What “haunts Kerry” (according to the AOL newsfeed) is his youthful days as a staunch protestor against war after serving his country in Vietnam.
As opposed to what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user who disappeared for months on end while serving his country in Texas.
And Bush’s numbers still appear strong while Kerry’s seem soft.
Ohhh, that wacky liberal media…
PAD
• 
PAD seemed less political in his youth, from his fiction, anyway. I wonder if the sterotype is true for all people, that a person becomes more concerned with politics as one gets older.
I wonder, because though politics isn’t unimportant to me, as my favorite writers get older, that may become all they talk about and write about–their viewpooint in politics.
Rather than fascinating stories with vivid characters in gripping situations, politically-motivated stories with propped-up characters corresponding to real-life politicians in fairly simple situations, all of which is memorable only because it stands in stark contrast to the breakthrough imagination said writers used to display with great ability.
–John
I wonder, because though politics isn’t unimportant to me, as my favorite writers get older, that may become all they talk about and write about–their viewpooint in politics.
To which I say pfui. If you don’t like the political commentary, don’t read it. There are currently, by my count, two out of nine political threads on the front page of PAD’s blog home page (two and a half if you count the Doonesbury B.D. discussion thread, which is mostly about Doonesbury and comics themselves rather than Iraq). Why not read and discuss on the FALLEN ANGELS or CAPTAIN MARVEL or Kill Bill or “How cute is Caroline” threads if you want non-politics? PAD’s current comics and fiction work are not about current politics, although one might take the broader view and say they are connected—as are many things—by discussions of the human condition.
In short, I disagree with your POV, tho’ I will defend your right to express it. But if you feel that “all [PAD] talk[s] about and write about[s]–their viewpooint in politics”…is true…well, you’re missing some of the most fun and spirited sections of this blog.
Another reason to drop AOL it sounds like…
I think the one thing saving Bush is exactly that perception of him. “Hey, he screwed up his life! He’s a mouth-breather just like me! Heck, he can’t even talk good! I want him representing me!”
There’s also very little public perception of Kerry because he’s been careful. Appear too bold, too soon and they slap a label on you. Remember Howard “The Howler” Dean?
The most recent Kerry ad has the Senator talking to the camera directly, in a close head shot, telling you what his positions are and the web site where they’re written. It’s simple for Bush’s rich buddies to caricture his opponent if you don’t recognize him as a human being. There, for the first time in a Kerry ad, I saw a human being talking and looking straight at me.
The same thing can’t be copied in a Bush ad, because Bush doesn’t want to get that close to the electorate. And in a face shot that close, the viewer would think, “There’s Bubbles, but where’s Michael Jackson?”
Actually, the media has confronted Bush a lot more about his past than Kerry (that is the “liberal media,” not the “right-wing” talk radio, etc.). The rumors (and that is exactly what they are — completely unsubstantiated rumors and arguments from silence) about Bush not even showing up for duty have had an enormous amount of coverage considering the lack of evidence.
But that misses the real point. I am fair enough to see Bush’s weaknesses of the past. The difference is he does not just “say” he has changed, his actions demonstrate it in the areas that matter to me. The same cannot be said for Kerry. He has not truly changed in his core beliefs and actions from the past. If you agree with his beliefs from the past, then great! But what exactly does he believe in now? Because what he has done in the past is the only clear indication of what he will do in the future. What he says seems vary with the wind. He votes for the war then is against it. He is for gay marriage then he is against it. Bush may have many faults, but inconsistency is not one of them.
Bottom line, I think people really do forget the past (as they did with both Clinton and Bush) when the candidate has a clear vision for the future. Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision. I have yet to hear a vision from Kerry other than that he is not Bush.
So while it may be close, I am confident Bush will win again. All things being equal, vision and passion carry the day.
James
Just hope Kerry doesn’t get elected. There are poor, poor choices this year. Too much of a fat cat entitled rich boy for me. More so than Bush even. Don’t like either of them. Which would be worse in the white house – I’m not sure. Bush is opportunistic and so is Kerry. Kerry has a terrible record of performace in Congress (to me) and Bush got us into this crazy Iraq thing. Take your pick, but both leave a bad taste in my mouth. PFUI! There, its out.
There, I’m squarely in the middle. Every one can take pot shots at me.
Kathleen,
“Another reason to drop AQL it sounds like.”
Why? What they are saying is true. He is “haunted” by the protests in that he knows how they look now. Many veterans, Reagan Democrats and Clinton Republicans do not look kindly on war protesters.
Kerry knows this. So much so that The New York Times reported today about veterans who claim that Kerry attended a Kansas city meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of senators was discussed.
“The campaign pressed other veterans who were in Kansas City, Mo., 33 years ago to reexamine their hazy memories while assuring them that Mr. Kerry was sure he had not been there.”
“John Musgrave, a disabled ex-Marine from Baldwin City, Kan., who told The Kansas City Star that Mr. Kerry was at the meeting, said he got a call from John Hurley, the Kerry campaign’s veterans coordinator.
“He said, ‘I’d like you to refresh your memory'”
As I heard on the radio today…
“Kerry’s military record: Three purple hearts.
“Bush’s military record: One dentist appointment.”
All things being equal, vision and passion carry the day.
But all things are not remotely equal in this case. I understand your point, and I agree that Kerry absolutely needs to present a platform and a set of ideas that goes beyond “I’m not Bush” — but frankly, as I’ve said before around here, at this point Bush’s presidency has been such an absolute disaster that I’d happily vote for pretty much anyone or anything if it meant getting the current group of policy-makers in office.
Sure, in terms of my own views, on a scale of 1 to 10 Kerry’s maybe a 4-5 … but Bush is in double-digit negative numbers. I’ll take a 4 over that.
TWL
“Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision.”
Back in the 70s, he had lots of them.
PAD
Bush may not be any where as articulate as Clinton, but at least he has a vision
And I think Bush has no vision.
From the very start, he saw Saddam and that was it.
Even during this “war on terror”, we give up bin Laden for awhile to focus upon Saddam.
That’s vision?
That’s a distinct lack of vision, and lack of goals, imo.
Vision, in this case, would be taking things one step at a time, one goal at a time (ie, get bin Laden, then maybe do something about Hussein).
“Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Listening to the canidates debate.
Shout about it,
Laugh about it when you got to choose
Anyway you look at it you lose.”
from ‘Mrs. Robinson’ by Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel
“Ohhh, that wacky liberal media…”
I guess you haven’t really been paying attention to the regular Bush-bashing AOL likes to perform at its front gate. My favorite was the heading next to a picture of Bush which said “When did you lose your faith?” Gee, I dunno, AOL, when did you stop beating YOUR wives?
Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President….and then vote for the other guy.
Re: comments about the “liberal media”
While I can’t say that there are no media outlets with a liberal bias, there are just as many, if not more, that have a conservative/Republican bias.
(Incidentally, I make the distinction between conservative and Republican because what the Republican regime is and has been doing for the last three years is anything but “conservative.” Launching an unprovoked war against the wishes of most of the rest of the world is not a “conservative” action, however just you may believe it to be.)
John Stewart, on one of the few broadcasts of the O’Franken Factor before we here in Chicago lost Air America (not a big loss, really, since Franken, the headliner, isn’t a very good broadcaster), made an excellent analogy regarding the American media. He likened it to a bunch of six-year-olds playing soccer — which, if you’ve ever seen a game of soccer played by six-year-olds, you know exactly what it’s like. Somewhere, in this giant, roiling mass of children, is a ball, and everybody there is just chasing after it, no matter where on the field it goes. That’s the American media — they go where they think they’ll get the most viewers. It’s up to the producers to decide whether a conservative or liberal slant will attract their target demographic.
Any claim to a media agenda is fallacy. The media has only one, and it’s the same as all other businesses in our capitalist society — to make money. Everything else is just a means to that end.
Well… I can’t really say anything about this other than, well, Bush still has more money to finance his campaign, so no matter what he did, he just get the media to look the other way.
On the upside, when I last saw Kerry on tv, he stragicly avoided talking about Dubya’s mess of a news conference, which, I have to say, was a smart move on his part. Plus it look like he got a new hair cut… and hammered away at the economy, which, if he’s gonna win this election, that should be his focus. Worry about Dubya’s drug addled past, or how he’s running the War in Iraq could easily backfire on him.
And completely off-topic, what happened to Cowboy Pete? Two weeks of new Smallville and Angel episdes, and not a single blurb about car insurance or Fred-of-Nine. What gives, PAD?
Re: John “I’m Not Bush” Kerry:
Words of wisdom from my grandfather (credentials available on request):
If a first-term president is running, barring rare occasions where the other candidate is incredible (I think that Bill Clinton might qualify there), it’s always a referendum on the current president.
I’d also prefer it if there was more to Kerry’s campaign beyond “I’m not Bush,” but the fact is that there are a lot of people for whom the decision will be to Bush, or not to Bush. And since it really does come down to that, I’m voting against Bush.
Perhaps the reason we’re all getting political as we get older is that it permeates more aspects of our lives.
As a kid we’re usually taken care of and shielded from some of the realities of life. But as we learn to survive on our own, politics enters every aspect of our everyday lives.
In the last month alone, you could well argue that politicians have affected policies on jobs (example: out-sourcing), who you can marry (example: gay marriages), who can vote (example: criminal records, age of voters etc) where you can live (example: rehousing, redfevelopment, Israel/Palestine, Turkish/Grek Cyprus), what you can watch and how (example: Nipplegate), what you can read/see (example: don’t photograph coffins unofficially)and even the price of food you get from the store (example: inport/export costs).
In short, politics is part of everything we do and to not have an opinion is to remain behind the shield we had when we were young.
Now, it depends how vocal you want to be about those effects it has, but as we grow older we become aware of what we want, what we deserve, what others have and what we don’t. So it seems perfectly natural to me that we start to question politics.
For my money, Peter can go on being just as (or even more) politcial. Because it raises questions and gets people debating and despite what you may sometimes hear elsewhere, that’s what’s not unpatriotic or treouble-making… it’s what a good democracy and an interesting life are all about.
John
(not the one above)
Craig,
We obviously disagree on a lot. But your definition of “vision” seems somewhat contradictory.
Taking things “one at a time” is pretty pragmatic. But it doesn’t take much vision to deal with something that’s obvious and standing in front of you.
To me, vision is summed up in “Some people see things the way they are and ask why? I see things the way they could be and say, “Why not?'”
Also, very few of us – yet alone the President of the United States – have the luxuryof only worrying about one thing at a time. We have to worry about our jobs, our bills and how to juggle them, our kids, family, friends, etc.
Just job hunting alone, if you are only focused on one thing, you may let 9 other opportunities pass you by.
And great writers, like PAD, have a vision for a series or TV show/comic/etc. months and years down the line. They may not know how they’ll eventually get to where they want to go with storylines, but they know where they’re going, at least.
Same with Bush. His vision is in eradicating terrorism and having Iraq be a huge step toward a more peaceful and free Middle East. While it may not always “go according to plan”, he knows what he wants the result to be.
While doing this, he has to worry about other potential threats and powers in the world, trade, and out multitude of domestic issues.
It is one daunting job for anyone, and anyone who even considers a serious run for the job has at least some of my respect.
“But it doesn’t take much vision to deal with something that’s obvious and standing in front of you. To me, vision is summed up in “Some people see things the way they are and ask why? I see things the way they could be and say, “Why not?'”
I appreciate a George Bernard Shaw misquote as much as the next literary snob, but putting that aside, you have just managed to nail what is lacking in the Bush administration.
When I was two years old, there was a pot of water boiling on the stove. My mother usually let me play with her pots and pans. I saw this one and, obviously, I figured I could play with it. Before my parents noticed, I managed to get to the pot and upend it on myself. I carry to this day the burn marks. Scars from doing what came obviously.
It is *precisely* when something seems to be obvious and right in front of you that the *most* vision is required. To see something as “obvious” is to see it as simplistic, and very little in the world is simplistic, beginning with the world itself. Because it is “obvious” that, if you look around, the world is flat. It would have to be. It couldn’t be round. That’s insane. If the world were round, you would fall off. Obviously.
In making the “obvious” choices, the Bush Administration has fallen off the world. I don’t think George H.W. Bush was especially great shakes as President, but he articulated fairly well in his memoirs why getting into an extended war in Iraq was A Bad Idea, even though it seemed “obvious” to many that he should. Every single reason he enumerated just by thinking about it, his son has discovered by direct experience. Senior’s vision didn’t cost thousands upon thousands of lives; Junior’s lack of vision has, with no end in sight.
Junior is not selling Americans a vision; he is selling a bill of goods. Unfortunately, many Americans are likewise looking only at the obvious (Saddam bad = worth it)and are unable to see past it. Iraq is not Germany nor Japan. It is not Germany, which was so collectively appalled by the horrors its leadership had engendered that it wanted to distance itself. It is not Japan where the emperor willingly lay aside his claims of divinity in order to facilitate the rebuilding of his country. Iraq is a morass, a snakepit of enmity embroiled in religious hostility dating back generations, and we are now smack in the middle of it while the rest of the world sits back and laughs its collective áššëš off, because what was obvious to them was ignored by the American leadership.
A horse has vision, but with blinders on, it’s not the most reliable of visions to depend upon.
PAD
The smarter candidate will win.
Just like last time.
And then the courts will overrule it.
Just like last time.
TWL
PAD,
I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but I think you are mischaracterizing my position.
I do not feel the Bush Administration is making “obvious” choices 100% of the time.
If you would reread my post and the post I was responding to, what I was basically trying to say
is what may seem “obvious” to those watching the war on TV – our soldiers are getting killed, Iraqis are protesting= we should “obviously” cut our losses and leave – may not actualy be the whole story (indeed, as far as I can tell, there have been no signs of a nationwide uprising against our troops, and many – especially the Kurds are grateful and working with us).
All the words we can type from now to infinity have little chance of being as powerful as the images of flag-draped coffins containing our servicepeople.
To some, those photos reinforce the need to leave. To others, it reinforces the belief that they will not die in vain.
And, from where I sit, the benefits of what we are doing – the fruits of our labor, if you will – may not be apparent until long after Dubya is back home in Texas.
It is a complicated world, and a complicated task we are undertaking. There are very rarely slam-dunk solutions to complicated problems, or else, well, they wouldn’t be complicated and would already be solved.
Obviously.
Bill and Tim,
That has to be the most succinct and entertaining one-two punch I have seen on this blog.
Thanks,
Jerome
Bill and Tim,
That has to be the most succinct and entertaining one-two punch I have seen on this blog.
Thanks,
Jerome
That’s the PAD blog for you–better stuff than what you get on TV performed by highly paid teleprompter readers. Anybody what to put up some big money and hire us for a talk radio network. Anyone? Mr McFarlane? hello?
Along those lines–has anyone been keeping up with Air America? I tried to listen once, the one time I had the opportunity–it was painful and this was when they were talking about something I AGREED with!
While I’m not sure I’d put in quite the same the terms, this sentiment more or less covers my feelings:
http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/
I’m not a huge fan of the man, but four more years of the alternative scares the hëll out of me.
Bill,
Re: Air America
Why am I not surprised?
Franken can actualy be funny in small doses. he does a great Phil Gramm impersonation for example. And I remember watching C-SPAN a bit ago where he was speaking to an audience about his opposition to the Iraq War, but added that he supported our action in Afghanistan, adding, “Nader would have bombed Afghanistan”, which drew a large amount of laughter.
But, realy, are he and a comedienne-turned-political-expert like Janeane Garafolo the best Air America could do? Why not get somebody like Tavis Smiley? I don’t normally agree with the man, but at least he can be taken seriously.
BTW: This week’s TIME magazine is great. It lists who they think are the world’s 100 Most Influential people, and describes their lives and their ideas. It has everybody from Bush, Kerry and mandela to JK Rowling (for getting millions of children interested in reading) to Bill Gates (as much for his philanthropy as his business acumen) to Peter Jackson to Bono. Very interesting stuff.
//what haunts Bush, is his youthful days as a drinking, partying drug user//
Did I miss something, or is it still the case that for all the rumors about it there is not one shred of evidence that Bush was ever a drug user?
“Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President….and then vote for the other guy.”
This is why Bush still has good numbers. As long as Middle America is scared of the “brown people” then Bush will get elected. It doesn’t matter that we support Pakistan which hides terrorists and Saudi Arabia which breeds them in Madrasas. We do this for two reasons.. we’re afraid that the Pakistan nukes will get into the hands of extremists and we are addicted to the Middle East black crack that is oil..
But we can’t expect other countries to disarm their nukes while we still have 1000’s all over the States in bunkers and with 55% of all vehicles sold last year being SUV’s.. I doubt the black crack habit will be squashed anytime soon.
As far as Kerry is concerned. Until he starts to really spend the cash to defend himself from Bush .. he has even less of a chance to even dent the Bush numbers. And his handlers need to keep crap like ” .. I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted againsted it.. ” from coming out of his mouth. He’s going to have to be more careful.
Chris,
No, you didn’t miss anything. Except the memo that states that when conservatives play rough or point out unpleasant truths about liberals, they’re “mean-spirited”, but liberals slandering conservatives without evidence is par for the course.
Ben,
Middle America is not afraid of the “brown people”. It is racist for you to state otherwise. Are SOME of the more unenlightened anxious about Arab men and painting them with a broad brush? Sure. But to aply it to a group of people in general is just wrong.That is like saying the New Black Panther Party in Philly, which consists of uh, FOUR misguided hateful people represents
the views of al blacks, or that there is no difference between someone who may think some affirmative action programs are unfair is equal to the hateful words and actions of skinheads.
Middle America is not afraid of “the brown people”. They are afraid of killers who hate and target us like Osama Bin Laden. And HE is being targeted by us like he never was before by the Bush Administration, regardless of the reason.
On a final note, one of the better people I know is in Philly is named Zoreh and she is Iranian. She is one of the sharpest and sweetest people you’ll ever meet, and she has had to put up with SOME ignorant people after 9/11. But she doesn’t blame the people as much for their irrational fear as she does the madmen who created the fear in the first place and give people who “look like her” a bad name.
To Jerome Maida :
It’s not racist to say that Middle America Whites are afraid of “brown people”.. because quite a bit that I’ve encountered in my 35 years are afraid. I’ve listen to them talk in restaurants in Missouri, Illinois, Kansas…etc..etc. I’ve heard people say they’ve moved out of neighborhoods because it “smells to much like curry” among other such racist code words. I wasn’t being mean to people of colour, but to those who are the racists or elitists who think their religion or way of life is better and we must bring ours to them.
I wasn’t being mean to people like your friend. Please go back and read what I wrote as many times as you need to in order to comprehend what I said. In all of the post it NEVER puts blame on any of the people your first reading made it sound like in your mind. And you contradict yourself by saying your friend has encountered quite a few people who have treated her poorly after 9/11 because of her skin.. you pretty much proved my point.
But in any event. This is just my opinion.
Enough of this liberally slanted political commentary crap…I WANT COWBOY PETE!!
round up the shows and tell me what you think! It’s an order dámņ you!
or continue with the politics all you want but at least do both..COWBOY PETE!!
“As long as Middle America is scared of the “brown people” then Bush will get elected.”
Riiiight. So, if this had been an attack by a White guy our reactions would be radically different than they are now? C’mon! THINK man! Racism is a genuine evil, don’t diminish it by tossing it around willy nilly.
Somewhat on topic–what “race” does Saddam belong to anyway? Aren’t Arabs and Persions Caucasion? (unless one only accepts lily white for inclusion in the Caucasion Club, in which case there’s just no hope for you). I’m just curious since some people like to claim Iraq and Afghanistan were racist wars and I’m wondering where they’re coming from.
So, if this had been an attack by a White guy our reactions would be radically different than they are now? C’mon! THINK man! Racism is a genuine evil, don’t diminish it by tossing it around willy nilly.
Well, Oklahoma City WAS an attack by a white guy (one with whom I shared a first name, alas), and I think our reactions (certainly the “official” one) was rather substantially different than it is now. Whether that’s because he was white, because he was American, or for some other reason is of course open to debate, but I don’t think the position is so totally laughable as you’re implying.
TWL
Ben,
Thanks for clarifying your remarks. Clarifying mine, I’m just saying that to paint Middle America with a broad brush due to some people you have encountered is the same as someone I know who hates blacks because a young black man mugged and hurt his grandfather.
Don’t condemn the many for the actions of a few. I don’t. And my friend, who has even more reason too, does not either.
That’s all.
“Well, Oklahoma City WAS an attack by a white guy (one with whom I shared a first name, alas), and I think our reactions (certainly the “official” one) was rather substantially different than it is now. Whether that’s because he was white, because he was American, or for some other reason is of course open to debate, but I don’t think the position is so totally laughable as you’re implying.”
Tim, who were we going to invade? The reaction to the Kennedy assassination was different from the one to Pearl Harbor but it wasn’t because Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t Japanese!
We had no trouble hating Germans, Russians, and other enemies of the fair skinned variety. If Osama were white it would have been the same and any suggestian otherwise…well, “laughable” is being kind.
This is nowwhere near on topic, but I just got a shiny-pretty bluetooth mouse and keyboard combo. I’m typing this from across my apartment. It works from 30 feet away from the little bluetooth toggle. Sweeet 😀
Sorry Everyone!
I would’ve joined this spirited discussion sooner but I just spent my ninth consecutive Sunday going to see back to back showings of Mel Gibson’s monumental film masterpiece “The Passion of the Christ”.
Andrew, please leave us your address and when you normally check your bank account and credit cards online.
Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President….and then vote for the other guy.
========
OK.
Self: “Hey, self, which candidate does Bin Laden want to become President?”
Self: “Dunno. Never met the man. All I know is he hates Americans; I didn’t realize he had a preference between Democrats and Republicans. He’s been attacked by both Clinton and Bush, and neither got him. So I don’t know that he really cares. I highly doubt there’s any American alive that, if elected President, would cause Bin Laden to stop his attacks or turn himself in or spontaneously explode. And his capture is more dependent on the effectiveness of the military trying to capture him than the man in the Oval Office.”
OK, now what? Wait, I got it. How about checking with Hitler? Genghis Khan? General Zod? Cause I have about as much chance finding out from them their political leanings as I do Bin Laden.
Wait a minute, I got it- How about thinking for myself, evaluating the candidates, and choosing for myself? I’ll bet I know who would make a better President than Bin Laden. Or Zod.
Or is that TOO obvious a solution?
(Apologies if I missed some sarcasm. I doubt it, though, and since that’s not the first or even the tenth time I’ve seen that somewhere, I had to say something.)
“Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President….and then vote for the other guy.”
I agree with Ray Cornwall that it makes a lot more sense to decide for oneself which candidate is better than to base the decision on who Osama likes or dislikes more. But strictly as a hypothetical exercise — “Which person would Osama Bin Laden prefer to face as an opponent” — it’s an interesting question.
Having been in some adversarial situations, I have two separate thoughts on who I’d prefer to go up against if I were waging war on the US.
(1) As a person who believes in non-violence, and who wants what is right to prevail rather than simply to have my way prevail, I prefer to go up against people who are willing to talk, to listen, to consider and think things over, who are capable of thinking clearly and intelligently, and who realize that there is good (and bad) in all of us rather than one side being all good and the other all bad.
(2) As a competitive person who enjoys seeing my side win, I like going up against unreasonable opponents who ignore facts they dislike, act without thinking, and behave in ways that alienate even those who are somewhat in agreement with them.
So, if Osama is a pacifistic idealist trying to create a better world, I think he’d prefer Kerry to Bush. If Osama is a shrewd strategist intent on crushing his opponents, I think he’d prefer Bush to Kerry. And if Osama is a psychotic fanatic, I don’t have a clue who he’d prefer and suspect he may not either.
I’m inclined to go with the third option.
insideman – Oh, by no means could I AFFORD the keyboard/mouse combo. I get to eat Ramen this week. But I have pretty stuff! *stomach rumbles* QUIET, YOU!
Hey, this link says everything I could:
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/
You know that the democrats never made much of a fuss when it was found out that Clinton was a draft dodger
“You know that the democrats never made much of a fuss when it was found out that Clinton was a draft dodger”
Good thing he never billed himself as “a war president,” huh.
PAD
“Ask yourself which candidate Bin Laden wants to become President….and then vote for the other guy.”
Me? I’m voting for Lex Luthor again.
I approve of his economic, social and international policy programs, even though I disapprove of his destroy-Superman policy.
Four more years! Four more years!
I would have been more upset with Clinton dodging the draft if he’d, you know, actually dodged the draft.
He didn’t, of course. His number was never called up, so there was no way for him to dodge the draft.
In re: AOL’s news story: I’m not on AOL, but their newsfeeds are basically all AP and Reuters stories, just like 95% of the national/international news sources on the Web (including Yahoo, Excite, and most daily papers). So pinning this on AOL is likely blaming the wrong culprit.
In re: Air America: Franken’s improved dramatically in the few weeks he’s been on the air. I’ll agree that he was rough to start with, but he’s developed into a decent host quickly, and the show is a good mix of humor and honest discussion of the day’s events. I’ve noticed that unlike many talk radio hosts, Franken is actually respectful of the views of his guests and callers, and lets them say their piece. He honestly DISCUSSES things with them, and he’s never belligerant.
I’m also a big fan of Marty Kaplan’s “So What Else is News?” and the late morning program “Unfiltered” with Chuck D and Lizz Winstead.
But the crown jewel of Air America, as far as I’m concerned, is Randi Rhodes. She’s incredible, and I try to make a point of listening to at least some of her show every day, even if I don’t listen to any of the rest of AA.
Have only heard Janeane Garofolo’s nighttime program, “The Majority Report,” a few times — I liked it, but not enough to chain myself to the computer all night when I’m already there all day. And I still have yet to hear the early morning program, “Morning Sedition.”
Mr. David can be politcal as much as he wants to be. It’s his board. But talking about President Bush as a drunk or whatever only makes you (IMHO) seem childish. You sound as silly as the right wing talk show hosts who denigrate Ted Kennedy, JFK and Bill Clinton for their mistakes of the past. The truth is a lot of those hosts have done worst things. You mentioned that the emperor of Japan during WW Two renouced his claims of divinty to help rebuild his country. AFTER Democrat Harry S Truman gave the ok to drop two atomic bombs which killed well over 100,000 innocent Japanese.
Why do you complain about different religious factions in Iraq? There different religious factions in America who have been at each other for centuries. That one of the prices of freedom.
To me, the vision thing in Iraq is clear; help make Iraq a democracy. Period. Bring freedom to the middle east. And dont give me that old line of “some people can’t handle freedom.”
The world can laugh it’s ášš off all it wants. But America tried to feed Somalia, America tried to stop ethnic cleansing, Mexicans cross the border to come to America, Hatian and Cuban built boats and brave shark infested waters to get to America. and yes 50 million Iraqis are free because of America.
I know there are no Starbucks, Wendys or Foot Lockers there yet. But it took a while to get this country going too.
The truth be told if Senator Kerry were elected, he would not do a dámņ thing differently.
forgive my spelling errors
aj