On "fighting Dems"; or why it's not about whether you wore the uniform

Comments

48 comments posted
A note: the post at Ezra's

A note: the post at Ezra's was actually written by Ezra's guest-blogger, Neil.

Dadahead's picture
Posted by Dadahead (not verified) on 31 December 2005 - 2:24pm
Ach, thanks for catching that!

I'll post a correction immediately.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 December 2005 - 2:43pm
Nintendo-boy

My parent's generation fought in World War Two.

Some of their children fought in Vietnam. Others dodged the draft, but sublimated.

Bush is emblematic of a generation who let others (read: poor, black) die. Like the the Taliban, Bush plays his pawns against the opposing side. Red necks laugh that Osama Bin Laden sends fools to die in suicide bombings. Meanwhile, Bunker-Bush hides in his palace, "safe from every shock."

Which President actually saw battle? Some commanded troops, but if memory serves, only Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, and Bush Sr., served as grunts in a war zone - maybe Grant. Most of the others who served in time of war at a rank of General or above.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 31 December 2005 - 3:08pm
Poor and Black??

.Your comment suggesting that the burden of battle in Vietnam (or any other war the US has been involved in for that matter) was born by the "poor and Black" members of our society, demonstrates a staggering ignorance of the facts. Your assertion is nothing more than Vietnam urban legend which has been completely debunked by the statistical evidence of record.

It is a testament to the effectiveness of the so-called "antiwar" movement, that such propaganda continues to persist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 31 December 2005 - 5:07pm
Poor and black

I was in Middle School when Vietnam started in earnest and had graduated from college by the time it was over, so I have some idea of who ended up going and who did not.

Some kids went on to college - those of means - and those who were poor and black got drafted. None of the rich kids whose parents lived on the lake came back in body bags.

You don't see the President's kids signing up for the military. No way!

We did see FDR's kids join up in World War Two. The rich Kennedys sent some of their kids to fight in that war, and one died.

What was your experience of Vietnam? Did you serve? If you did, was it mainly wealthy white college kids in your unit? I suppose we rely on our experiences, but from what I saw that at graduation, the people who were not as well off ended up serving. The rich kids had alternatives.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 1 January 2006 - 12:22am
Poor and Black?

For your information, I served two combat tours in Vietnam from 1967-69.

As a matter of fact, I dropped out of my second year in college in order to join the Marine Corps and to serve in Vietnam as a grunt. While most of my fellow Marines did not have a college education, the vast majority of those who served in Vietnam did have a high school diploma. Which is more than can be said of the majority of those who fought in the Second World War.

The statistical facts establish, beyond question, that those who served were from every socioeconomic group in America.

As for the Afro-American serviceman, he made up about 12.5% of the men who served in Vietnam. While their contribution was clearly significant and honorable, it is pure nonsense to claim that they bore a disproportionate burden. This long standing myth was first put forth as part of a communist disinformation campaign but, continues to be believed to this very day despite the facts which prove it to be wholly incorrect.

Before you rely on your own, very limited observations, perhaps you would be well served to read Burke's STOLEN VALOR. I have no doubt that you will be very surprised to learn of how wrong you really are.

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 4 January 2006 - 8:12pm
The deceptive appeal of the "fighting Dems"

I think another possible reason for the deceptive appeal of the "fighting Dems" is that it's another excuse for Democratic "leaders" to say anything and everything but the plain and simple truth:

The President of the United States is a liar and a coward.

I believe, almost as an article of faith, that if John Kerry had stood up and said that, over and over and over again, people would have lined up to vote for him. I believe there were people who knew that to be true, knew it in their bones, even before the gradual unraveling of Bush's garments this year. And all they were waiting for was for someone to SAY IT.

But Kerry didn't. Why? I dunno. I only know his failure to do so led to the frustration that Jon Stewart expressed for me after an all-too typical clip of Kerry from the campaign.

"You're *trying* to lose!"

Ben Varkentine's picture
Posted by Ben Varkentine (not verified) on 31 December 2005 - 3:25pm
Fightin' Dems? Give me a break!

ANYONE who believes that John O'Neil and the veterans of the SBVFT were a concoction of the Republican reelection committee, Carl Rove or any other "White House attack group" is simply being willfully ignorant. The unavoidable truth of the matter (regarding Vietnam "war hero" Kerry) is that John Kerry is a pathological liar, widely held in contempt by combat veterans of that war. The suggestion that John O'Neil was "appointed" by Nixon is a laughable assertion, with absolutely no basis in fact.

The "Fightin' Dems" bring the roof down upon themselves. Wes Clark ended up becoming a whore just to try and stay in the limelight. His

so-called "military analysis" during the campaign, was nothing less than political posturing intended to serve the Democratic Party. His "expert opinions" were little more than personal attacks on George Bush.

The great "hero" Max Cleland allowed other people to misrepresent the circumstances surrounding the injuries he incurred in Vietnam. By claiming, as one journalist did, that Max had, "Sacrificed his body on the killing fields of Khe Sahn", the Democrats tried to portray Cleland's injuries as having been sustained in combat. They weren't!

Tom Daschle bragged about having "put his ass on the line" while flying combat missions over North Vietnam. Of course it was established, beyond question, that he NEVER did any such thing. He spent his time in JAPAN and never was involved in Vietnam...at any time.

So, for all the charges of "chicken hawk" the Dems want to hurl at the Republicans, clearly, they can't brag about their own memberships contributions to any particular war effort.

Besides, simply having served in a war, in combat, is clearly no guarantee of expertise in military or political matters.

Grow up!

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 31 December 2005 - 4:55pm
Chris la Civita

I assume you know who LaCivita is.

Chris LaCivita – Media Consultant

Chris LaCivita is an independent political consultant specializing in general campaign strategy, media planning, voter contact mail and grassroots campaigns. Recently, he served as chief strategist for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and co-producer of their highly successful TV ads.

In 2002, Chris LaCivita served as National Political Director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In the 2000 election cycle, LaCivita was campaign manager of George Allen’s successful bid for the United States Senate and was honored by PR Week magazine as the best run campaign in the country.

I understand that Allen hired LaCivita within 2 months of the Bush win. LOL Well they are known commodities, one to the other. It is also my understanding that LaCivita, post SBV campaign is the hightest paid political consultant in the nation. And the R run their consultant game $$ a lot smarter than the Dems do.

I could not stand Kerry and did not vote for him, but let's get real. And face hard political reality. SBVfT was most certainly tied tightly to the RNC/Bush-Cheney campaign. And frankly who cares? Dems never saw it coming despite very clear public statements (Dec 19, 2003 FT) that the R would work on the Kerry resume til no one would be clear on what side of the Vietnam war he had fought..., Kerry persisted in not fighting back. the campaign utterly failed at strategy.

It was entertaining to watch in a twisted sort of way.

Washington Times

Sgt. Chris LaCivita stands behind the monitor, as the men rehearse their lines. He is producing the spot, with help from Republican media consultant Rick Reed.

Sgt. LaCivita, a tall energetic former Marine who received a Purple Heart after he was shot in the face in the first Persian Gulf war, defends the TV spots against critics who say what happened 30 years ago shouldn't matter.

The Hill

Chris LaCivita, the GOP strategist who advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the fall presidential campaign, said last week that Fox refused to air two Swifties ads that other cable networks, including CNN and MSNBC, had no reservations over.

He said Fox had “no problem with the facts; they just didn’t want to run them� because they were “too negative.�

According to LaCivita, a Fox representative said the ads were rejected because they used the word “betrayal� in regards to Sen. John Kerry’s actions after he returned from Vietnam. Betrayal is too strong a word because it implies treason, and treason is punishable by death, he was told.

LaCivita said he didn’t disclose that Fox refused the ads during the campaign because “our friends at the Kerry campaign would have made hay over it.�

As for O'Neil and Nixon.. taped conversation between Nixon and Haldeman is the proof. A long time operative. And again, who cares? Kerry did nto fight back. The battle to take to O'Neil and the SBV (and thsu Bush and tie his cabal to Nixon) would be to run an ad using the Nixon Haldeman tapes where they discuss O'Neil, run it relentlessly, tie O"neil to Nixon in the public mind. Nixon, who is still radioactive. LOL, he glows from the grave.

Get real.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 31 December 2005 - 5:55pm
John O'Neil, Nixon and John Haldeman

To continually insist that John O'Neil was a Nixon "operative" blatantly ignores the known facts. John O'Neil had been attempting to arrange a debate with Kerry long before the White House became aware of him. The Nixon/Haldeman tapes clearly indicate that the White House saw O'Neil as a foil to use against Kerry. It is clear that

both men were hoping that the clean cut O'Neil would expose Kerry for the liar he was. However, despite the White House's efforts to help O'Neil to get media exposure, it is an absolute misrepresentation to state that O'Neil was working on their behalf. It is patently absurd to deny O'Neil's personal stake in rebutting Kerry's "antiwar" statements, particularly since Kerry was branding veterans of Vietnam as war criminals and murderers. As a real, two tour combat veteran of that conflict (unlike Kerry's fabricated "two tours") I was outraged by Kerry's accusations of wide spread war crimes and atrocities. To suggest that O'Neil had to be encouraged by the White House,

to attack Kerry, can only be seen as willful ignorance.

And let's me make one last point clear, there has NEVER, EVER been ANY evidence to support the charge, made by Kerry and other "antiwar" supporters, that war crimes and atrocities were wide spread. In fact, the historical record is absolutely clear on the subject. Kerry was wrong then and he continues to be wrong today. Those who continue to insist that Kerry's accusations were essentially accurate are guilty of propagating a Vietnam urban legend that has been thoroughly debunked and for which there is no credible evidence in support.

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 31 December 2005 - 7:14pm
Do you have any proof of YOUR assertions?

Or is this just all ad hominem anger points talking points?

But really, what is the point of your comment? If you hate all Democrats, then it seems you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Of course, if you find it therapeutic, ramble on.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 31 December 2005 - 7:40pm
Proof of Assertions??

The proof of my assertions lie in the historical record.

I do NOT hate Democrats.

I DO, however, have little patience for people, such as yourself, who make demonstrably false statements to push their own political agenda.

If you want me to offer proof of my assertions, please be a bit more specific as to which assertions you are questioning.

In closing, I'd like to point out that I did not say anything which could be characterized as being "inappropriate," "vulgar" or, "personal." Therefor, I am puzzled as to why you felt it was necessary to respond in such an impolite manner.

As for having something to contribute to this "discussion," I would suggest that a "discussion" REQUIRES differing perspectives. Or, as I am beginning to suspect, is this site

only for those who blindly agree with everything you have to say, regardless of weather you are right or wrong?

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 4 January 2006 - 9:46pm
Sure, go ahead and spill your vomit

...and then claim being ill-used when you get a skeptical response. Please don't pretend you actually want a discussion. Just look at your offering:

The unavoidable truth of the matter (regarding Vietnam "war hero" Kerry) is that John Kerry is a pathological liar, widely held in contempt by combat veterans of that war. The suggestion that John O'Neil was "appointed" by Nixon is a laughable assertion, with absolutely no basis in fact.

The "Fightin' Dems" bring the roof down upon themselves. Wes Clark ended up becoming a whore just to try and stay in the limelight. His

so-called "military analysis" during the campaign, was nothing less than political posturing intended to serve the Democratic Party. His "expert opinions" were little more than personal attacks on George Bush.

These are hardly commonly accepted facts, except perhaps in right-wing political circles. You talk about "false statements to push their own political agenda" -- pot, meet kettle.

If you want to make ad hominem attacks on people, the least you can do is offer some proof. I'm no Kerry fan, but I'm not likely to believe a bunch of predigested Swift Boated crap just on your say so. You're offering no "differing perspectives," just personal disparagements, and that's not going to convince anybody of anything except that your mind is closed.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 January 2006 - 12:26am
VOMIT?

That a fact is not commonly accepted does not necessarily mean it is not a FACT. Consider:

Kerry in Cambodia? Please! Kerry's own journal proves beyond doubt, that the sojourn was little more than a total fabrication. The FACT is that he LIED about conducting covert operations in Cambodia.

The, now infamous, "CIA bush hat" was nothing more than a prop the Senator used to support a complete falsehood. A graphic example of someone who's pathological.

Two tours in Vietnam? Not on your life! The Senator served one, extremely abbreviated tour in Vietnam. His first, so-called "tour" was actually a Far East cruise, during which his ship sailed through the South China Sea (in international waters), off the coast of Vietnam for approximately 3 weeks.

The Senator continues to claim that he served "two tours" in Vietnam, despite knowing full well, that the cruise does not qualify as a "tour" in country. Clearly, it is Kerry's intention to mislead and to misrepresent his service. This is called lying.

For someone so quick to accuse another of having a close mind, you do not appear to be very well versed in the subject matter you choose to dispute.

Regarding John O'Neil. It is a FACT that John O'Neil had already debated Kerry on television PRIOR to going to the White House. If you listen to the Nixon/Halderman tapes, it is obvious that it was O'Neil's earlier, televised rebuttal of Kerry's antiwar diatribes that brought him to Nixon's attention. NOT the other way around. It is incorrect to suggest that the White House, somehow, "created" O'Neil. It is also foolish to ignore the obvious, personal stake that was an inherent component which drove O'Neil to face Kerry down.

My mind is certainly NOT closed. But, I refuse to allow blatant misrepresentations, such as the ones you are so casual about tossing around.

"Vomit?" Is that how you attack those who do not feel compelled to listen to

your flaming anal orifice?

How about offering something in the way of PROOF to support your own statements? How about it, Big Time?? How about YOU put up?

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 5 January 2006 - 6:39pm
Your are the model of civility

We all must bow to your superior foul-mouthed condescension.

Maybe you didn't notice, but I made no assertion about John Kerry. What am I supposed to prove? You're the one coming here making all sorts of grand claims as to Swift Boating accuracy. If you don't find the reception suitably sycophantic, may I recommend Capt'ns Quarters or Little Snotty Footballs. They've proven to be very good at gullibility.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 January 2006 - 8:28pm
Foul-mouthed condescention!! Wow!

If you will recall, my initial comment was aimed, primarily, at questioning YOUR assertion that John O'Neil was a Nixon White House creation.

How about some proof to back up YOUR point about O'Neil? Your Nixon/Halderman claim is totally bogus.

So, how about it Media GIRL?? How about YOU put YOUR facts where your mouth is??

And, just to set the record straight, my comments regarding Kerry are NOT based solely on SBVFT claims. If one takes the actual time to read the Senator's citations, TOUR OF DUTY (based on the Senator's journals) and applies a little logic and rational deduction, it is evident that the Senator has been lying for quite some time.

Is "flaming anal orifice" foul-mouthed??? OOoww, Touchy, touchy!!

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 6 January 2006 - 10:35pm
My goodness, now you're making shit up

Oh please oh please show me where I made any assertion about O'Neil. You can't because I didn't. But don't let me get in the way of your masturbation here. Stroke away, big boy. But be sure to clean off your computer screen before making more wild assertions. Fool.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 11:11pm
But face it

Kerry fought and Bush did not. Neither did Clinton.

I don't blame Bush for not wanting to fight in Vietnam.

I think it was more important to the World War Two generation that someone served, than to those of us of the Vietnam generation.

Eisenhower did run as an all-but war hero who was going to get us out of Korea. Kennedy had a war record, as did Nixon, but neither ran on it and people went so far as to say Kennedy was soft on Communism and there were the wing-nuts of the day who were disappointed the Kennedy did NOT push the button during the Cuban Crisis.

Johnson wormed his way on a cargo run and was "tail gunner for a day" and made sure lots of photographs were taken.

Carter was trained as a nuclear submarine office and did not serve in war.

Ford served in World War Two. Reagan acted in films for the Army.

Bush Sr., like JFK, served with valor in the Pacific.

But Vietnam was the first true American defeat and I don't think it adds to any glory to be part of a defeated fighting force, so I think the war issue is pretty much a non-issue.

It also paves the way for women of both parties to have a shot at leading the ticket since war experience is less important.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 1 January 2006 - 12:49am
But face it?

Man, you certainly demonstrate an astoundingly callous attitude towards those who served in Vietnam. Your assertion that Vietnam represented America's "first true defeat" betrays a critical misunderstanding of how and why our participation in that conflict came to an end. Particularly when you refer to the "defeated fighting force." Your suggestion that those who fought there don't deserve any "glory" is the most moronic thing I've ever read.

Richard Montgomery's picture
Posted by Richard Montgomery (not verified) on 4 January 2006 - 10:04pm
Or maybe you need to get

Or maybe you need to get over your hatred of the military.

Bias is as bias does.

And tolerance must be from both sides of the street.

Bergman's picture
Posted by Bergman (not verified) on 1 January 2006 - 12:06am
What are you talking about?

I don't see where this comment is coming from. Maybe you need to get some glasses.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 January 2006 - 12:23am
clarifications and rebuttals

A clarification, first: I didn't claim that military service makes Democrats slander-proof. You can still hurt them, somewhat, by slandering them about their military service. My claim was that the slanderer gets hurt even more -- I think Schmidt is a perfect example of this. Murtha actually came off looking reasonably good, I thought, especially considering the Republican attempt to confuse people with a straw man resolution. And it's not like his resolution could've passed. Defeat of some kind was inevitable.

While Gore and Kerry didn't get much of a boost from their past service, my point is that their service was long ago and not in Iraq. This, and their non-military personas, explains why they didn't benefit from it. It seems to me that McCain benefits a fair amount from his past, especially on the issue of torture, where he recently managed to impose his will on the Bush White House.

The best test case we've had for all our theorizing on this is OH-2 with Paul Hackett last year, and I think it demonstrates that you can get lots of points from having served in Iraq. Changing the margin of defeat from over 40 to under 4 is a sign that you've done something right. This case is discussed in my post.

Dadahead has continued the discussion. One point that I make there, and I want to make here, is that there's a stereotype of Democrats as effete elitists/hippies, and this plays a big role in grounding our party's weakness on national security. Recent Iraq service completely disrupts this stereotype, and Republicans have to either blow gigantic quantities of money on putting it back together, or abandon the whole project.

Neil the Ethical Werewolf's picture
Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf (not verified) on 1 January 2006 - 1:47pm
Thanks for clarifying

I still maintain that while compelling candidate may attribute his/her character to training and experience in the military, I don't think that a candidate is ever compelling because they served in the military. Yet that is precisely what's been argued by the more vocal and prominent supporters of the "fighting Dems."

If Hackett did well, it's because of Hackett the candidate. His military service may have afforded him the microphone in the early going, but only his candidacy can be credited to its success. I find it hard to attribute it all -- or even largely -- to the simple fact that he fought in Iraq.

When you dismiss Gore and Kerry for their "non-military personas," this in part gets at what I was talking about -- the strength or weakness of the indiviedual candidate -- but also some of what I fear: a desire for a stereotypical "military man" to be the Democrats' version of the "strict father" leader. To me, that goes against what we need and plays right into the skewed frame the Republicans have set up.

Excuse me, but Dwight D. Eisenhower would qualify for your "non-military persona" characterization.

I find the entire exercise frightening and much too much in step with the war drums that have dominated our politics for all too long.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 January 2006 - 2:44pm
Strict father - not

I don't believe that Democrats are looking for veterans to assume the role of a Lakoff-esque "strict father." Instead, I think that Democrats are attracted to veterans because we believe that, having experienced the horrors of war, veterans would be less likely to commit American troops to combat before exhausting diplomacy, and would not embark on military adventurism based on questionable rationale.

I also disagree with the contention that Wes Clark "flamed out." There is no question that Clark made a rookie mistake by listening to bad advice and failing to contest the Iowa caucus. Being an Iowa farm boy myself, I know that Clark would have had a broad appeal among Iowans, and would have been a formidable challenger to Kerry and Edwards.

radiofreedenver's picture
Posted by radiofreedenver (not verified) on 1 January 2006 - 6:28pm
I can appreciate the sentiment

I am not attracted or put off by veterans. To me, it's irrelevant when it comes to someone running for office. What counts is what they're about. I don't think it takes war experience to have the sense to put America in a leadership role using all its powers, including diplomatic, economic and political. It's just all the more grating when an administration of chickenhawks does the opposite.

I think more important than whether they'll avoid recklessly declaring wars -- a minimum requirement for any candidate, in my book -- is what they'll do to fix the problems within this country. Education, health, poverty and the economy.

And no uniform is going to shed any light in those areas.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 January 2006 - 9:57pm
Democratic Vets

It isn't about "fightin'" or "uniforms." It's about Republican "let's you guys make patriotic sacrifices while I get on with stealing money,hypocrisy. Actually, at the end of the day (or campaign), it comes down to whether the Democratic candidate is more or less attractive than the Republican one. Conservatives since Disraeli and before have often tried to nominate amateurs with "star" quality attractiveness to distract and delude the mindless mob.When they do what Democrats usually do: nominate the next competent pro in line, they lose. Clinton beats Bob Dole. JFK beats Nixon. Nixon beats Humphrey. Nixon beats (true war hero McGovern), Reagan beats Navy Commander Carter. Clinton beats WW 2 fighter pilot Bush,then disabled vet Dole, etc. We need to find a solid attractive Democratic like FDR, JFK, or Clinton who can beat the suicidal special interest Dems in the primaries, nominate him (or her if she really can win) and send them lots of money.

Michael McKeown's picture
Posted by Michael McKeown (not verified) on 1 January 2006 - 7:31pm
The problem I have with this analysis

I don't think it's about Republican anything. As long as the Democrats try to out-do Republicans at what Republicans do, or try to fight a Republican frame of what Democrats are, the Democrats are playing right into GOP hands.

The people who win are the ones who get people to vote for them, and not simply against the other guy. I don't think it's just a matter of being "more attractive" but rather by a combination of presenting ideas and projecting a persona people can sign up for and identify with. And that comes from within, it comes from what kind of person that is -- or it comes from a Karl Rove-like political machine -- and it doesn't really matter whether that person is wearing a uniform or a dress.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 January 2006 - 10:03pm
Military service does not equal military leader

Media girl is correct. People vote for a persona that they feel will best satisfy their needs. The problem the Democrats are having is they are misinterpreting voters desire for a military leader. In times of stress, voters feel more secure with a military leader. A military leader is not somoeone who was in the military, it is someone who has a military mindset. A military leader is comfortable using military power and recognizes that it is a useful tool for resolving issues. They do not think that violence and casualties are situations to be avoided at all costs. They view them as a cost of doing business. They also tend to circle the wagons adn avoid excessive internal criticism of their own side.

The problem the Democrats are having is that they are nominating veterans as military leaders when they do not have the military mindset. This is creating a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the voters minds and is hurting them. For instance, Kerry is a decorated veteran. However, he is also extremely anti-miliatry and definitely feels that the use of US military power is almost always a bad idea. This actually hurt Democrats more than running a nonveteran would have. Many voters came to the conclusion that if decorated veteran Democrats were so antimilitary, then the Democratic party was unable to provide adequate national security.

It is important for the Democratic party to recognize that people do not vote for miliatry leaders because of the uniform, they vote for them because of their mindset. The uniform is just a common way to recognize that mindset.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male (not verified) on 4 January 2006 - 8:52pm
Military leader

Hey! VEEERY GOOD!!!

Excellent comment!

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 5 January 2006 - 8:27pm
Yes

The pose is more important than the character. And with a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks cooking up a fool's war of choice in Iraq, we see the results of buying into image over substance.

I remember Wolfowitz claiming that the war would cost $1.7 billion.

I remember Cheney claiming that US forces would be greeted as liberators.

I remember Bush whining about how Saddam was thumbing his nose at us.

All weak men too eager to prove how tough they are. But hey, they talked tough! Good for them!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 January 2006 - 8:31pm
YES

"A bunch of draft dodging chickenhawks" My, my, my!! I'm always astonished to read such abusive comments from those who never served a day of their lives in combat themselves. How high and mighty and eager to denigrate!

Media Girl(?), is so typical! Never in harms way herself but, so ready to judge! So vicious in her assesment of those who bare a burden far in excess of anything she has ever experienced in her own puny existence.

Tough? You bet they are. Tougher than Media Girl by any measurement!

I'd be honored to know exactly what qualifies Media GIRL to sit in judgement. Please enlighten me!!

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 5 January 2006 - 10:26pm
I'm not the one sending kids into combat

If you want to get worked up, why not over people who have power? Last I checked, I'm not running any branch of government. And I'm not sitting on my ass eating Twinkies while I send people to their deaths.

No, the Republican chickenhawks have a corner on that business these days.

Which means that, unlike public servants, I don't have to answer to you. That's what probably upsets you the most, doesn't it? To have a "GIRL" not back down to your chest-thumping bloviating? Poor baby.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 2:01am
re: sending kids into combat

If sending kids into combat is that bad, have you ever wondered why those same kids in combat are reenlisting at record levels? It appears they don't think its that much of an issue.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 2:54am
record levels?

hahahaha....

you are so funny. record levels?

DoD assumes responsibility for releasing recruiting stats

Individual services no longer authorized to announce numbers at beginning of the month

The Army and Marine Corps, as they struggle with recruiting shortfalls, will no longer announce their monthly recruiting numbers at the beginning of each month.

shortfalls so bad they're going to quit reporting. my my my. oh by the way, my cite is from the army times.

hey you better hope they quintriple their reinlistments. why?

In April, it (the army) made just 58 percent of its active accession mission. Its goal for that month was to ship 6,600 recruits, but only 3,821 recruits shipped up for service.

thats in April this past year. hey i'd give you the january figures. but they're not to be found!!!!!!!

i'm beginning to think you're a dip shit. keep making comments like this i won't be the only one thinking so. you really need to quit believing the shit you read at little green footballs, dude.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 6 January 2006 - 4:51am
vitriol unnecessary

Wow, what amazing vitriol. Uninformed vitriol. Yes combat troops are reenlisting at well above anticipated levels. The shortfalls in reenlistment are occurring in support troops and some guard units who never anticipated actually having to fight. The ones that are in combat are reenlisting. I'd suggest you go read some of the army and milblog sites before uninformed insulting. You only cheapen your good arguments when you flame this way.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 5:15am
you're from texas arent you?

so what about dip shit dont you understand?

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 6 January 2006 - 5:22am
Texas? Dip shit?? Now what/!

Southern Man clearly has an honest perspective on what is actually going on. You, on the other hand, are simply blowing smoke and flame.

Give it up, you're out of your league!

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 6 January 2006 - 10:18pm
Uninformed and funny

You are looking st recruiting and accession figures. Recruiting is the act of getting a new recruit. It has nothing to do with reenlistment. Reenlistment is the act of existing army personnel signing back up after they have been shot at. Regular army troops in combat are reenlisting at a high rate.

Oddly enough, they Army is above the number of infantrymen they think they need, their shortfall is in some high skill positions. Most of that shortfall appears to be driven by recruit quality and is not something a draft would solve.

Army Chief of Staff, Schoomaker said recruiting problems are offset by high retention among active divisions, especially in units that have served or are serving in Iraq. He said the Army has exceeded its personnel retention goal by 9 percent, with soldiers in the Third Infantry Division -- now on its second tour in Iraq -- reenlisting at 112 percent of the goal. The First Cavalry Division has the highest reenlistment rate, at 138 percent of the goal, according to the Army. All 10 of the Army's divisions are surpassing retention estimates.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 5:32am
Kids?? In Combat?? You can't be serious??

When you're right, you're right! You're NOT a pulic servant and you can spout any kind of nonsense you want without having to be responsible for anything you say!! Isn't that great??

Kids into combat! Wow, I mean, I simply can't believe America, of ALL the countries on this earth, would send KIDS into combat! This is absolutely staggering news! I am totally shocked at the very idea..

WHERE THE HECK HAVE YOU BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME????????

War has always been a young man's game. The average age during the WWII was 26. During the Vietnam War, 20. Call these young men and women kids to their face and see how they like it. You can bet your GIRLY butt that they don't see themselves as children or kids.

Girly, you don't know a damn thing about the military. Not a damn thing.

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 6 January 2006 - 10:50pm
I find it amazing how you can do all this

...typing one-handed. But maybe you should wait until some blood works its way to your other head before replying.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 11:14pm
Posing won't cut it

No, the pose is not worth more than character. If you really do not have a military leader mindset, it will become obvious and people will notice. This is a major problem the Democrats are having.

A key criteria of the military mindset is the belief that casualties are to be expected and are not really that much of a bad thing. Most of your dislike of the 'chickenhawks' is based on the casualties we are taking. From a military standpoint we aren't taking significant casualties. So the folks with a military mindset just don't listen when you complain about casualties. It also means that when you do complain about casualties, military mindset adherents label you as a whiner and conclude you are weak on defense.

Whether or not you agree with this mindset is irrelevant. Obviously you don't. What is relevant is the fact that the Democratic party is getting it's ass handed to it on national security issues. Until they recognize the strenths and weaknesses of the military mindset, they will continue to make impotent attacks on Republican strategies and lose.

Almost all of your counterarguments will only convince people that already agree with you. These are nice arguments to make if you want to feel good, but they will have no beneficial effect on changing US policy. To change policy you have to understand the large number of voters who don't really care about the technical details of how the war started. All they really care abou is are we winning, are our opponents dying and do we viscerally feel safer/satisfied because of our military leaders actions. These people listen to our miltary and our soldiers think they are winning. The same soldiers who are overwhelmingly voting against the Democrats. Don't think that anybody who agrees with the use of military force doesn't notice that.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 2:44am
You're full of magical thinking

Where do you get the idea that most people think Iraq is going well? Where do you get the idea that people think our chickenhawk leaders are doing things right? Maybe you haven't looked at the approval numbers in the past year.

I think the only people who are surprised at how horribly it's going in Iraq are the chickenhawks who had pollyanna fantasies about how an invasion would go.

But to you, I suppose that's a military mindset. Talk tough and react dumb. Respond with the lizard brain. Appeal to male insecurity.

Tell me more about what I think about chickenhawks. Please. Is this part of your magic act? You read minds? Why don't you take your act elsewhere?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 9:46am
Thinking is good

I never said the Iraq war was going well. I said that the military thinks it is going well and they do. I also know that the polls show that people who have a strong predilection for military leaders think things are going fine. The whole point of the earlier posts was that it is a waste of time to dress up a nonmilitary mindset politician in a uniform and claim you are a military leader. Your reactions are proving my point. If you personally were a politician and a veteran, no one who is looking for a military leader would accept you as one because you do not think the way they think a military leader should think. The net result is the Dems should stop trying to be what they are not.

On a side point it is a mistake to think all of your opponents responses can be characterized by talk tough and act dumb. They beat the Democrats and currently are the most powerful people in the world. They didn't get there by being stupid and you won't get them out of power by assuming they are. They are smart. Our current situation is the culmination of a 30 year plan that they have patiently implemented. They just have different values than you do. Continue to underestimate them at your own peril.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 11:14am
No, I'm not a militarist

...so it's rather obvious that, if I ever ran for office (which is a laughable idea as I have no desire to wade into that muck), martinets would not support my candidacy.

But you're wrong about the military thinking Iraq is going well. Sure, some leaders say so. But the leaders to disagreed -- and those who warned of the quagmire an invasion would bring in the first place -- were summarily dismissed or encouraged to retire.

And the fact of the matter is that all of the Iraq veterans now seeking public office are Democrats. At least that was the case in a recent review. That doesn't seem to indicate unified military endorsement of Bush's war.

As for who wins elections, things change. People change. Public moods change. Just because Bush fooled millions of people in 2004 doesn't mean that kind of fool is what people want now. And Democrats stand to gain little or nothing by simply pretending to be Republicans. Republican success came from appealing to their base. Democrats should take that lesson to heart, rather than chasing the GOP dream.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 2:15pm
Republican success

Republican success came from slowly expanding their base. The key difference is that they expanded their base by slowly convincing voters they were right and not by running as 'Lite Democrats'. They spent a great deal of time and created many think tanks to forge a message that would move the median voter away from the Democratic party. If the Democrats want to expand their base and capture the median voter, then they have to convince people that don't agree with them that their viewpoints are correct and not try to gather voters by pretending to be 'Lite Republicans'. This also means that they have to target their message for people other than their base. The Democratic base is no longer large enough to guarantee a win. For years, the number of self identified Democrats hung around 42% and Republicans was about 33%. The last 30 years have slowly seen those two numbers move to parity. (I think those numbers are correct, but its been awhile since I taught that class. I will look them up when I have some time.) The Democratic base has shrunk and the Republican base has grown. Neither side can win without gathering the median voter. The base is not enough.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 6 January 2006 - 5:46pm
NOT a Militarist??

Not a Militarist?? Does that mean you're something else??

Give us a clue. I'm interested to know what it is that you think you are. I certainly can't figure it out.

You don't seem to know what the heck it is that you're talking about,

certainly as far as the military is concerned!

You're actually kind of amusing though. Just not very well informed.

Are you going to be surprised when you see the next election results and discover that CNN, NY/LA Times, Chris Mathews and the rest, are wrong again! You guys (and GIRLIES) just don't get it.

Is wading in the muck what's really keeping you from running for office?? Hey, I was wrong, you're not amusing...you're REALLY FUNNY!!

Richard's picture
Posted by Richard (not verified) on 6 January 2006 - 11:05pm
You might as well give it up

Your trolling has lost its freshness. I hear there are Ann Coulter pin-ups now. 2D women are much more impressed with such posing. Watch out for paper cuts now!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 January 2006 - 11:17pm
Still though

Unsettling as it is to have a couple Republican war hawks descend with their vile on a thoughtful analysis about Dem Marketing mistakes (they seemingly agree with), it does validate your points MediaGirl.

I'm not seeing any converts from the "Fighting Dems" framing.

NOWsGood's picture
Posted by NOWsGood (not verified) on 9 January 2006 - 6:43am