<p>Quick question, Fundingfather - when was the last time you had an opinion which diverged in any significant way fro the true party line of right wing orthodoxy? </p>
<p>So tell me again - who has a motivation for bias?</p>
<p>How can she fly around in her private plane to WV, OR and SD and spend so much money when she is already in the hole financially? Then I heard that Bill Clinton took a separate privae plane home after the Indiana primary. Has she ever had to live on a budget? For some this may seem like a small point, but her campaign is obviously in its last days and in deep debt.
When I see myself not making trips into our little town because of gas prices, then see her and Bill flying around I think, how can she say she is empathic to the middle class?</p>
<p>It seems like there is no rational reason for her to be lavishly spending the money of her donors.</p>
<p>I just don’t see why anyone should have to pay back her loans… the couple earned over $100 million last year according to tax returns. What’s a few million of self-funding? It’s not even 10%.</p>
<p>“Kluge, why is it so important to set the record of the Swift Boat or Kerry’s service straight? Does it matter to anyone in the world why and how Kerry accepted his duty to go to Vietnam? Will you be so supportive of the role of war heroes when the presidential debate switches to John McCain v Obama?”</p>
<p>I don’t know about Kluge, but I personally was repulsed by the efforts of some conservative McCain critics who have tried to tarnish his record as a POW. I don’t think Obama would stoop to that (just as McCain rejected the tactics of the Swift Boat people). I think it’s important to remember the Swift Boat story, not just because it reminds us of the sleazy tactics that some people will pursue, but also what a candidate needs to do when an attack like that is made. Kerry followed the old approach, which was to refuse to dignify absurd false claims with a response. It’s pretty clear now that a candidate must respond, and must label the claims as gross lies. Both McCain and Obama may have to do this with respect to attacks that come from groups not directly affiliated with the political parties.</p>
<p>" don’t know about Kluge, but I personally was repulsed by the efforts of some conservative McCain critics who have tried to tarnish his record as a POW. "</p>
<p>I share that sentiment completely.</p>
<p>Ditto for me. I sat next to some people at a dinner and could not believe my ears when they belittled his experience as a POW because that was just part of one would have to expect when joining the military! Luckily someone else intervened otherwise there would have been food fights!</p>
<p>“So tell me again - who has a motivation for bias?”</p>
<p>Nice try, kluge. However, you will note that unlike you, I have not made a verdict and declared “The band of brothers” liars. I have stuck with the conclusion of FactCheck which states: "we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth. " Unfortunately, others have allowed their political bias to get in the way and reflexively brand those who take a view other than Kerry’s as liars.</p>
<p>This is the other reason why candidates have to strongly react to lies: once you let the lie get out there and gain momentum, people will keep on believing it no matter how weak the support for it may be.</p>
<p>“no matter how weak the support for it may be”</p>
<p>Well, in this case the weakness of supporting evidence comes from Kerry’s position. Did he ever come up with a story to expalin how, while undergoing “whithering fire”, that no one was injured and even the boats were not hit? If they were undergoing whithering fire, why didn’t they just scoop up the victims and get out of there rather than take the time to tie the damaged boat to one of the other boats and then pull it back?</p>
<p>Look, I don’t want to go through this point by point. I’ve read the accounts, and to me, it’s pretty simple: the overwhelming majority of people who were actually present at the events in question support Kerry’s version of the story. Several of the people on the other side have changed their stories over time, and many of them just weren’t there and are reporting hearsay. As noted by others, the motivation for the whole effort was Kerry’s testimony attacking the war, and in many people’s eyes, attacking American soldiers. That’s something that he certainly did, and people can reasonably object to it. But it’s my judgment, after reading the statements of people on both sides of the issue, that it is much more likely that Kerry’s version of the events is mostly true. I observe that there are people who make the contrary judgment, but I really can’t understand how a fair-minded person could do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt, nice way to go on a tangent. The question was about the need to DISCUSS AD NAUSEAM a story that died a long time and has no relevance to today’s debate. The country judged John Kerry on a record that was a lot more than his sketchy accounts of war heroism. That chapter was written 4 years ago. </p>
<p>It is that important to keep adding your biased opinions that are based on selective reading and trying to pass them as conclusions? Was it so hard to let it go?</p>
<p>Hey, it was the other guy who kept going on about it, and it’s the people who disagree with me who are extremely biased. I just used it as an example of the kind of thing that campaigns used to attract the votes of credulous people. If you prefer, we can shift the debate to a current issue that appeals to credulous people, like whether Obama is a Muslim, or why his lack of a flag pin shows he hates America.</p>
<p>“it’s the people who disagree with me who are extremely biased.”</p>
<p>Thanks for the laugh of the day. Isn’t it always those who disagree with you the ones who are biased?</p>
<p>“If you prefer, we can shift the debate to a current issue that appeals to credulous people”</p>
<p>Like McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq?</p>
<p>That’s a good example, too. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that McCain actually wants US troops in Iraq for 100 years. But he’s a big boy, and if he wants to dish it out, he has to be able to take it. Here’s what he said: “And both Sen. Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal – that means chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we’ve achieved and al Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won’t let that happen.” That’s overblown rhetoric, too. I wish that none of the candidates would misstate the other side’s position, or twist their words. But it’s different from lies, like Obama being a Muslim, or McCain having an out-of-wedlock child. I don’t think either of these candidates will stoop that low.</p>
<p>One hundred years in Iraq. There are some situations that require our involvement for extended periods of time and in most cases Dem’s do not object. Korea is a place where we have had troops and expenses since 1950 and you do not see anyone demanding we get out. Israel a country to which we have and continue to provide trillions of dollars of aid. We have been doing so for 60 years. And will continue forever. I have never heard a democrat saying we should stop. Are the people of Iraq less deserving of our help? Why because they are from a different culture and practice different religions?</p>
<p>I think the challenge for Obama and McCain will be to debate the issues, including what to do about Iraq, on the merits, without just relying on unfair “gotcha” soundbites. What worries me is that I’m not sure debating the issues on the merits is the best way to win an election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is something that the entire country should welcome. It’s also becoming a more plausible scenario by the hour as the reign of the truly polarizing and divisive candidate is coming to a bitter end. </p>
<p>Probably too late for the Democrats, but not a minute too soon for the country!</p>
<p>
Actually, Xiggi - that’s not a tangent, it’s the very essence of what I’m talking about: the moral bankruptcy of people who would employ tactics like the swift boat guys because they feel it’s justified in the “war against the other guys.” It’s just as bad when directed at McCain as when directed at Kerry, and a rational response to each instance should be the same: shame on those who stoop to those tactics. It’s not about Kerry or McCain - it’s about the swift boat guys and their ilk, and the mentality which excuses and justifies their acts.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, you never answered my question. Is it your honest opinion that the extreme right wing view of every event is 100% correct every time? Because you and I agree from time to time. It’s just that when the objective criteria I use to view world events, such as “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” happen to coincide with the right wing view of the world, we agree. When that same test yields the result that the right wing view is wrong, we disagree. I don’t apply an ideological litmus test to everything that happens in the world. I apply the same analysis to claims that the US Government was behind 9/11 and has suppressed all of the information proving that fact as I do to claims that anthropogenic climate change is a phony theory concocted by “liberals” who have successfully suppressed all research which would disprove it. You, on the other hand, scoff at the first and agree with the second. So I repeat: is there any item of right wing orthodoxy which you don’t uncritically accept, or are you a 100% loyal foot soldier, echoing the party line regardless?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kluge, if after all those years of discussing, you still do not sense that the moral bankruptcy of candidates and their supporters is what I find so despicable. It is easy to find it on both sides of the aisle: if it’s not the Swift Boat, it is Dan Rather’s typewriter, or Clinton’s decades of fantastic tales, and on and on! </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the country has shown to be ready to accept questionable morality --especially between the two Bush presidencies-- and issues of character as long as there is a semblance of a political record.</p>
<p>I’m hopeful. Obama and McCain both retain some shreds of truth-telling and resistance to sleazy campaign tactics. I don’t think either will be perfect, but I hope for a relatively decent campaign.</p>