And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Another thing the good, decent Dems might take careful notice of is what
happened to Kerry. I think he's an asshole and wasn't and isn't fit to
be the President of the US, but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke. Yet, a fair number of Dems not only
didn't support him, they ran away as fast as they could while
simultaneously claiming they were absolutely confident they were gonna
win by huge margins.

And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a
Rumsfeld reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.


Wow!! Ask and ye shall receive. Rumsfeld seems to have announced his
resignation. Our military is already better off than it was yesterday.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:20:30 GMT, Steve wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)


"In the days leading up to the election, Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld
to stay on as defense chief until the end of Bush's second term."

It _is_ the end your second term, cupcake.
You just don't know it yet.

Isn't it amazing how all his "political capital" suddenly depreciated? ;-)

/daytripper (ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!)

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On 8 Nov 2006 17:56:10 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:ba54l25vj1bq6gb1b0elvaph3r5p1u84b3@
4ax.com:

but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops (I'll leave the Freudian aspects alone) rather than a
screwed-up attempt at a lame joke.


Ya know, if anyone has a right to comment on the troops, its him. I think
Kerry is a asshole with less charisma than your average little brown ring,
but I haven't seen anyone actually challenge his statement based upon
facts, like the education level of the troops, or anything like that.

Er, did you read, see, or accidentally overhear anything in the days
after his remark?

So, asking you now, what percentage of those serving in Iraq right now are
college grads?

Roughly extrapolating, I'd say something like 1 in about 7.something.

If its low, why is it forbidden to point this out?

It isn't. Generally speaking as above, there are something on the order
of about 7 enlisted men for each commissioned officer. It's not hard to
figure out, and as such, it would be impossible to "forbid" anyone from
pointing it out.

How is
this any more demoralizing for our troops than, say, promising a Rumsfeld
reign over the Pentagon until the day Bush leaves office.

Saying that there are, by definition, not as many college grads as
non-grads isn't demoralizing. Calling those who choose to serve
"stupid" or similar is, well, stupid. That said, I don't think Kerry
intentionally called anyone stupid - I think he screwed up a stupid,
politically-dangerous joke (and again, I'll leave any possible Freudian
aspects out of the discussion as they'd not be material to the
discussion at hand).

Not to say that the troops aren't selfless heros, but I'd wager that the
super-educated shy away from the military.

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling. FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree, and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.

As to the "super-educated" shying away from the military, it'd be a
small minority that _could_ get "super-educated" prior to joining the
military (depending on the definition of "super-educated"), limited to
educations one can get by about 26-27 years old or MDs, JDs, etc., so
"shying away" really isn't an applicable term. But there are a fair
share of generally well-educated people in the military, and an even
larger share of smart, well-trained technical people proudly serving.

"I support the troops" is a statement that is very easy to make, and push
comes to shove, means little.

I'm not sure what you intend to convey.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

And speaking of pols shooting other pols...
 

On 8 Nov 2006 10:12:22 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops

So when Bush and the wingnut talking heads used that remark *against*
Kerry, they were being dishonest? I'm shocked, shocked.


And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

And I'd offer that you're transparent attempts to foment acrimony
within the Dem ranks are especially lame.

Er, you suspect that posting to ROFF would be a useful tool to "foment
acrimony within the Dem ranks?" You really do need to retune your
tinfoil, Gracie...

Dems have the House. Dems have the Senate.

Well, not yet, but IAC, I'd offer that there's a good chance that rather
than Dems managing to block the most-right of the GOP's legislation,
it'll simply be the GOP blocking the most-left of the Dems...the mundane
(i.e., the non-vote-threatening) will get done as always.

They were sufficiently united to pull that off.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that...

There's going to be disagreement. There are going to be power grabs.
BFD. A willingness to consider differing opinions is a *quality*, not
a liability IMHO.

Absolutely. And which of either end of the spectrum do you think will
actually do it?

Cumbayah, dude.

Hey, get rid of the pinheads on both sides of the aisle, and sure, why
not...

HTH,
R

Joe F.