Monday, January 17, 2005

More Whining

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.

21 comments:

Jimbobb2 said...

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"

thc said...

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 Bodean said...

Knowing what MLK stood for, I believe he would have expected nothing less of Kerry than to be critical of Bush's policies, today or any other day. Kerry has crafted very little legislation, but as a capitalist, shouldn't you be happy about that? Afterall, all new legislation means more government involvement in your life. As far as that being a factor in his defeat, the impact was probably less important than his windsailing.

thc said...

Sammy: Cogent points, as always.

Anonymous said...

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.

Sammy Bodean said...

No, I don't believe he stood for criticism for criticism's sake. As for abortion, I don't know if he ever addressed the issue. I could guess how he stood, and I don't think he would agree with you. Where should we start as far as criticism goes with the Bush administration? The war in Iraq is too easy, let's not go there. How about tax cuts? You wrote of equal opportunity. What was your tax cut? Most of middle America's only benefit was from the increase in the Child Tax Credit. Just plain bad policy. Why should my next door neighboor with four kids and similar income, pay $4000 less in federal tax than me? You hint at racial preferences. Have you ever felt at a disadvantage because you were white? Not me!

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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 Bodean said...

Rev. King took many opposing positions from most Baptist ministers, so I don't think that would give us much insight to his abortion position. We can speculate all we want on abortion, but it would be just that...speculation. I don't believe that reasonable people can disagree on the war. Every reason the administration provided as cause for war has proven to be inaccurate. Two years ago, I was ready to back invading Iraq, but I never heard any convincing arguments. Don't be so quick to call me resentful. You never know. THC evidently doesn't have children. Should he pay more tax than you, even though your family uses more government services. Keep in mind, you are already receiving deductions in addition to the credits. You made the choice to have children.

Sammy Bodean said...

Rev. King took many opposing positions from most Baptist ministers, so I don't think that would give us much insight to his abortion position. We can speculate all we want on abortion, but it would be just that...speculation. I don't believe that reasonable people can disagree on the war. Every reason the administration provided as cause for war has proven to be inaccurate. Two years ago, I was ready to back invading Iraq, but I never heard any convincing arguments. Don't be so quick to call me resentful. You never know. THC evidently doesn't have children. Should he pay more tax than you, even though your family uses more government services. Keep in mind, you are already receiving deductions in addition to the credits. You made the choice to have children.

Sammy Bodean said...

From this point on, I will print your comments for easy reference and I won't misrepresent your comments. MLK did stand for justice and equality of human opportunity. Maybe a few decades of racial preferences might help overcome centuries of prejudice and discrimination. To that point, he might have supported preferences.

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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 Bodean said...

Ridding the world of Saddam couldn't be justified in 1990, why would 2003 be different. Same people making the decisions. Wrong then or wrong now? Keep in mind he had nothing to do with 9-11. Should we take it upon ourselves to rid the world of all evil dictators? NKorea? Syria? Cuba? No, Iraq did not support terrorists. Yes, I know of the Palestinian bounties/rewards. Democracy would be great. Not going to happen. Check with most Iraq experts. U.N. Resolution as reason for war? The U.N. didn't think so. Unless you are totally self-sufficient, you use gov. services. The more in your household, the more services you use. And no I don't think those with kids should pay less in tax. How about August 7, 2009?

thc said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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.

Sammy Bodean said...

Dick Cheney and Colin Powell weren't making decisions about Iraq in 1990?

Sammy Bodean said...

thc,Anon.-I've done a poor job of explaining my point. I'll try and do better. The U.S. led coalition chose not to proceed to Baghdad in 1990. At the time, the reason put forth was that was not part of the coalition/UN mission. A major portion of the U.S. policy team was Powell and Cheney. In 2003, according to Anon., a justification for war was a UN resolution. The only problem with that is the UN didn't approve the war. In 1990, we couldn't go against UN wishes, but in 2003 we can? Keep in mind Iraq was not connected with 9-11 and did not have WMDs. In 2003, significant policy shapers include Powell and Cheney. Talk about having in both ways! We also learn recently that a reason for not proceeding in'90 was we had no exit strategy. Do we have one now? I have no plans to read the UN resolution you suggest. At this point it is irrelevant. If Anon. of Gladewater thinks it is of significance, clue me in. Don't just command me to read it. By Iraq experts, I mean people that understand the cultures and know that Iraq is a made up nation of peoples that really don't like each other.

Anonymous said...

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).

Sammy Bodean said...

Congress voted to approve force. It did not direct the use of force. What evidence was provided congress? Intelligence from CIA and other arms of the executive branch. Much of this evidence proved to be inaccurate. Don't blame faulty intelligence on Clinton. The Bush administration had 26 months after taking office and 18 months after 9-11 to make changes before the invasion of Iraq. Time was not critical. The start of the war was based on opportunity to take out Saddam, not out of necessity. What changed between 1990 and 2003? Hussein became weaker. This addresses another question. I wouldn't have suggested removing sanctions. They worked! I have never suggested blood for oil either, but big oil has more to gain now than they ever would with Hussein in power. Powell and Cheney involved? A bit of an understatement. Baker is also a significant private adviser to the President. Your comments of 9-11 influencing thinking reminds me of some of your early statements. You stated that the administration and media focused on WMDs and 9-11 connection. The media focused on that because the administration did! At least you admit the administration made Iraq/9-11 links. Cheney was the worst offender. It's no surprise though, the right has wanted to blame 9-11 on Iraq from the beginning. Several departed administration officials confirm this and the Bush people haven't attempted to dispute all of what they have claimed. I'm sure he doesn't talk much about this, but the great mouthpiece of the right, Rush Limbaugh, blamed Iraq for 9-11 his first day back after the attacks.

Anonymous said...

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".