perhaps my irony detector is broken, but it doesn't matter either way. Point is, America is the country of the little guy. That's where the political battles need to be fought, at least until we abolish voting all together.
The progressive left lost control of that narrative, but they are it's natural heirs.
I heard a Repub drone on Tweety's show not long ago calling Clinton "The Fund Raiser in Chief" again. 'Cause, as we all know, George Bush spends all of his time doing the "people's business" and keeping America safe from terrorism.
It was such bald-faced hypocrisy that I thought for a moment Tweety might actually say something about how Bush is the one breaking all the fundraising records these days. But the moment passed. Tweety shrugged and moved on to the next talking point. Just another day in the SCLM.
Write a letter to the editor! The WaPo editors, eh? Anyone have a link to that?
Imagine no rightwingers,
I wonder if you can
No hypocrites, no fundies
no casket pics to ban
Imagine all America
living proud and free
I may be a reader
of the New York Times
but I have to tell you
trusting it's a crime
Bush's main contributions are $100 from little guy????
Bother, Glen moves into Rush Limbaugh territory...Glen is resorting to outright dishonest sources to keep his "precious" in power.
$100--uh huh! That isn't what Howard Dean said. Dean said,"Bush usually gets mostly gets those $2000 dollar babies."
AND---It's Howard Dean that is asking for the $100 dollar checks.
Glen and Rush were sitting in tree...
AND Nice try Washington Post - try not to display such a blatantly act of dishonesty next time.
I mean really, what would the esteemed WP editor, the late Ms. Katharine Graham say? Something like, "(sob) my paper, the Washington Post is pushing propaganda and is becoming a paper of ill-reputed."
That Fox News Newspaper--who the F**k needs it?
Didn't you know that the left can only raise money by selling organic produce and incense?
For the record, I was being facetious.
I've also raised $11.37 selling old tie-dyed tee shirts at my yard sale.
It's all about the little guy and the American Way of Life vs. a corrupt crony capitalist machine, backed by sex-obsessed apocalyptic lynch-mob nutcases.
I think you have it the other way around--it's "sex-obsessed apocalyptic lynch-mob nutcases, backed by a corrupt crony capitalist machine." Just a clarification.
NTodd, I figured you were being face.. facesh.. fat... uh, were kidding.
But so are the Republicans. They are just so funny they're fucking KILLING ME!
For the record, I was being facetious.
NTodd
No one who is familiar with your posts could doubt it.
It's always different when the Republicans do it, our media is governed by an idiological double standard. I agree with the above, we've just got to go and do what is necessary and answer the snipes. Always answer, always.
Poin D
Write a letter to the editor! The WaPo editors, eh? Anyone have a link to that?
No, what they need is a massive newspaper subscription cancellation, the old "I want my money back" and "take your newspaper services and your advertisers and go to H E double L."
People shouldn't be interested in reading dishonest newspapers.
A half-truth and half-lie is still a lie and a line and not worth dog poop or the paper it's written on.
Hey! I can top that!
The New York Times has a front-page article CRITICIZING HOWARD DEAN'S DRAFT RECORD!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/2.../22DRAF.html?
th
I am just too speechless to write and complain......sigh!
Cheryl, you are right. The WaPo is a real piece of TP now. When I saw that this morning it REALLY pissed me off. I'm cancelling my subscription.
Yeah, but it's a real convenient script to say the Democrats are just a bunch of fund-raising whores. Not only does it require no thought, its doesn't even require the effort of typing--just call up the RNC, have them email it over, then cut-n-paste. Done! And with plenty of time to meet up with Haley and the boys on the back nine!
Basically, we're suffering from excessive expectations. If you expect reporters or editors to remember, say, what Bush was doing last Monday (why, at yet another massive fund raiser!), then your expectations are way too high. Remembering that would require more than two or three functioning brain cells, which today's reporters and editors don't have (perhaps thanks to the war on drugs?).
The New York Times has a front-page article CRITICIZING HOWARD DEAN'S DRAFT RECORD!!!!!!
I saw that one, cat. I was too busy vomiting to post it.
I have to say, though, They're miscalculating (I captialize it to indicate that I'm using the conspiratorial, tin-foil hat wearer's "They"). Dean will simply use it as an opportunity to discuss Bush's AWOL record and then compare it to his prancing flight-suit performance on the USS Neocon Wetdream.
Jesse
I wanted to comment on that cartoon over at Glenn's site. It seems disingenuos. I've been all over kos looking for a chart showing a breakdown in the amounts of individual campaign donations. Can't find it but from what I recall, Bush leads in the $2000 and up per donation where most of Dean's funds come from the $100 and less per dontaion.
The chart was from about a month ago.
Maybe they're right. Gee, maybe all the leftwing nut jobs of the past are right: Unilateral disarmament is the only way. Didn't some famous guy once say something about turning the other cheek? Yeah, that's the ticket.
But such outsize voices, on the left or right, pose dangers to a democratic system: No one wants one deep-pocketed person picking the next president.
Exactly, lets leave the way it is: Addled and outsized ex-high-school-paper gossip columnists scanning for hairpulls and irrelevant fashion faus pas--kindly framing the seroius debate for all us rube subscribers. Whoever lulled one into thinking ethics and self-awarenes come with the arrival of J-school deserves to be, uh, stoned.
Let's find that chart and cram it down Instacracker's throat but good.
Mondo,
hope you're right about this opening up the dialog on draft records from the left and right.....didn't look like the authors wanted to discuss the chickenhawks tho' hearkening back to Quayle fer crissakes...as if there weren't any contrasting examples from THIS CENTURY............
I think it's opensecrets.org that has the campaign contributions, you can sort them and look at them many ways. But why would I'Hack do that when there is a point to be made.
hope you're right about this opening up the dialog on draft records from the left and right.....didn't look like the authors wanted to discuss the chickenhawks
They won't do it for us. The Dems have to do it. LOUDLY.
Between this and Howard Kurtz's snarky little comment about Charlie Dean a few days ago, I'm pretty much at the point of washing my hands of the WaPo, too. Damn the SCLM. I used to think they were whores, now I think they're just ignoramuses.
The New York Times has a front-page article CRITICIZING HOWARD DEAN'S DRAFT RECORD!!!!!!
Sounds like the game's afoot. It also sounds like Rove is terrified of Dean, to start going at him with this hot potato already. Not like Georgie's record on that count is better.
Great comments. I noticed the title on the WP editorial list and moved right along, there seemed like no point to even clicking on it to see what kind of prissy scolding they would deliver and I see from the post and the comments that the guess was pretty appropriate.
This however is one rap the Bushies are not going to duck, he is too close to Big Corporations and big bidness whether it is Jitney the Oil Man or Fristy the Medicine Snow Man, both with the ties to Big Corporations that make the billions from the Federal government, both in line to get billions and billions in bonanzas and Fristy’s family corporation of course which already had to pay out the $1.7 billion to settle fraud charges.
Now a couple of upstanding, decent folks share their own personal wealth to support issues raised by their conscience and it drives some folks into a tizzy.
Nice going folks, real credible.
dave - Atrios posted a NYT chart here on November 9 ("Big Donor, Little Donor").
http://tinyurl.com/w4pu
There are a number of additional donor-related links in the comments thread, too.
For the record, I was being facetious.
NTodd
No one who is familiar with your posts could doubt it.
Just making sure! 
Completely O.T. but I thought some might be interested in Ian Anderson's retort to the press on him and rampant nationalism here in the states.
http://www.j-tull.com/news/starsandstripes.cfm
letters@washpost.com (Mention to them everything Atrios said)
letters@nytimes.com (Mention to them AWOL Bush)
You know what to do.
(By the way: Lyman, author of the NYT hit piece on Dean, was doing the NYT's Hollywood beat until a few months ago. Make of that what you will.)
Stop the presses! Get the newsboys in their knickers to spread the word at every major intersection!
"Extra, extra! Fabulously wealthy man trying to use money to incluence politics!"
OT. After watching U-M beat Ohio State, I was channelsurfing and noticed that Faux was doing a story about the anniversary of the JFK assassination. The commentator was asking Faux's guy in Dallas about the remembrance that was being held there. As he started to talk, someone began yelling something in the background. Couldn't hear what was said, but the *reporter* stopped and told his audience that he was being heckled. Heheheh. It was enjoyable.
After watching U-M beat Ohio State
Grr.
Librul paper indeed.
While we're on the subject of think tanks and big donors, don't forget to write ombudsman@washpost.com demanding to know (a) why the paper is so benevolent towards PNAC and AEI, the unelected parties* who are so much a part of this optional war on Iraq and (b) big GOP donors with sweetheart contracts in Iraq.
Oh yeah, that Scaife thing too.
*Granted, Commander Codpiece is unelected too but that's a whole nuther beef.
Grr.
Now, NTodd. OU didn't play well today, and even though Krenzel got hurt, the outcome was pretty much determined by then anyway.
The average Republican campaign contribution has been smaller than the average Democrat campaign contribution for the last several election cycles. Dean has been the first Democrat to break through this barrier with his internet campaigning techniques and it shows his grass-roots strength.
Soros contributions are a bad public perception thing for the party but the public is so cynical about contributions for both parties it won't amount to anything.
Here's the letter I wrote to the WP:
I was dumbfounded by a sentence in the "Mr. Soros's Millions" editorial: "For Democrats thrilled with the Soros millions, imagine conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account on behalf of Mr. Bush.". Whoever wrote this article is apparently unfamiliar with Scaife's giving to many conservative think tanks, publications and pressure groups, from the 1960s to the present.
Over four decades he has given $700 million to conservative organizations. He has been one one of the main funders of the Heritage Foundation and countless other conservative "think tanks" such as the the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Contemporary Studies. In 1994 he set up a fund to investigate whether Clinton aid Vince Foster was murdered and he funded the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
Besides Mr. Scaife, let's not forget about other right-wing billionaires such as Howard Ahmanson who has spent millions promoting religious-right candidates and funding countless other conservative groups.
There is plenty of reason to worry about money in politics, but to single out Soros without pointing out the rich funders on the right is dishonest and irresponsible.
Bush's main contributions are $100 from little guy????
So that's what their calling those $100 a plate dinners?
How dare anyone dissent!
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.
The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.
F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.
The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption.
But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."
Or as Mel Brooks once wrote:
Don't be stupid /
Be a smarty /
Come and join /
The Nazi party!
Don't believe the hype. The GOPranos will count the total number of donations and then say "75% of our contributions were from people who gave $250 or less." What that means is, "out of every 100 separate contributions, 75 were were for $250 or less." Well, big deal. It's just a clever way to avoid having to talk about the fact that 90% of your money came from the other 25%, many of whom gave tens of thousands or more.
"The average Republican campaign contribution has been smaller than the average Democrat campaign contribution for the last several election cycles. Dean has been the first Democrat to break through this barrier with his internet campaigning techniques and it shows his grass-roots strength."
Report that median then we can talk..
Hell, report ANY hard number then we can talk.
"The New York Times has a front-page article CRITICIZING HOWARD DEAN'S DRAFT RECORD!!!!!!
I saw that one, cat. I was too busy vomiting to post it.
I have to say, though, They're miscalculating (I captialize it to indicate that I'm using the conspiratorial, tin-foil hat wearer's "They"). Dean will simply use it as an opportunity to discuss Bush's AWOL record and then compare it to his prancing flight- suit performance on the USS Neocon Wetdream."
Did anyone notice the conspicuous absence of Cheney's draft record, and his comment regarding same?
I agree with NTodd. Grr.
See, what the WaPo means is, why aren't you liberals satisfied with the job we're doing? Don't fight back, don't collect money, don't get angry (heaven forbid, especially don't get angy at the chimp). We'll do the heavy lifting, cause, you know, we're the liberal media, and we know our place...I mean, we know our jobs.
Rest easy.
Surprise! Reynolds is lying.
Only 11% of the donations to Bush are $200 or less. 73% of the individual contributions are $2000 dollars or more. The median has to be way higher than $100 dollars.
I can't figure out how to average the donations using the data on the Open Secrets web site, but if that is what Reynolds is doing, he should stick to law and forget about his aspirations in the exciting world of Statistics.
The Democrats, on the other hand, far outpace Bush in the $200 or less per donation category.
Another interesting thing is that the Democrats, if you add up all the candidates, have collected approximately the same amount of money as Bush has. I find reason to be optimistic when reflecting upon this because since the money is from small donors, it means that the Democratic base is broader than the Republican (more people giving less, and potentially strongly motivated to vote).
If Dean or Clark or whoever can grab ahold of there Democratic opponent's donors after the nomination, then we stand an even chance in the money race.
(data found on Opensecrets.com. Which rocks, by the way)
It's amazing how much scrutiny fundraising gets when it becomes apparent that the Dems may be able to make a buck off of it.
One thing Soros could consider is a hostile takeover of Diebold. It's worth $3B, which isn't too huge, and doesn't have very much held by insider shareholders. Most of the stock is held by institutions, who would probably have to back a decent takeover bid or risk lawsuits. It even turns a decent profit. Now THAT would give the Republicans fits.
Oh ,a href="http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/
civil_liberties/index.html">Damn it check out Body and Soul.
The Dems are not taking issue with any these days.
Oh Damn it check out Body and Soul.
The Dems are not taking issue with any these days.
The chart that some of you have been looking for might be this one.
Not to worry, 100 ft tall Jesus will fix everything.
Poor forgotten dead Kay Graham.
The kids got the paper from her. Everything else seems to have come straight from Phil.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators...
dave - chilling, ain't it? I blogged about this a little while ago--civil disobedience is near and dear to my heart.
"Another interesting thing is that the Democrats, if you add up all the candidates, have collected approximately the same amount of money as Bush has. I find reason to be optimistic when reflecting upon this because since the money is from small donors, it means that the Democratic base is broader than the Republican (more people giving less, and potentially strongly motivated to vote).
If Dean or Clark or whoever can grab ahold of there Democratic opponent's donors after the nomination, then we stand an even chance in the money race."
Hope is not a strategy! I hope you're right, but my concern is that a fair number of potential donors will be turned off once their candidate fails to win the nomination, and NOT transfer their ducats to the nominee....
Here's my note to the Post:
No one wants one deep-pocketed person picking the next president. For Democrats thrilled with the Soros millions, imagine conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account on behalf of Mr. Bush.
Are the Post editors reading their own newspaper?
This utterly dumbfounding line in the Post's Nov. 23 editorial "Mr. Soros' Millions" proves either that the Post's editorial writers aren't paying attention or is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate what has, until recently, been primarily a conservative phenomenon.
For while the Post does indeed point out that Republicans have traditionally been guilty of similar "end runs" around campaign finance regulations, the insinuation that Mr. Scaife has not already helped, via his funding, to pick presidents and impeach another is ludicrious. Witness this line, from your own newspaper, circa May 2, 1999:
The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate.
If indeed Mr. Soros's donations undermine democracy with a small-d, does the Post not have an obligation to mention that the right - and Mr. Scaife specifically - have been doing the same for generations?
Liberal left?
Corporate left?
So called Democrat left?
There is a difference between liberal policies and what most claim to be " left" policies.
Example; Kucinich is Liberal, Begala is a right of center Democrat billed as left.
Please quit using buzzwords like "left". It is vague and does not represent most modern Democratic institutions.
The chart that some of you have been looking for might be this one.
If we were back in the old days, when the candidate with the greater number of votes won the election, Rover would be crapping in his shorts at these numbers. Hundreds of thousands giving $100 would have been much more meaningful than a handful giving $2000. But, now, thanks to Bushco's friends at Diebold (not to mention the USSC), they're all sleeping soundly over at the WH.
Atrios mentions a trend that he has noticed - that the nastier anti-Dem editorials seem to run on Sundays. He attributes it to Krauthammer. Whatever the reason, it's potentially much more damaging when those things run on Sundays because that's about the only day most people read all the paper. So the anti-Dem stuff gets read by way more people if it runs then.
Dearly held GOP belief: Any leftist who isn't actually broke is a hypocrite.
Subtext: They have dibs on anyone with a few bucks.
Corollary: If you make or have decent money (or if not, should your fortunes improve)--you weren't expecting to make your own decision about politics, were you?
He attributes it to Krauthammer.
He's a wacko. Krauthammer is a sleezy, vindictive, dangerous wacko.
He reminds me of a certain character in a certain Wild Wild West movie.
Jesse On the fly Buhruce
http://tinyurl.com/w4pu
Yeah that's the one!! Thanks. Sure proves to me that the Repubs are supported by the small donors. NOT
I've been thinking about this editorial, the sheer hypocrital stupidity of it, and I thought, at last, now you all know how it feels to be female. We're supposed to get trampled on, to be nicer than the men, and somehow, to be satisfied in the end with the quality of our own virtue. Even as we get screwed in divorce and starve in old age. I tell this to every new female employee who joins my office: You don't have to be ugly. But you have to stand up for yourself. JFC, what is wrong with the WaPo?
...Dean will simply use it as an opportunity to discuss Bush's AWOL record
this is why i support howard dean. i don't agree with all of his policy decisions/positions. but his campaign gets it. you can't lay down while the gop runs roughshod over the media.
go dean.
I wanted to comment on that cartoon over at Glenn's site. It seems disingenuos.
There could be a reason for that. Check out some of the ads on the cartoonist, Chris Muir's, site. For example:
Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity, by D. Limbaugh.
Also, on what is apparently his list of favorites:
The Politics of Bad Faith by Horowitz.
Which is followed in a lightheartedly ironic vein by,
Sell Out by David Schippers. Which purports to reveal, among other things, the "15 crimes committed by the president, including abuses of power that make Nixon look like a choirboy" and how "the Republicans helped remove these charges from the articles of impeachment."
Nice, reasonable, conservative cartoonist, wouldn't you say? And a perfectly reasonable cartoon site for the perfectly reasonable moderate conservative Glenn Reynolds to visit.
I don't think it is a Saturday thing. Washington Post editorial page starting moving to the right in the 80s under Meg Greenfield. After she died she was replaced by Fred Hiatt, a foaming at the mouth neocon. He is a Krauthammer clone so there is not need to get Krauthammer to write editorials on Saturdays.
By the way, speaking of our wonderful So-Called 'Liberal' Media:
Any bets as to whether this little bit of news gets ANY mainstream media play?
====
Press Release: From:--Retro Poll ---www.retropoll.org (600 word text).
To: political reporters, columnists, editors, editorial page editors, opinion page editors, justice reporters
Contact: Dr. Marc Sapir 510-848-3826, Msapir@compuserve.com
Release Date: November 24, 2003
Public Growing Tired of Being Misled on Facts in Iraq
Dateline: Berkeley.
At least one in three Americans believe that George W. Bush should face impeachment for misleading the public and Congress about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to create support for war on Iraq.
This is a new finding from a national survey conducted by the Retro Poll organization between October 29 and November 12. The actual proportion supporting impeachment was 40% but with a margin of error of plus or minus 8%, 1 in 3 remains a conservative population estimate.
"We are seeing a rising tide of public anger that no one is paying attention to", said Dr. Marc Sapir, Retro Poll's Director.
Currently 47% of those polled know that Saddam's Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks, up from 36% in a Retro Poll last April. Of that 47% who are now clear on this fact, 52% favored impeachment.
Even more dramatic was the strength of support for impeachment among those who know that the Al Qaeda-Saddam connection was also a media-government fabrication, based on little evidence.
Of the still small 32% who know that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were never partners, a whopping 73% favor impeachment and 78% think the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq. (54% of the total sample said the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq which is consistent with recent findings of major polling organizations).
These correlations suggest that the public will likely turn more and more against the war and the Bush group for lying as the facts versus the propaganda are clarified over time.
On the other hand, since it was the corporate media that collaborated in the misleading stories about nuclear, chemical and biological materials in Iraq in the first place the possibility of renewed efforts to mislead the public and distort actualities can not be ruled out.
However, Sapir claims, "these correlations lend evidence to the assertion that most differences among Americans on these important issues are driven less by different values or ideology than through the daily infusion via the media of fabricated misinformation."
Other important findings concern the war on terrorism and also health care.
Support for the anti-terror campaign is based among the same group that has absorbed incorrect information put out by the government-media combo, but that group is declining.
For example, only 15% of those polled thought that the Patriot Act was strengthening thei
fuck 'em. this time it's war and we ain't taking prisoners.
33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean
By RICK LYMAN and CHRISTOPHER DREW
n the winter of 1970, a 21-year-old student from Yale walked into his armed services physical in New York carrying X-rays and a letter from his orthopedist, eager to know whether a back condition might keep him out of the military draft.
This was not an uncommon scene in 1970, when medical deferments were a frequently used avenue for those reluctant to take part in the unpopular war in Vietnam. And this story would have little interest save that Howard Dean was the name of the young man. Now, 33 years later, he finds himself a leading Democrat in the quest for the party's nomination to be president of the United States.
Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.
"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."
But now that he is running for president, in a race when many Democrats believe they need a candidate with strong national security credentials to challenge President Bush, the choices Dr. Dean, a former Vermont governor, made 33 years ago are providing ammunition for critics.
Senator John Kerry and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, two of his strongest challengers for the Democratic nomination, have recently started running advertisements highlighting their military experience. And all the Democratic candidates except Carol Moseley Braun had to face the possibility of being drafted during the Vietnam War.
In the 10 months after his graduation from Yale, time he might otherwise have spent in uniform, Dr. Dean lived the life of a ski bum in Aspen, Colo. His back condition did not affect his skiing the way the rigors of military service would have, he said, nor did it prevent him from taking odd jobs like pouring concrete in the warm months and washing dishes when it got cold.
Even the candidate's mother, Andree Maitland Dean, said in a recent interview about his skiing after receiving a medical deferment, "Yeah, that looks bad."
But, she said, that is the nature of his condition. It is aggravated by certain kinds of physical activity but not all kinds, she said. The condition is called spondylolysis, a low-back pain that sometimes radiates into the legs, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' online information site.
Dr. Dean said it was the military's decision to grant him the deferment, but he also said he was eager to get it. Had he wanted to serve, he probably could have.
Ever since the first politicians who came of draft age during the Vietnam War rose to the national stage, the question has been a recurring one: Did you serve in Southeast Asia, or did you take a different path?
Dan Quayle, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1988, was criticized by opponents who said he had used family connections to land a spot in the Indiana National Guard, which he
Do go on about Quayle, Bad Anonymous. And Bush as well. Also please note what the paper does not say about Quayle: That he claimed he wanted to serve in active duty, but too many blacks had already beat him to the punch. So he had to use his connections to get into the guard where he sat out he festivities. Also note that the paper doesn't mention Bush's AWOL period. Another thing to note is that Cheney's draft dodging isn't even mentioned, and that his claim that he "had better things to do" is consequently ommitted from the piece. So much dissembling, so little time, right Bad Anonymous?
www.AWOLBush.com.
Bush pulled every string he could to avoid getting his 1-A body shot at in Vietnam, while at the same time getting to parade in a pilot's uniform for the cameras. This, even though he spent very little time in active duty, and is not known to have ever reported for duty at the Alabama ANG post to which he was assigned in 1972 and 1973: He was too busy working on the campaigns of various racist GOP politicians.
Meanwhile, Dean didn't pull any fancy hypocritical Bush-style strings. He showed up for his physical, but the Pentagon gave him a 1-Y and told him to come back only when the country was in grave danger.
Well, here he is.
I sincerely hope the moronic brownshirt fucks start hyping Dean's "shameful" draft record.
BRING IT ON!
Krauthammer's lips are so firmly attached to Shrubya's backside or other region, it's a wonder Chuckles can even breathe.
catelexis - Our 70 Foot Jesus (Eureka Springs, Arkansas) can kick the living crap out of 100 ft tall Jesus any day of the week. Plus, ours was built by rabid Christian right anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer Gerald N.K. Smith. Its superlatives do not end there, for it is hideously ugly and ill-proportioned. It has been compared to a "milk carton with arms". Its proportions are absurd - either Jesus has been cut off at the knees or he has arms that reach to mid-calf. The story is that they had planned to build it taller but FAA regulations wouldn't let them, so they just chopped off the bits that would make Jesus too tall. Go, and behold: http://www.thom.org/gallery/stat...statues/christ/
. And while you're there, check out the rest of the site - thom.org is a great site. (Apologies for my inability to insert links in haloscan.)
I read the editorial in the WaPo this morning and actually agreed with it. The thrust of the ed has to do with campaign finance reform and DIRECT contributions to political campaigns. To talk about Scaife's donations to various conservative causes and organizations is missing the point about campaign finance reform. What Soros is doing flies in the face of the CFR movement.
And if Scaife were to pull the exact same thing Soros is doing I'd be bitching even louder for the reasons outlined above (but also because I really dislike the guy). But if Soros wants to donate to organizations that, in turn, support Democratic causes then more power to him.
So much dissembling, so little time, right Bad Anonymous?
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 9:34 pm | #
Stupid fucker.
i was reading about Richard Mellon Scaife when I came across this sentence, about one of his top aids, Dan McMichael:
He wrote a novel (subsidized by Scaife) imagining a future United States taken over by the Soviet Union after being duped by a successor to the United Nations.
Well, I thought that would be an interesting novel to read! But I can't any more info about it. Anyone got any ideas? (Checked amazon, google, etc.)
link: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemie...ies/
scaife.html
"Meanwhile, Dean didn't pull any fancy hypocritical Bush-style strings. He showed up for his physical, but the Pentagon gave him a 1-Y and told him to come back only when the country was in grave danger.
Well, here he is."
Simply an awesome comment.
My letter to the NY Times:
Dear Editor:
While we're busy talking about the service record (or lack thereof) of Howard Dean, let's widen the view:
Let's check out George W. Bush, who never got any closer to flying combat than when he put on his flyboy costume and made his campaign stop on the U.S.S. "Abraham Lincoln." And while we're at it, let's mention that he was AWOL for two years from what little "service" he ever performed in the Texas Air Natrional Guard, an organization he could never have gotten into had ne not been his father's son. I believe his training as a "fighter pilot" to protect the Republic of Texas from invasion by New Mexico cost the taxpayers $150,000. Good return on the investment, eh?
And then let's bring up Dick Cheney, who - when asked why he didn't serve in Vietnam - replied "I had other priorities." Yeah, like not getting shot.
And while we're at it, let's remember that Great American Patriot, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who - when asked why he didn't serve - replied, "I tried to, but they wouldn't let a white boy in because all those minorities were joining in such large numbers to get the benefits."
As long as we're looking at who did and didn't serve, we could mention every last one of the "pseudo-cons" - from Richard Perle to Paul Wolfowitz to Douglas Feith, those marvelous planners of American Empire - not one of whom ever spent one minutes with those people who pay with blood for their ignorant mendacity.
I mean, you are a "fair and balanced" news outlet, aren't you?
Thomas M. Cleaver
Vietnam Veteran and Registered Democrat
Why am I unsurprised that Fools & Buffoons, Inc., are still J. Edgar Hoover's boys?
For seven years, I had the sign on my phone, "Don't say anything on this phone you wouldn't say to J. Edgar Hoover." People used to call me paranoid. Then with Watergate, the news about COINTELPRO came out. And three years later, Carter's Justice Department sent me my COINTELPRO file, most of which was blacked out, but enough was there to find out how they had driven my federal-employee father into early retirement for the crime of being related to me; how they had sent letters to the family of my wife as well as my own parents pretending to be "concerned citizens" telling them how we were selling drugs to soldiers at Fort Hood when we ran "The Oleo Strut", a GI antiwar coffeehouse outside the base; how they had pressured the Veteran's Administration to delay my GI Bill checks at school, and delayed processing my application for a GI home loan until I lost the house.
All of these events were personally approved by Hoover, as the copy of the memo with his "OK" in the margins of the proposal showed.
And people wonder why I break out a bottle of champagne whenever I hear one of those scum has gone to his final judgement.
Trust me, folks, the FBI has *not* been "reformed" from the bad old Hoover days.
They may not be able to find a terrorist, they may not be able to find the zipper on their fly with both hands on a clear day with 3 hours' advance notice, but they can find *you* and make you regret the day you ever were treasonous enough to believe in the First Amendment.
Don't say I didn't warn you when it happens to you.
Tom Cleaver
COINTELPRO survivor
Join the Alliance for Retired Americans browse http://www.retiredamericans.org
URGENT: Sign this petition.
Petition: TELL CONGRESS WE WANT A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE PART B
(put this link in a browser at work and at a public library and leave the page showing. Make it a browser favorite too)
Location: http://www.thePetitionSite.com/t...ction/
383366962
Petition: TELL CONGRESS YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA
Location: http://www.thePetitionSite.com/t...ction/
630654745
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - )
The George W Bush 2000 Stolen Election Commemorative Gold Coin
http://www.stolenelectioncoin.com
Also tell people you meet about this petition.
Send this Christmas card to your unchristian conservative friends this coming Christmas.
You can get a copy of the elegant Chritmas Card at
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/ch...r/
christmas.gif
save it and print it and send one to the chimp in the white house.
Get your RAW DEAL poster at
http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/fe.../
fearitself.jpg
Their editorial page became all but unreadable to me over the last year. I dropped my subscription due to it.
Under $200/Over $2000
Opensecrets.org does rock, but this will link you directly to the page in question. Glenn can slice it however he wants it, if you are getting 73% of your money from $2000 donors, you are the big money candidate. Particularly when your current front-running opponent is only getting 13% from that same category.
JoeyJoe
"The thrust of the ed has to do with campaign finance reform and DIRECT contributions to political campaigns"
Which is excatly what Soros isn't doing (if you exclude some of the Medical Marijuana initiatives he has sponsored.) He has dropped some money on moveon, and what is the problem with that?
John McCain (R-AZ) just said on the This Week program,
"The Republicans had better hope that the Democrats never regain the majority."
Holy FUCK!
Come join us, then, John! We'll welcome you!
Oh yeah... this editorial is yet another case of what's good for the gander, isn't good for the goose.
The editorial just follows Thursday's "news report" (based on RNC Chair Ed Gillespie's complaints about Soros.
WSJ also covered Mr Ed's whinnying.
DNC issued rebuttal called Crocodile Tears, which is not yet available on the DNC web site. Too bad--the GOP has spread Ed's complaints down to the GOP Team Leader level.
Qrazy Quat 11.22.03@2:17pm:
Great poem and really like that swipe at the NYT!
Tom Cleaver:
You're a STAR! Great letter to the NYT - you've said it all.
the bangladesh daily star (http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/11/21) lets krauthammer have it. full link at killinggoliath.com
WaPo is also wrong. About non profits not having to disclose their finances. You have to report your largest donations to the IRS and you are prohibited from using funds for electioneering. The real problem here is Soros spouting off about his donations. He's likely to get all those groups some extra scrutiny and possible to have their non profit status revoked.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
