revel wrote:
I confess; I just skimmed over the remarks people later made and made assumptions on what exactly he did say. (I can't hear those video things very well so I just read the remarks on the link McG left) I should have went for another source before posting anything but...
Now I kinda feel sorry for him as well as feeling stupid for my post of yesterday with all that bit about there being more people from the lower income brackets...
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2351576#2351576]revel[/url] wrote:Not discounting the fact there are some people who join the military because they want to rather than a way to get ahead. A larger majority are those in the lower income racket who can't afford to go to college.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/363523p-309512c.html
Having said that, it was a stupid remark for Kerry to make in this patriotic political climate. But I really doubt it makes any difference in the way people are going to vote November 7.
That '05 Juan Gonzalez article you cited, revel, and the Charlie Rangel silliness behind it, was missleading and off the mark when it was written and remains so today. The implication that the "Urban Poor", or any other "Disadvantaged" demographic for that matter, form the pool from which the US military predominantly draws recruits is plain and simple a lie. In point of fact, among the enlistees in today's US military by comparison with the same-age demographics and overall general demographics of the US population, those coming from urban areas are significantly under-represented, ethnic minorities overall are slightly though admittedly statistically insignificantly under-represented, highschool graduates are heavily over-represented, as are those coming from rural areas and those coming from families with incomes above the US median family income. Today's volunteer enlistee typically is among the cream of US youth overall, making the choice to join the military from among the many carreer and educational opportunities available to individuals of like educational achievement and socioeconomic demographic.
Department of Defense: Population Representation in the Military Services
Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of US Military Enlistment, 2003-2005
Center for Data Analysis Report #06-09
Kane, T (Ph.D.)
October 27, 2006
Like I already said, I should have just kept my fingers still until I had my facts straight. My remarks were injected completely out of relevance in light of what Kerry actually said and what he meant to say.
You could be right about the demographics of the recruits; it is something that I have just always thought without really researching it for myself and found something on the web to support my assumptions.
(Enough humble pie for today, think I'll quit it before it gets stuck in my throat)
As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.
It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.
revel wrote:Like I already said, I should have just kept my fingers still until I had my facts straight. My remarks were injected completely out of relevance in light of what Kerry actually said and what he meant to say.
You could be right about the demographics of the recruits; it is something that I have just always thought without really researching it for myself and found something on the web to support my assumptions.
(Enough humble pie for today, think I'll quit it before it gets stuck in my throat)
Not jumping on you, revel, no humble pie served up, and credit where its due; you did correct your earlier comment. I just wanted to set the record straight; not only do the available statistics do not support the meme based on Rangel's false premise, they debunk it.
Kerry issues written apology.
Quote:As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.
It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.
Kerry's words, Bush's war
John Kerry didn't do his party any favors with his "botched joke" Monday, and a lot of Democrats are probably relieved to hear that he's headed back to Washington, apparently to sit out the rest of the election season.
It's not that what Kerry said will, in and of itself, change the course of the election. But after weeks in which the Democrats have won news cycle after news cycle, weeks in which the Republicans have been stuck talking about George W. Bush and defending or distancing themselves from his war on Iraq, Kerry gave the Republicans the break they couldn't buy for themselves. For the last 24 hours, cable news and talk radio have been filled with talk of Kerry's words rather than Bush's woes. For the last 24 hours, Democrats have been denied the chance to build on the wave that might sweep them to victory next week. [..]
So here we go again. [..] The important question now, of course, is what happens next. Can the Democrats get the media focused back on the issues that matter to Americans -- issues on which the voters trust Democrats more -- or will the Republicans succeed in making Kerry a 24/7 poster boy for the "blame America first crowd"? Ultimately, that probably turns on whether voters have finally taken to heart the lessons of the last three and half years: That the people who talk the loudest about "supporting the troops" are the same ones who sent more than 2,800 of them to their deaths in a pointless war that won't end soon or well.
The Democrats need this election to be about that war. The Republicans need it to be about something else -- anything else -- and what they've got at the moment are Kerry's words. It's not much of a counterpunch: Five seconds of rhetorical blunder vs. a three-and-a-half-year-old war that has cost more than $300 billion and claimed tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives. The Republicans know they can't win that fight, and that's why they're working hard to transform Kerry's words into something more sweeping: Democrats secretly hold our troops in contempt, and Kerry just let the cat out of the bag.
In a fundraising solicitation e-mailed to supporters this morning, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that Kerry's comments reveal "the truth about what Democrats represent." He explains: "In Kerry's cocoon of privilege, those who serve in our military are failures who never did their homework or 'made an effort to be smart.'"
"Cocoon of privilege"? [..] Mehlman's missive is remarkable for what he hopes voters won't remember: Kerry left whatever "cocoon of privilege" he enjoyed as a young man when he volunteered for service in Vietnam after graduating from Yale. Bush stayed in his, somehow obtaining a stateside assignment in the Texas Air National Guard that he didn't even bother to complete. Dick Cheney never served in the military. Neither did Mehlman himself. Does Mehlman really think that he has standing to complain about how John Kerry views military service? Will the voters really let him?
Tony Snow -- another Bush man who never served -- had the audacity to say Tuesday that Tammy Duckworth ought to have to answer for Kerry's comments. Duckworth is running for Congress in Illinois, and Snow noted that she has been "citing" her "military record" in her campaign. What he didn't say is what he hopes people won't factor in: Duckworth lost both of her legs while serving in Iraq. Does Snow actually think that Duckworth and Jim Webb and the other Democratic vets running for Congress hold our troops in contempt? Does anyone outside the right-wing echo chamber really believe that anymore?
George W. Bush once said that "you can't get fooled again." His people plainly hope that he's wrong, that the American people can be fooled at least one more time before the Bush years finally come to an end. Come Tuesday, we'll find out.
-- Tim Grieve
[11:16 EDT, Nov. 1, 2006]
revel wrote:Kerry issues written apology.
Quote:As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.
It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.
Yep. He did what they wanted.
Now lets see if that stops them from going on about it... (I wouldnt put money on it.)
... They use the median household income of the zip code where the recruit is from. Maybe that's a perfectly reasonable methodology, but I can't help but think there is a lot of room for error or at least, skewing. Are there any other studies we can compare them to?
Bush's interesting choice of friends
We may have less than a week to go before the midterm elections, but it appears the president is slated to have a relatively low-key day.
President Bush will hold no public events of any kind on Wednesday, an exceptionally light schedule this close to next Tuesday's midterm elections. That sparked questions about whether Bush has a "November surprise" in store. This is, after all, a president who has twice managed to sneak away to Iraq.
At the White House morning briefing, a reporter observed that the light schedule made it sound "like something is cooking there." Spokesman Tony Snow replied, "No, not really." [Â…]
Bush has "some meetings with senior advisers and a Rush Limbaugh interview," Snow said in an email. "No blockbusters." (emphasis added)
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "blockbusters."
I realize the Bush White House has an incredibly short memory, but it was just last week that Limbaugh disgusted the entire country by his smear of a Parkinson's patient who dared to do a commercial in support of a candidate who wants to invest in stem-cell research.
On the October 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh accused actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, of "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in a recent campaign advertisement for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskillÂ…. Noting that Fox is "moving all around and shaking" in the ad, Limbaugh declared: "And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." Limbaugh added that "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."
Consider the broader context for a moment.
Limbaugh generated national revulsion with his attack on Fox. Instead of apologizing, Limbaugh told his listeners, "I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said." Decency demanded that he be shunned from polite society. Honestly, what kind of person attacks a man with a terrible disease, falsely accuses the man of faking symptoms, issues a bogus apology, and then goes right back to attacking the victim again?
Apparently, it's the kind of man who gets one-on-one chats with George W. Bush.
How is the political world supposed to interpret this? Limbaugh becomes a national joke one week, Bush embraces him the next. The president is so desperate to rally right-wing voters that he'll promote, endorse, and add his imprimatur to a hate-monger.
Let me get this straight ?- Dems are supposed to avoid a war hero who flubbed one word in a joke, but the president has no qualms about spending quality time with Rush Limbaugh?
And so I ask, once again, what it takes for a right-right hate-monger to reach pariah status in American society. Ann Coulter can condemn 9/11 widows, but she's still in the conservative mainstream. Bill O'Reilly suggested that it'd be fine with him if al Queda attacked a major American city, but he suffered no consequences. In 2001, just 48 hours after 9/11, Jerry Falwell said liberal Americans were to blame for the attacks and said the nation "deserved" the terrorism, but Republicans are still reaching out to him for political support.
And Rush Limbaugh can callously smear a Parkinson's patient, but the president will still give him exclusive interviews.
There's something terribly wrong here.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8926.html
revel wrote:Kerry issues written apology.
Quote:As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.
It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.
Yep. He did what they wanted.
Now lets see if that stops them from going on about it... (I wouldnt put money on it.)
CNN Transcript: The Situation Room, Nov. 1, 2006 (Incl. Blitzer/Boehner)
(BLITZER): Joining us now, the number two Republican in the House, the majority leader, John Boehner.
Mr. Leader, thanks very much for coming in.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MAJORITY LEADER: Wolf, nice to be here.
BLITZER: You said this on -- the other day, and I want to play it for our viewers. Listen to what you said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: Donald Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You said "he's the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years." You know, a lot of people strongly disagree with you, including an increasing chorus of fellow Republicans.
BOEHNER: Well, there are a lot of people who want to blame what is happening in Iraq on Donald Rumsfeld, but when you look at the transformation that our military has been through, it's nothing short of remarkable.
And I think there's only one person in America who could have brought about that transformation, and that is Donald Rumsfeld. He's smart, he's been through the Pentagon, knows how it works. And now we have a lighter, more flexible force, a quicker force. It would not have happened without him.
BLITZER: But, you know, General Zinni, who used to be the commander, Anthony Zinni of the Central Command, he says that Rumsfeld threw out 10 years of planning for Iraq, 10 years of strategy with 500,000 troops that would be needed, not to necessarily topple Saddam Hussein, but to win the peace quickly. He just threw that out because he wanted that lighter force and, as a result, the U.S. is paying the price right now.
BOEHNER: Well, Wolf, you have to understand that the generals who have been in charge of the Pentagon have been very resistant to change. It's the younger generals who understand this new force structure that we need to be -- to have the military of the 21st century. And so I think Rumsfeld is the right guy for the job, and I know the president supports him and I'm glad he does.
BLITZER: Let me read to you what a few of your fellow Republicans have said in recent days. "I don't like the guy. I simply don't think he has measured up on running the war on Iraq. Would I vote for a no confidence resolution on Secretary Rumsfeld? Yes." Chris Shays, Republican of Connecticut.
"If I had my way, he wouldn't be secretary of defense now. I would have accepted his resignation after Abu Ghraib. I have lost confidence in him." That's the Republican candidate for the Senate from Washington state, Mike McGavick.
And Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, Republican of Virginia: "It's probably the only thing in my life I've ever agreed with Hillary Clinton about. He's probably a nice guy, but I don't think he's a great secretary of defense."
BOEHNER:Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.
BLITZER: But he's in charge of the military.
BOEHNER: But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president. We've seen this run up in violence as we get closer to the election, as we get closer to Ramadan, same thing we've seen over the last couple of years.
As we enter into Ramadan, we see this big spike in violence and there's no question, in my mind, that the terrorists, very smart people, are also trying to increase the violence as we get closer to the U.S. elections.
BLITZER: Well, I want to move on and get to some other important issues, but a quick question. Were you satisfied in the planning that the Pentagon did, specifically the defense secretary, not necessarily for getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime, but for the post-war? Because it's been three-and-a-half years and $300 billion, $400 billion, 3,000 almost U.S. deaths ...
BOEHNER: Wolf, there's no question that there have been mistakes along the way. We're fighting an enemy that's unconventional, and we're -- and this has become the central front in our war with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda continues to bring people into Iraq to let off these bombs, to stir up sectarian violence and we're always have to adapt on the ground.
But the fact is, is that Republicans want to win. Democrats want to give up and pull out the troops. I don't think that's what the American people want.
BLITZER: Well, Democrats will disagree with you.
But let me move on to speak about this flap involving Senator Kerry. He has now apologized in this statement that he has just put out. I'll read it to you and see if you accept that as an apology. "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended." Is this over with now that he's apologized?
BOEHNER: I think he has apologized. It sounds good enough. But when you led into this, Wolf, you said the Republicans were attacking John Kerry for his remarks. Nobody attacked John Kerry. We asked him to apologize to the troops that we believe he offended and I believe that he has.
BLITZER: So this story is over with as far as you're concerned?
BOEHNER: It is.
BLITZER: Let's talk a little bit about the elections, because it's, obviously, according to the polls, potentially a change, a turning point. You could be the majority leader. On the other hand, you could be the minority leader or nothing if the Democrats take control. What is your bottom line assessment right now? How does it look? Do you believe the Republicans will be in the majority after next Tuesday?
BOEHNER: If we're able to mobilize all of our resources to mobilize all of our voters on Election Day, I think we're going to do fine. We probably have got a handful of seats that are very, very difficult, maybe impossible.
And then there are two dozen seats where we're up in the margin of error or down within the margin of error. And so over the next six days, we've got to mobilize our voters. And if we're able to do that, I think we're going to do fine on Election Day.
BLITZER: Here is what Congressman Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, a man you know, said. "You can't blame the Democrats, but we certainly gave them a reason to do what they did. We simply didn't have an Ethics Committee process that worked at a time when we needed it. I feel badly that I didn't say anything and neither did other members. It's a pox on all of us."
Remind our viewers -- this whole Mark Foley scandal, you were told that there was a problem there. You went to the speaker. He doesn't seem to remember what you told him. Is that right?
BOEHNER: He's not sure that I talked to him. I feel like I did. But that's not what the American people are wanting to talk about. They want to know who is going to keep their taxes low and keep the economy going. Who is going to secure our borders and who's going to provide the president the tools to take on the terrorists?
The Ethics Committee is working in a bipartisan manner dealing with this issue of Foley. But when you look back over the last two years, as there were a need for the Ethics Committee to operate, it was Nancy Pelosi and liberal Democrats who prevented the committee from operating and takes -- it's even numbers of Democrats and Republicans on the committee. I'm glad they're working together now.
BLITZER: We have time for one final question. I'll read from Bill Kristol. He's a conservative editor of the "Weekly Standard." He recently wrote this or said this. He said, "If they lose the House" -- referring to Republicans -- "it might be time for a change in leadership for obvious reasons. Fresh faces, fresh blood. All three would go -- Hastert, Boehner, Blunt," Roy Blunt, who is the majority whip.
And he's not a liberal, he's a conservative, Bill Kristol. What happens to you, do you think, if the Democrats become the majority?
BOEHNER: Well, I feel good about our chances on Election Day, and I'm going to do everything I can just like I have over the nine months that I've been the majority leader to help keep us in the majority. And if we mobilize our voters, we're going to be fine on Election Day.
But the American people have a choice to make on Election Day, a choice between candidates, a choice between the two parties. And if you want bigger government, higher taxes and a weak border, continue to vote for the Democrats.
BLITZER: John Boehner, we're going to leave it right there.
BOEHNER: Wolf, nice to see you.
BLITZER: Thanks very much for coming in. Busy time
