�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| Sen. John McCain '08 Campaign - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Fashionista
 Posted:
Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:00 pm |
|
|
|
Sen. John McCain '08 Campaign
McCain Hires Boston Political Operative
From Associated Press
January 19, 2007 11:17 AM EST
BOSTON - Sen. John McCain has hired a Boston political operative with intimate knowledge of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his changing political positions to work on his presidential exploratory committee.
Rob Gray, president of Gray Media, served as the top political adviser to Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey last fall in her unsuccessful campaign to succeed Romney as governor. That campaign suffered, in part, as Romney adopted increasingly conservative positions that differed from the moderate platform he and Healey campaigned on in 2002.
In his new position, Gray will advise McCain, R-Ariz., on New England strategy. In 2000, he moved to Maine to manage the final stretch of the Bush for President campaign. He also assisted with efforts in the Florida recount that year.
"Rob Gray has a proven track record of providing quality advice and counsel. He is an important addition to the team we are building," McCain said in a statement issued Friday.
Romney announced Jan. 3 that, like McCain, he was creating a committee to explore a possible run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., are among others who have taken that step.
Social conservatives in particular have questioned Romney's philosophical bona fides, noting changes in his positions on abortion, gay marriage, tax policy and gun control.
In 2004, as President Bush faced a re-election challenge from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Gray shipped off a dossier he compiled on Kerry when his former boss, then-Gov. William F. Weld, challenged Kerry for his U.S. Senate seat in 1996.
Weld is now supporting Romney as he considers a White House campaign.
"We're going to advise John McCain's campaign as I did on the Bush campaigns, and we look forward to it," Gray said in an interview.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.[/img]
Last edited by Fashionista on Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:56 pm; edited 4 times in total
|
|
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: REFSTAGON
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:09 am |
|
|
|
Another interesting candidate to watch.
I respect him very much.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6598
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fashionista
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Too Old To Run?
At 70, McCain's Age And Health Factor In Bid For Presidency
"I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein," John McCain likes to say.
It always gets a laugh, though I don't suppose his mother, who is 94, and her twin sister appreciate it very much. If he is older than dirt, what does that make them? Older than lava?
If McCain, 70, runs and wins, he would be the oldest person ever inaugurated as president. As is evident from the scar on the left side of his face, he has had malignant melanoma, the most invasive and dangerous form of skin cancer. (One in every 60 Americans is at risk for developing invasive melanoma in their lifetimes.)
I talked to McCain recently and asked him about his health. He said it was good. "I hiked the Grand Canyon rim-to-rim last August with my son, Jack," he said.
I tried to imagine that. The last time I saw it, the Grand Canyon was seriously deep.
How on earth do you hike a thing like that rim-to-rim? I asked.
"Down and up!" he said. "It takes three days."
John Kennedy, who at 43 became the youngest person ever elected president, and who was always associated with "vig-ah," in fact had serious diseases that were kept from the public.
As was revealed in 2002, Kennedy was sick from age 13 through the rest of his life, was on chronic-pain medication throughout his presidency and had Addison's disease, an endocrine disorder that until 1940 was a terminal illness. Kennedy survived it through cortisone injections, which at the time only rich people could afford.
Dr. Jeffrey Kelman, who examined Kennedy's medical records in 2002, said, "He was never healthy. I mean, the image you get of vigor and progressive health wasn't true."
The point being: Electing a young person to the presidency is no guarantee that he or she will be healthy or stay healthy.
The media often demands the release of medical records these days, and the candidates sometimes comply. There were so many false rumors circulating about McCain's health when he ran for president in 2000, that he released 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records. They showed him to be in good health and not nuts. (And how many presidential candidates can say that?)
"We'll probably have to do that again," McCain told me of the record release.
Do you think all candidates should release their medical and psychiatric records? I asked.
I thought he would jump on that and say yes, just to put pressure on the other presidential campaigns, but he did not.
"I don't know," he said. "I think probably in my case it was a little more unique because of my POW status and the war injuries and the fact that people were spreading rumors that I was crazy and disabled both. So we'll probably have to do that again."
You think the rumors will start again? I asked.
"They already have!" he said.
But I don't think that is going to be McCain's problem. It isn't his health but rather his demeanor that worries some people.
The Iraq war, which he strongly supports, has disturbed and dismayed him. He told The Washington Post it was a "train wreck." He told me it was a "witch's brew." He visits wounded soldiers and Marines when they come back home for treatment and if any civilian feels the pain of the military, it is McCain.
And it is showing.
Last April, I wrote of a campaign swing McCain made through New Hampshire and Iowa, "Though McCain said he enjoyed himself, he was not the rollicking campaigner of six years ago. At a number of stops, he was largely subdued and sometimes almost somber."
Last Sunday, on "Meet the Press with Tim Russert," McCain seemed to have moved from almost somber to almost gloomy.
In my recent interview, I suggested to him that the laughing, joking John McCain of his last presidential campaign seemed to be AWOL.
"It's hard to make jokes; we are a nation at war," he said. "There are great national security challenges that we face. But I also believe, as Ronald Reagan did, that America's greatest days are ahead of us. It's going to be an upbeat campaign and an optimistic one."
And will you still come to the back of the bus and goof off with the press like before? I asked.
"If I changed that," McCain said with a smile of old, "I would probably get death threats."
By Roger Simon
TM & © 2007 The Politico & Politico.com, a division of Allbritton Communications Company.
|
|
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: REFSTAGON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fashionista
Posted:
Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:43 pm |
|
|
|
Ridge to Serve on McCain's '08 Bid Board
From Associated Press
February 28, 2007 9:33 AM EST
WASHINGTON - Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge will serve as national co-chair of Republican John McCain's presidential exploratory committee, the campaign said Wednesday.
Ridge, a former two-term Pennsylvania governor, served as first head of the nation's newly created Department of Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005. He praised McCain's leadership in a statement announcing his support for the Arizona senator's bid for the White House:
"What sets John apart is his ability to form coalitions around a common, principled cause. Our country is at a crossroads and John McCain is the leader who fundamentally knows what it takes to move us forward and keep us safe," Ridge said.
McCain, who is expected to formally enter the race for the 2008 GOP nomination in March, said that Ridge's "expertise as an innovative governor and national leader ... is invaluable and I'm grateful for his support."
McCain, once seen as the Republican front-runner, has been leading the GOP presidential field in endorsements, but increasingly lags behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in polls of Republican voters.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
|
|
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: REFSTAGON
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emptrix
Posted:
Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:49 pm |
|
|
|
McCain out of touch with War in Iraq
Today, on CNN, John McCain took Wolf Blitzer to task, saying that Wolf and other new media were "out of touch" with what was happeing in Iraq, and he went so far as to say that General P drives around Baghdad with no armor or guns. He made some reference to being able to walk around the city unharmed.
Wolf then went to the CNN reporter who has been in Baghdad for some very extended time and repeated McCain's comments. You could tell that the reporter was, well, less than entheuastic about what McCain had said. The reporter said he invited McCain to come and test out his statements. While the reporter was talking you could hear the gunships in the air and gun fire. The reporter said that when he had asked the troops about General P going about with no armor or guns, the laughter went for blocks; in truth, General P goes out in convey surrounded by heavily armed troop carriers and support. The reporter also said that no American could just wander around the city and go into a restaurant or coffee shop and last longer than 20 minutes before being killed or kidnapped by one of a half dozen groups.
McCain did not respond very articulately to a question from Wolf regarding why McCain alone of all the Viet Nam vets in Congress, supported the Iraq war and so staunchly.
My personal analysis is that McCain is too out of touch even with his own party, to run any kind of formidable campaign. He has also lost the respect (not as a war hero but as a candidate in touch with issues and people) of moderate to conservative Democrats who at one time might have voted for him. He is also looking tired and coming off as desperate, which is how he appeared to me on CNN tonight.
Any others have thoughts on this?
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| apodixis
Posted:
Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:35 pm |
|
|
|
Has McCain ever recognized that the U.S.- Vietnam war was a mistake ?
In Iraq the propaganda line is that if we don’t stop the Jihadis there we will have to fight them here. During the U.S. Vietnam war the propaganda was the the same: If we didn’t stop them there communism would spread across the globe.
Of course that did not happen – Communism collapsed of its internal contradictions, and so will Jihadism. In fact it was the very people we were fighting, the North Vietnamese, who stopped the advance of Communism in South-East Asia, by invading and overthrowing Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia.
|
|
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3217
Location: State of Jefferson, Ecotopia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emptrix
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
| apodixis wrote: | Has McCain ever recognized that the U.S.- Vietnam war was a mistake ?
In Iraq the propaganda line is that if we don’t stop the Jihadis there we will have to fight them here. During the U.S. Vietnam war the propaganda was the the same: If we didn’t stop them there communism would spread across the globe.
Of course that did not happen – Communism collapsed of its internal contradictions, and so will Jihadism. In fact it was the very people we were fighting, the North Vietnamese, who stopped the advance of Communism in South-East Asia, by invading and overthrowing Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. |
Interesting question re McCain and legitimacy of the Viet Nam war. I don't know the answer, so if you have it, please share. One majore difference I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is that the draft was a kind of equalizer (except for the Bushes of the country). Everyone knew someone or had a family memeber who was drafted; and most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Now, the bulk of the troops are coming from what the Republicans have turned into the "Rust Belt" formerly the manufacturing heart of the country. Wisconsin, a depressed state, has the highest percentage of military volunteers. Why? Because it is the only way these kids can come up with money to go to school, because their families no longer have high wage jobs, no benefits, no retirement other than Social Security. A year ago, there were only 2 members of Congress with children in the military.
If Prince Henry can go to Iraq, why can't the Bush twins? This situation is not touching the entire population the way Viet Nam did. It should be, but it isn't.
You are spot on regarding the collapse of communism and the coming of hoards of terrorists to the US. IF they come here, it will be because we have offered them US jobs at less pay. I don't know if the screw ups of this administrating are rectifiable in my life time. I doubt it.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:45 pm |
|
|
|
| Emptrix wrote: | | apodixis wrote: | Has McCain ever recognized that the U.S.- Vietnam war was a mistake ?
In Iraq the propaganda line is that if we don’t stop the Jihadis there we will have to fight them here. During the U.S. Vietnam war the propaganda was the the same: If we didn’t stop them there communism would spread across the globe.
Of course that did not happen – Communism collapsed of its internal contradictions, and so will Jihadism. In fact it was the very people we were fighting, the North Vietnamese, who stopped the advance of Communism in South-East Asia, by invading and overthrowing Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. |
Interesting question re McCain and legitimacy of the Viet Nam war. I don't know the answer, so if you have it, please share. One majore difference I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is that the draft was a kind of equalizer (except for the Bushes of the country). Everyone knew someone or had a family memeber who was drafted; and most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Now, the bulk of the troops are coming from what the Republicans have turned into the "Rust Belt" formerly the manufacturing heart of the country. Wisconsin, a depressed state, has the highest percentage of military volunteers. Why? Because it is the only way these kids can come up with money to go to school, because their families no longer have high wage jobs, no benefits, no retirement other than Social Security. A year ago, there were only 2 members of Congress with children in the military.
If Prince Henry can go to Iraq, why can't the Bush twins? This situation is not touching the entire population the way Viet Nam did. It should be, but it isn't.
You are spot on regarding the collapse of communism and the coming of hoards of terrorists to the US. IF they come here, it will be because we have offered them US jobs at less pay. I don't know if the screw ups of this administrating are rectifiable in my life time. I doubt it. |
Here's a couple of other 'majore' differences.
The total of military deaths to date in this war are about 5-6% of what the total deaths were in VietNam. The city of Detroit has experienced half that number of deaths from murder alone during that same time period.
Of course we all knew someone who was drafted. There was a draft. So the odds were pretty good you'd know someone who was drafted. And it's not the first nor probably the last draft we'll ever see either. In fact just a few months ago, none other than Democrat Charlie Rangel was talking about getting it re-instated.
Not all of those draftees wound up in VietNam either, by the way. And not most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member either.
By referring to the draft as an "equalizer" you reveal that you have a less than admirable attitue toward the military. If appears that you look upon military service and perhaps service to one's country as a burden - an onus to be divided among the classes - just like taxes.
What information do you have that tell's us today's military is made up solely of those for whom there were no other choices? It's not PC to denigrate the job or job skills of a burger flipper in this country but it's okay to denigrate a young man or woman who has decided on a career in the service of their country. Other than the fact that it may simply be something they wish to do, perhaps it's also possible that some want to give something back to a country that has given them so much.
No, I'm sure that thought could have never crossed your mind.
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emptrix
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:53 pm |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: | | Emptrix wrote: | | apodixis wrote: | Has McCain ever recognized that the U.S.- Vietnam war was a mistake ?
In Iraq the propaganda line is that if we don’t stop the Jihadis there we will have to fight them here. During the U.S. Vietnam war the propaganda was the the same: If we didn’t stop them there communism would spread across the globe.
Of course that did not happen – Communism collapsed of its internal contradictions, and so will Jihadism. In fact it was the very people we were fighting, the North Vietnamese, who stopped the advance of Communism in South-East Asia, by invading and overthrowing Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. |
Interesting question re McCain and legitimacy of the Viet Nam war. I don't know the answer, so if you have it, please share. One majore difference I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is that the draft was a kind of equalizer (except for the Bushes of the country). Everyone knew someone or had a family memeber who was drafted; and most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Now, the bulk of the troops are coming from what the Republicans have turned into the "Rust Belt" formerly the manufacturing heart of the country. Wisconsin, a depressed state, has the highest percentage of military volunteers. Why? Because it is the only way these kids can come up with money to go to school, because their families no longer have high wage jobs, no benefits, no retirement other than Social Security. A year ago, there were only 2 members of Congress with children in the military.
If Prince Henry can go to Iraq, why can't the Bush twins? This situation is not touching the entire population the way Viet Nam did. It should be, but it isn't.
You are spot on regarding the collapse of communism and the coming of hoards of terrorists to the US. IF they come here, it will be because we have offered them US jobs at less pay. I don't know if the screw ups of this administrating are rectifiable in my life time. I doubt it. |
Here's a couple of other 'majore' differences.
The total of military deaths to date in this war are about 5-6% of what the total deaths were in VietNam. The city of Detroit has experienced half that number of deaths from murder alone during that same time period.
Of course we all knew someone who was drafted. There was a draft. So the odds were pretty good you'd know someone who was drafted. And it's not the first nor probably the last draft we'll ever see either. In fact just a few months ago, none other than Democrat Charlie Rangel was talking about getting it re-instated.
Not all of those draftees wound up in VietNam either, by the way. And not most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member either.
By referring to the draft as an "equalizer" you reveal that you have a less than admirable attitue toward the military. If appears that you look upon military service and perhaps service to one's country as a burden - an onus to be divided among the classes - just like taxes.
What information do you have that tell's us today's military is made up solely of those for whom there were no other choices? It's not PC to denigrate the job or job skills of a burger flipper in this country but it's okay to denigrate a young man or woman who has decided on a career in the service of their country. Other than the fact that it may simply be something they wish to do, perhaps it's also possible that some want to give something back to a country that has given them so much.
No, I'm sure that thought could have never crossed your mind. |
You know what Dithers, I am so offended by your willful unashamed ignorance and belligerent attitude I am not going to waste my time giving you a response. I will however say, WELCOME TO MY IGNORE LIST!
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emptrix
Posted:
Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: | | Emptrix wrote: | | apodixis wrote: | Has McCain ever recognized that the U.S.- Vietnam war was a mistake ?
In Iraq the propaganda line is that if we don’t stop the Jihadis there we will have to fight them here. During the U.S. Vietnam war the propaganda was the the same: If we didn’t stop them there communism would spread across the globe.
Of course that did not happen – Communism collapsed of its internal contradictions, and so will Jihadism. In fact it was the very people we were fighting, the North Vietnamese, who stopped the advance of Communism in South-East Asia, by invading and overthrowing Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. |
Interesting question re McCain and legitimacy of the Viet Nam war. I don't know the answer, so if you have it, please share. One majore difference I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is that the draft was a kind of equalizer (except for the Bushes of the country). Everyone knew someone or had a family memeber who was drafted; and most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Now, the bulk of the troops are coming from what the Republicans have turned into the "Rust Belt" formerly the manufacturing heart of the country. Wisconsin, a depressed state, has the highest percentage of military volunteers. Why? Because it is the only way these kids can come up with money to go to school, because their families no longer have high wage jobs, no benefits, no retirement other than Social Security. A year ago, there were only 2 members of Congress with children in the military.
If Prince Henry can go to Iraq, why can't the Bush twins? This situation is not touching the entire population the way Viet Nam did. It should be, but it isn't.
You are spot on regarding the collapse of communism and the coming of hoards of terrorists to the US. IF they come here, it will be because we have offered them US jobs at less pay. I don't know if the screw ups of this administrating are rectifiable in my life time. I doubt it. |
Here's a couple of other 'majore' differences.
The total of military deaths to date in this war are about 5-6% of what the total deaths were in VietNam. The city of Detroit has experienced half that number of deaths from murder alone during that same time period.
Of course we all knew someone who was drafted. There was a draft. So the odds were pretty good you'd know someone who was drafted. And it's not the first nor probably the last draft we'll ever see either. In fact just a few months ago, none other than Democrat Charlie Rangel was talking about getting it re-instated.
Not all of those draftees wound up in VietNam either, by the way. And not most everyone was touched by the death of a friend or family member either.
By referring to the draft as an "equalizer" you reveal that you have a less than admirable attitue toward the military. If appears that you look upon military service and perhaps service to one's country as a burden - an onus to be divided among the classes - just like taxes.
What information do you have that tell's us today's military is made up solely of those for whom there were no other choices? It's not PC to denigrate the job or job skills of a burger flipper in this country but it's okay to denigrate a young man or woman who has decided on a career in the service of their country. Other than the fact that it may simply be something they wish to do, perhaps it's also possible that some want to give something back to a country that has given them so much.
No, I'm sure that thought could have never crossed your mind. |
One final comment, If someone wanted to go back and point out all your typographic errors and post them, I would rejoyce and lmao!
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:23 am |
|
|
|
There are many men and women who enlisted in the armed forces primarily for the educational benefits, and there is nothing wrong with that as a goal. Why are we denying that?
Are you suggesting that because there have been fewer military deaths in the war in Iraq than in Vietnam that somehow that validates its acceptance? What about the civilian casualties?
Also, Dithers, how would you know who was effected by the Viet Nam war and who wasn't? Perhaps you didn't know anyone killed or maimed or subjected to Agent Orange, but you may well be the exception. One of my high school beaus was drafted immediately after graduation and ended up in Nam and he was killed there. When I rubbed my fingers across his name at the Viet Nam Memorial in DC, it was an emotional moment. I guess that you were just lucky.
I think that it is also interesting that so few sons and daughters of politicians are serving in Iraq. Why do you suppose that is? And yes, I am very fearful for Prince Harry in Iraq and do not believe that he should be there because he is certainly a target.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6598
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:39 am |
|
|
|
Emptrix wrote to Dithers:
| Quote: | | One final comment, If someone wanted to go back and point out all your typographic errors and post them, I would rejoyce and lmao! |
I could do it myself as I know exactly what they are. Much of my writing (yes even misspelling words such as reinstated) is just sort of my posting style that has evolved. I use dashes and quotes and incomplete or running sentences and all other manner of bad grammar, punctuation, and bad spelling all the time. I'm sure most could recognize my writing even without my signature based on that very reason. People are very good at that type of detective work around here.
A word to the wise. If you find people's grammar and spelling or all other language skills a matter to poke fun at then you can probably pretty much count on posting with yourself.
Same goes for the Ignore button. On our first evening together you've already got me on Ignore. If we all did that whenever someone stepped on our toes a bit or made us hot under the collar there'd be no one left to post.
BTW - In your quote above - I believe that comma after the word 'comment' is incorrect as well as the capital 'I' in the word 'if'. You also misspelled rejoice. LMAO!!!!!
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:03 am |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Also, Dithers, how would you know who was effected by the Viet Nam war and who wasn't? Perhaps you didn't know anyone killed or maimed or subjected to Agent Orange, but you may well be the exception. One of my high school beaus was drafted immediately after graduation and ended up in Nam and he was killed there. When I rubbed my fingers across his name at the Viet Nam Memorial in DC, it was an emotional moment. I guess that you were just lucky. |
I don't know how many were effected but going by sheer statistical probability it doesn't seem plausible that nearly everyone knew someone or had a family member who was killed or wounded. The population of the U.S. in 1970 was a bit over 203 million. The number of casualities was about 55,000 and the number of injured was about 300,000. A lot of heartache to be sure but I just don't believe with those percentages that Emptrix's statement was correct and that is what I was taking exception to.
Forty-five thousand people die each year in automobile accidents in this county and around the same number die from the flu. Do you believe nearly everyone in the country is personally touched by at least one of those deaths? I know I'm not.
Yes, I did know people who were killed or wounded. My own brother-in-law was severly wounded and spent six months in the hospital.
I hated that war as much as anyone. I particularly hated the draft which I think is one of the biggest reasons for the start of the anti-war movement. That's why suggestions of reinstating it boggle the mind.
I too have been to the Vietnam memorial in DC (multiple times) and am every bit as touched by it as most all are.
I also have two wonderful nephews currently serving in the Marines who have both done multiple tours of duty in Iraq. And no - they didn't join because there were no other opportunities. Both are college graduates who finished at the top of the class. One has just been awarded acceptance at the Naval War College in DC. We are hoping to see him make the rank of General one day. Cutting off funding for this war and endangering their lives is not something I take lightly.
| Quote: | | I think that it is also interesting that so few sons and daughters of politicians are serving in Iraq. Why do you suppose that is? |
And that would make you feel better how? If something were to happen to one of them could we all feel vindicated or take some sort of pleasure that "Oh boy, Bush or (fill in the blank) got what they deserve?" I've just never been able to understand that sort of reasoning. I don't like to see anyone's son or daughter die or be grievously injured but it certainly wouldn't or shouldn't make it any easier to accept simply because some politician's child was among them.
I imagine the Bush twins are not in the military because they've chosen not to enlist. Yes, it's a voluntary military. Would you have all the politicians force their children to join? Not everyone aspires to the same goals. Is it fair some people's kids become firemen or policemen or drivers of fuel trucks? Each of these face possible death or harm every day they go out and do their jobs.
The sons of both Senator Kit Bond of Missouri and Tim Johnson of South Dakota have served combat missions in Iraq. John McCain has two sons in the military. I don't know if there have been others. By comparison, a recent study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch found at least 32 examples of congressional family members who were lobbyists.
Perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I wonder how many in the enlisted ranks are there because a father, mother, brother, etc. had done so and they are also following family tradition.
How does that stack up against the numbers to the population in general.You can't compare the number of lawmakers children serving in the military to the population at large without first considering how many even have children that fall in the age bracket to serve. Of that number how many are qualified to get in. Since it's an all volunteer military how many of them even have an interest in joining? I would imagine right off the top that any who had parents who are dead set against the war or the military in general would not be among those who feel a great compassion to join.
Again I don't think it should make a difference when we are discussing a voluntary endeavor. And anyway, I'd sure hate to think the politicians were deciding matters of national policy and worldwide importance with their own selfish interests in mind. And I know you're going to tell me that they do and if they had kids in the military they'd think a bit harder before going to war. Somehow I believe those who have children who are proudly serving would probably be the least likely to make that decision based on their own personal motives. JMO.
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:21 am |
|
|
|
And that would make you feel better how? If something were to happen to one of them could we all feel vindicated or take some sort of pleasure that "Oh boy, Bush or (fill in the blank) got what they deserve?" I've just never been able to understand that sort of reasoning. I don't like to see anyone's son or daughter die or be grievously injured but it certainly wouldn't or shouldn't make it any easier to accept simply because some politician's child was among them.
_____________________________________________________________
Dithers, the above comments are very mean-spirited. My commenting as to number of children of politicians is an observation. There is no way that I would ever make the type of comments on a death of a member of the armed forces or anyone else that you suggest and again I am really beginning to resent your insinuations. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6598
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | And that would make you feel better how? If something were to happen to one of them could we all feel vindicated or take some sort of pleasure that "Oh boy, Bush or (fill in the blank) got what they deserve?" I've just never been able to understand that sort of reasoning. I don't like to see anyone's son or daughter die or be grievously injured but it certainly wouldn't or shouldn't make it any easier to accept simply because some politician's child was among them.
_____________________________________________________________
Dithers, the above comments are very mean-spirited. My commenting as to number of children of politicians is an observation. There is no way that I would ever make the type of comments on a death of a member of the armed forces or anyone else that you suggest and again I am really beginning to resent your insinuations. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me. |
I purposely said could WE all feel vindicated, blah blah blah so as not to make it sound as if I meant YOU. Unfortunately since I was responding to your question it probably came across that I was talking about you specifically. That wasn't the case.
Anyway, I think you took my point way out of context. I was talking about the types of comments people have been making for years re: politician's kid and military service and was simply giving my feelings regarding that particular mindset.
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:30 pm |
|
|
|
| dithers wrote: | | yankee-in-france wrote: | And that would make you feel better how? If something were to happen to one of them could we all feel vindicated or take some sort of pleasure that "Oh boy, Bush or (fill in the blank) got what they deserve?" I've just never been able to understand that sort of reasoning. I don't like to see anyone's son or daughter die or be grievously injured but it certainly wouldn't or shouldn't make it any easier to accept simply because some politician's child was among them.
_____________________________________________________________
Dithers, the above comments are very mean-spirited. My commenting as to number of children of politicians is an observation. There is no way that I would ever make the type of comments on a death of a member of the armed forces or anyone else that you suggest and again I am really beginning to resent your insinuations. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me. |
I purposely said could WE all feel vindicated, blah blah blah so as not to make it sound as if I meant YOU. Unfortunately since I was responding to your question it probably came across that I was talking about you specifically. That wasn't the case.
Anyway, I think you took my point way out of context. I was talking about the types of comments people have been making for years re: politician's kid and military service and was simply giving my feelings regarding that particular mindset. |
Thank you for clarifying, Dithers, because I would never feel that way about any politician's son or daughter. I would feel terrible regardless of what party started the war or supported the war and I think that most people would, and that is why I felt that your comments were meanspirited. Enough said, you know, the HE is sizzling. 
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6598
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Emptrix
Posted:
Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | | dithers wrote: | | yankee-in-france wrote: | And that would make you feel better how? If something were to happen to one of them could we all feel vindicated or take some sort of pleasure that "Oh boy, Bush or (fill in the blank) got what they deserve?" I've just never been able to understand that sort of reasoning. I don't like to see anyone's son or daughter die or be grievously injured but it certainly wouldn't or shouldn't make it any easier to accept simply because some politician's child was among them.
_____________________________________________________________
Dithers, the above comments are very mean-spirited. My commenting as to number of children of politicians is an observation. There is no way that I would ever make the type of comments on a death of a member of the armed forces or anyone else that you suggest and again I am really beginning to resent your insinuations. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me. |
I purposely said could WE all feel vindicated, blah blah blah so as not to make it sound as if I meant YOU. Unfortunately since I was responding to your question it probably came across that I was talking about you specifically. That wasn't the case.
Anyway, I think you took my point way out of context. I was talking about the types of comments people have been making for years re: politician's kid and military service and was simply giving my feelings regarding that particular mindset. |
Thank you for clarifying, Dithers, because I would never feel that way about any politician's son or daughter. I would feel terrible regardless of what party started the war or supported the war and I think that most people would, and that is why I felt that your comments were meanspirited. Enough said, you know, the HE is sizzling. |
My oldest brother served in Viet Nam, drafted. He has never recovered. I also lost a good highschool friend. My husband joined the Air Force for education benefits, only; as did his youngest brother.
I have two nephews currently serving in the Marines. One is on his way for a second tour. He is afraid because no one from his unit has survived a second tour. They both joined so they could get educational benefits. It is the only way they will be able to go to college. All the good high paying jobs in the area have moved overseas or the companies were dismantled and sold off in parts under the Reagan administration. I would not support a draft under any circumstances. I just find it terribly upsetting that the majority of the people serving as ground troups for the Army and Marines come from lower income and middle income families.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Emptrix wrote;
| Quote: | My oldest brother served in Viet Nam, drafted. He has never recovered. I also lost a good highschool friend. My husband joined the Air Force for education benefits, only; as did his youngest brother.
I have two nephews currently serving in the Marines. One is on his way for a second tour. He is afraid because no one from his unit has survived a second tour. They both joined so they could get educational benefits. It is the only way they will be able to go to college. All the good high paying jobs in the area have moved overseas or the companies were dismantled and sold off in parts under the Reagan administration. I would not support a draft under any circumstances. I just find it terribly upsetting that the majority of the people serving as ground troups for the Army and Marines come from lower income and middle income families. |
A Heritage Foundation study conducted last year of the demographic makeup of U.S. military recruits is especially pertinent in light of John Kerry's recent insult to our troops.
The study can be found here. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm
Some notable quotes:
"A few Members of Congress, motivated by American combat in the Middle East, have called for the reinstatement of a compulsory military draft. The case for coercing young citizens to join the military is supposedly based on social justice—that all should serve—and seems to be buttressed by reports of shortfalls in voluntary enlistment. In a New York Times op-ed on December 31, 2002, Representative Charles Rangel (D– NY) claimed, 'A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.' This claim is frequently repeated by critics of the war in Iraq. Aside from the logical fallacy that a draft is less offensive to justice than a voluntary policy, Rangel's assertions about the demographic makeup of the enlisted military are not grounded in fact."
"The caricature of conscription—a harsh reality of European militaries in the 18th and 19th centuries—lives on in the popular imagination, but it does not accurately represent the all-volunteer U.S. military. Indeed, the U.S. military's qualitative superiority is what makes it the most efficient and lethal combat force in history. In economic terms, high-skill human capital among troops makes the military more productive overall. There may be legitimate equity concerns that outweigh national security, but they will undoubtedly come at a cost or trade-off in productivity."
"This paper also reviews other evidence that is at odds with the image, painted by some supporters of the draft, that the military exploits poor, ignorant, young Americans by using slick advertising that promises technical careers in the military to dupe them into trading their feeble opportunities in the private sector for a meager role as cannon fodder"
"However, our research shows that the volunteer force is already equitable. That is, it is highly likely that reinstating the draft would erode military effectiveness, increase American fatalities, destroy personal freedom, and even produce a less socioeconomically "privileged" military in the process."
"In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
"The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population."
"We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."
"The plain fact is that the income distribution of recruits is nearly identical to the income distribution of the general population ages 18–24."
"This evidence directly contradicts Representative Rangel's claim that underprivileged Americans are the source of military manpower and that the privileged are underrepresented."
"We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general public and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began."
"If one single statistic could settle this issue, it is this: 98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national average of 75 percent."
"Regardless of ZIP code area, we also find that enlistees are almost universally better educated than the general population."
"We found that whites are one of the most proportionally represented groups—making up 77.4 percent of the population and 75.8 percent of all recruits"
"The demographic data on race reveal that military enlistees are not, in fact, more heavily recruited from black neighborhoods. The data also reveal that minorities serve in different proportions, but not because fewer whites are serving. In other words, there is no "disproportionate share of minorities" serving in the military, as claimed by editorials around the nation in 2003. Some minorities participate more heavily than other minorities."
"In April 2005, the Chicago Tribune cited a statistic that 35 percent of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan were from small, rural towns, in contrast to 25 percent of the population. This point runs counter to the picture, painted by Rangel and others, of heavy enlistment reliance on poor, black urban neighborhoods. Indeed, recruits are disproportionately rural, not urban"
"The constant increase in the recruit/population ratio contradicts the assertion that military recruiting targets youth in inner cities. In fact, entirely urban areas are the area most underrepresented among recruits. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented."
"Put simply, the current makeup of the all-voluntary military looks like America. Where they are different, the data show that the average soldier is slightly better educated and comes from a slightly wealthier, more rural area."Posted by Tom Forbes at 7:34 PM
http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-bears-burden.htmlEmptrix
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dithers
Posted:
Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:46 am |
|
|
|
America's Vietnam Casualties: Victims of a Class War?
Arnold Barnett, Timothy Stanley, Michael Shore
Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1992), pp. 856-866
Abstract
Analysis of data about the 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam implies that affluent U.S. communities had only marginally lower casualty rates than the nation as a whole. Poor communities had only marginally higher rates. Data about the residential addresses of war casualties suggest that, within both large heterogeneous cities and wealthy suburbs, there was little relationship between neighborhood incomes and per capita Vietnam death rates. Such outcomes call into question a widespread belief that continues to influence U.S. policy discussions, namely, that American war deaths in Vietnam were overwhelmingly concentrated among the poor and working class.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-364X%28199209%2F10%2940%3A5%3C856%3AAVCVOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&size=SMALL
|
|
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GeorgiaMom
Posted:
Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
I'll be voting for McCain. It's my belief that the #1 priority of the federal government is to provide a strong military and to uphold the Constitution. There's no doubt in my mind that McCain will provide the United States with a strong military.
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 4163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:38 pm |
|
|
|
| GeorgiaMom wrote: | | I'll be voting for McCain. It's my belief that the #1 priority of the federal government is to provide a strong military and to uphold the Constitution. There's no doubt in my mind that McCain will provide the United States with a strong military. |
I'm concerned McCain might spread our troops too thin.
Regarding upholding the Constitution, I feel Obama has the advantage.
Just my opinion and I respect yours, GeorgiaMom. Hope you enjoy a nice weekend.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16071
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
