In a classless display, Senator John Kerry chose the Boston Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Breakfast to complain about the November election. He criticized President Bush and whined about "voter disenfranchisement." While clearly entitled to comment freely about the election and the Bush administration's policies, his choice of venues today shows a lack of respect for Dr. King. He continues to point out what's wrong in America, but doesn't propose any solutions. Kerry's lousy track record for writing new legislation and abysmal voting record in Congress were critical factors in his loss to President Bush in November.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Life is a series of choices
About Me
- thc
- Roanoke, Texas
- Observations and commentary from a part-time financial planner, full-time traveler.
Roanoke, TX
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(403)
-
▼
January
(66)
- Deleted by Mahablog
- Stay "insufficiently delirious"
- Democrats will say anything
- New to the Blogosphere...
- It's springtime in Oakland
- Huh?
- Congratulations!
- KU, back on track
- Hangin' out with friends on Saturday night. He sc...
- Another sunset
- I drove up to Napa Thursday to meet a client and s...
- Sore losers or is it more serious?
- No smoking in Berkeley?
- If it had only been a Wal-Mart
- Too much inbreedin'
- Millions to clean up grocery bags?
- Living in Northern California has distinct drawbac...
- Barbara Boxer and Willie Brown
- Hotel California
- Nerd Ranking
- Election wrap-up
- My team's smarter than yours
- Cisco and me bloggin'.
- Kansas Jayhawk Basketball
- The Kansas Jayhawk basketball team could win it al...
- Inauguration day in the Bay Area
- What do they want?
- Oakland Sunset
- John Kerry's Intellect
- Barbara Boxer Abducted
- Barbara Boxer shown yesterday and last year. Obvi...
- Boxer vs. Rice
- AARP Takes On Bush
- More Whining
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- What's The Matter With Kansas?
- Dow Sets Record High . . . Five Years Ago Today
- Kerry Supporters are Lazy
- Blogging and CBs
- You are a true Kansan when:
- I can't stand it
- Predictions for 2005
- The KKK Adopts a highway
- Ain't it the truth
- How do you get seven cats to pose like this? Phot...
- Proud
- Coaster
- Surprise!
- Is your doghouse up to code?
- Barbara Boxer
- Barbie B--What are you thinking?
- Tsunami Photos
- Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown
- Mayor Jerry
- Indian tsunami survivor
- Not a contest
- George, Dubya and Felonious Bill
- sunset from our family room
- Stinginess
- THC, circa 1957
- Happy New Year
-
▼
January
(66)
12 comments:
Well said! If you look at http://www.govtrack.us/ and check Kerry's record, you'll see that he isn't paying attention to his job...or much else. I also thought you'd find this interesting. Prior to leaving this morning for a very long and tedious business trip to Atlanta, I wrote to the fellow who designed the template for my blog and explained my problems. He wrote back and this may be the most courteous letter I've ever had that tells me what a mess I've made of things! Wasn't that just plain nice of him? He didn't try to make me feel like a total newb. His reply is in quotes below.
Jim
"Jim,
Your problem is most likely due to some invalid code you've inserted into your blog (either in one of the entries, or in the right-hand column. I tried to validate the page to find the problem, but there are
over 300 XHTML validation errors, so I can't even begin to guess whatmight be causing it. IE has many bugs, one being bumping floated columns to the bottom of others if some chunk of content gets too wide to fit into one of the columns. Or in your case, it could be one of the many improperly closed tags or badly nested tags. If you can fix those errors, then the problem might be more easily discoverable. Hope this helps,
Doug"
Nice of him to respond so quickly but I don't even know what an XTMHL validation error would be, much less be able to find 300 of them.
Sammy: Cogent points, as always.
Did MLK stand for criticism for criticism's sake? Did he stand for abortion? Did he stand for race based preferences? I thought he stood for justice and the equality of human opportunity.
Also, I noticed alot of the exit polling (erroneous?)indicated deep displeasure with Kerry's windsurfing.
I am glad we agree that MLK didn't stand for mindless criticism. In terms of abortion, we also are of a like mind in that I don't know if he ever addressed this issue. But, I can guess how he stood (to use your phrase) and it was probably a simmilar stance to most Baptist ministers. I suppose MLK would have opposed the war in Iraq given his stance on Vietnam. Reasonable people can disagree about the war. In terms of tax cuts I don't know how much I have saved due to the cuts in marginal rates. I am self-employed and have a relatively low income (compared to those working in major metropolitan areas on each coast). I did benefit from the Child Tax Credit since I have three kids. Maybe you can explain in more detail why this is such bad policy, other than resentfulness that your neighbor with kids pays less in taxes than you do. Remebering our original thoughts on MLK and what he stood for I would think that MLK would support efforts to reduce taxes on families with children.
I didn't hint at racial preferences, I asked if MLK stood for racial preferences. I take it from your answer that he did not.
Sammy, your right. Let's not speculate as to what MLK would support today, either Kerry's attacks on Bush or abortion rights. Was ridding the world of Saddam inaccurate? Did Iraq not support terrorists? Is the possibility of democracy in the Middle East inaccurate? I know the administration and the media had/has focused on WMD's and 9/11 links, but those weren't the only reasons put forward.
I didn't mean to offend you by the resentful comment, it just read like you were upset that just because someone has kids they shouldn't pay less in income taxes. You latest post reaffirms this perception. I live in a rural area and have an aerobic sewage system. I pay for my garbage collection. I pay enough in property taxes to send my kids to a moderately priced private school if they weren't going to public school (which in my state are funded in large part by property taxes). We have a volunteer fire department. I really don't think I am using more government services than the next guy. As a matter of fact I am probably using less. At what date can we end preferences and everything will be even?
Sammy, I was reminded about a couple of things re: Iraq. Please reread United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Also reread the Authorization passed by Congress enabling the Bush administration to use force in Iraq. The Congressional resolution specifically mentions a number of reasons that appear to be accurate.
Sammy: Ridding the world of Saddam *was justified* in the first Gulf War. Bush requested permission from Congress to get Iraq out of Kuwait and that is what Congress authorized. Dems in congrss would later criticize Bush for not going on to Baghdad to capture Saddam. Typical of dems, they wanted it both ways. Ain't hindsight great?
Iraq experts are the same people who brought us WMD's that the left so passionately derides. Yes, a mistake was made in 1990, and it's pretty clear to most people the same people are not in charge today. Ask Brent Scowcroft, or Saddam. Read Resolution 1441. August 2009 sounds good.
SB-Right or wrong, 9/11 meant something to most policymakers, including most Democrats. 2003 finds us in a different environment (foreign policy as well as domestic policy) than 1990. Bush II (post 9/11) is a different leader than Bush I. Your right, Powell and DC were involved in the Bush I administration. So were Brent Scowcroft (head of NSC), James Baker (Sec of State) and a number of other policy makers best described as belonging to the "realist" school. In Bush II Powell has been described as the "moderate" voice regarding Iraq while DC has been described as a hawk. Could 9/11 have influenced DC's thoughts? We have all heard about the internal tensions of Bush II's advisors. The "realists" lost the Iraq policy battle. Remember the so-called neocons? What in your opinion has changed between 1990 and 2003? Blood for Oil? If so, why not lift all sanctions against Sadddam and let Halliburton and ExxonMobil make a fortune? Resolution 1441 says, "disclose or face serious consequences". Saddam didn't and faced serious consequences, even though France and Germany didn't want to upset the status quo. Considering oil-for-food revelations and their lucrative Iraq business, I can understand why. I didn't mean to command, only suggest that, contrary to currrent Democratic posturing, 1441 and (especially)the Congessional resolution provided plenty of reasons beyond WMD's and 9/11 for the Iraq action. 1441 passed unanimously and the Congressional resolution passed easily. House 296-133 (2 to 1) Senate 77-23 (3-1).
Your right in a way. I guess some reasonable people cannot agree to disagree. BUSH LIED! Blood for Oil! The funny thing is Kerry wouldn't have changed a thing, he would have only been "more effective" and enlisted "more international help".
Post a Comment