An Interesting Read on Character As An Issue

Here’s a fascinating, and non-vitriolic look at the ‘character’ issue for both candidates. Note that just because I’m unhappy with the polarization of politics right now that I’m not dismissing politics or the importance of the election. And note that I’ll publicly commit to aggressively attack anyone who – after the election – immediately launches into a partisan effort to hamstring whichever candidate is elected.

That’s my pledge, and I’d love to see other polibloggers take it as well.

The column is by Craig Crawford, of Congressional Quarterly (via Taegan Goddard), and I’ll be reading a lot more of his stuff.He says:

Someone like me, who never served in the military, has no business passing judgment on a combat veteran’s record – and I am not doing that here. Anyone such as Kerry, who carries shrapnel in his body as a result of service to his country, deserves to boast if he wants to. But politics is not always fair, and Kerry’s eagerness to harness his military background for political purposes is haunting him. It fits a lifelong pattern of grooming himself for high office. Voters like ambition, but they’d rather not see you sweat.

and

We learned that, unlike Kerry, he [Bush] was most willing to use his privileged status to avoid harm’s way in Southeast Asia.

But in light of Bush’s hawkish presidency, claims that he dodged a fight do not fit the pattern of how voters see his character.

Instead, Bush’s military record fits a character pattern that many voters like about him. His war years demonstrate that this is not a man who spent his entire adult life plotting to run for president.

For starters, how lame it was for Bush to lose his Texas Air National Guard flight status simply because he missed a physical examination. But it does fit his image as a regular guy who cannot stand paperwork.

Even if Democrats could prove their unsubstantiated claim that Bush was AWOL in the summer of 1972, it is not clear that enough voters are going to care to make a difference.

A great analysis, and one that points to where the Democrats must not go if they’re going to have a chance (certainly, a chance with me – and I assume that I’m pretty typical).

30 thoughts on “An Interesting Read on Character As An Issue”

  1. “how lame it was for Bush to lose his Texas Air National Guard flight status simply because he missed a physical examination” What people need to realize about the context of GW losing his flight status is this. The F-102 was being phased out, and there was a glut of qualified pilots. It’s only natural for someone in the guard who knew he was going to be getting out, and not going to be trained in a new aircraft to let that expire.
    As for your pledge. Good Luck, I know that if Kerry wins, I am going to go out of my way to give him no quarter and cut him no slack. See when my guy was being called a chimp, I took it a little bit personally. If I can do my part to in some small way hurt those who identify with Kerry on that same level I am going to do it. People need to learn that acting like a childish horrible human being has consequences and what they sow they will also reap.

  2. …if Kerry wins, I am going to go out of my way to give him no quarter and cut him no slack. See when my guy was being called a chimp, I took it a little bit personally.

    Yeah, and I’ll take it personnaly if the next President – whoever he is – can’t defend me or my kids, or run the country because half the population – pick either half – is so resentful that they won’t give him the support and legitimacy that he needs.

    When you’re standing over the smoking crater of the next major terrorist attack, will you feel better knowing that the President spent all his political capital battling internal opponents and didn’t have any left over to run the country?

    A.L.

  3. Why is it that non-veterans feel obliged to state that they won’t pass judgement on the combat records of veterans? I think it’s an abdication of the responsibility to think in favor of political correctness.

    I’m not a combat veteran, yet I feel perfectly qualified to say that a wounded man who could take the medivac but instead braves enemy fire to rescue a worse-wounded comrade has done a heroic thing. Who would call him a coward? Is that not passing judgement?

    If a soldier were to make false claims to get a medal, it would certainly be a despicable (not to mention criminal) thing to do. Who would defend making criminally false claims? Is that not a judgement?

  4. If there is a terrorist attack on this country and Kerry is the president, I think the only reponse those on the right should have is to immediately blame Kerry, and do our best to undermine any efforts he makes in response to it. Only when the left sees their hypocrisy and apologizes for their past sins, will I give one whit about supporting a president John Kerry. This nation is so polarized that only a violent confrontation between right and left will reconcile which vision for America can survive. I’m from the Michael Moore school of thought so luckily any terrorist attack on NY or Washington DC will kill mostly democrats, so we would be off to a good start there.

  5. While I won’t go as far as T. Luke, I don’t believe that any President deserves a free pass, just because his is President. However, the pledge is about fighting “hamstringing”, and that I would do up to a point, but there are things Kerry wants to do that I want to see him tied up in knots to stop, if necessary.

    praktike has a point about McCain, but not much of one. McCain could reasonably be seen as a RINO, and THAT, rather than his silence about his record, might have been his problem. Kerry might have been better off if he had mentioned being in Nam once of twice, but his constant litany looks deeply loony.

  6. There’s nothing like the idiocy of your fellows to take the steam out of a good mad. “That’ll learn ‘em” is a damnfool way to go through life. So’s “good for the goose is good for the gander”. On the other hand, I’ll be damned if I’d be easy on Kerry just because I despise his aristocratic, elitist ass.

    I vow to treat Kerry exactly the same way I treated Bush, which is to say, if he wins narrowly, I vow to make fun of him, mock his intelligence, mutter sulfurously about the downfall of the Republic, and get over it by the summer of the following year.

    But we rally ’round the office, not the office-holder. If that miserable gigolo is the office-holder the next time we get walloped, yes, I also vow to rally to his banner. And hope like hell he’s more worthy of it than I fear he is.

  7. AL,

    Kerry can’t defend you or your kids because of who he is, who he’s indebted to, and what he believes. He will be an ineffectual war president (or worse, a something-to-prove, LBJ-style sucking chest wound) even if every Republican moves to Australia after the election.

    Also, based on the way they presented themselves at their convention, I think it’s fair to conclude that the Democrats will try to implement a lot of less-than-zero-sum class-war idiocy on the domestic policy side. Republicans and other capitalist-Americans have every right to obstruct those efforts.

  8. “Praktike”:http://windsofchange.net/archives/005430.php#27926

    Yes, he did lose. Some of us are still a bit miffed about that – and about the way it happened. George W. Bush has been better than I expected, but let’s just say my expectation level made that less difficult than it might have been.

    Character is somewhat difficult ground for both parties, as things stand now. My only surprise is that the Democratic Party is apparently fool enough to be surprised by this news.

    I deeply wish McCain had taken the 2000 GOP nomination. (a) He would have crushed Gore, and we’d have none of this idiocy about stolen elections (hellooo, the rules have only been in place for 200+ years…); (b) He would have made a better President, IMO, one able to inspire the nation when America needed it and move people to get behind the necessary war on Islamofascism; (c) We wouldn’t have to worry about Kerry being President in 2004.

    Having said all that, McCain _didn’t_ win the nomination.

    I can sit here and piss and moan about that – with limited credibility, because IANAA (I Am Not An American) – or I can ask: “so, given where America is at right now, what needs to be done in the policy realm?”

    The first course of action leads to near-maniacal obsession with a candidate, and the Democratic Party has taken that road. The second leads to a focus on issues. If America is unfortunate enough to have John Kerry as President by the end of 2004, I hope U.S. Republicans take the second road. Kerry’s tendencies will give them ample ammo, and it’s a far more productive place to be.

  9. “*Character*”:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=character

    bq. _”This is not about Vietnam. It is about character.”_

    Craig Crawford has hit on a searing point of many concerning this election. Maybe people are finally coming around to the fact that character does matter. More often times than not it is those that choose to ignore character that are the ones who complain the loudest. Everyone seems to want some one in a leadership position that has strong moral and ethical fiber. The problem is when they find it they do everything possible to discredit it. Maybe it’s because we look at our selves and our own short comings and don’t like what we see in the mirror. Maybe it’s because we really don’t care. Maybe it’s because the win at any cost and the end justifies the means is now so ingrained in our society we see no hope of reversing the downfall. What ever the reasons we seem to set the bar for character a little lower instead of raising it. Finding all the reasons in the world to place the blame some where else other than where it ultimately lies.

  10. Like most but I guess not all commenters here, I have friends and family. Surprise–they don’t all toe my political line! Second surprise: Neither Bush nor Kerry is Hugo Chavez! For that matter Bush is no Abraham Lincoln, and we don’t have to assume that Kerry would be McClellan (1864 version).

    So I’ll gladly join A.L. and work to support a President able to work with Congress, and able to pursue the electorate’s version of what our foreign policy should be regarding militant Islamism and all the rest. If our country really is strong and really is a democracy, we can stand four years of John Kerry, or four more years of GW Bush.

  11. ‘Kerry’s eagerness to harness his military
    background for political purposes is haunting
    him’ … given the recent posts in other blogs
    re a sleep disorder ‘parasomnia’ and its
    attendant symptoms, I suspect the ‘nightmares’
    referred to are much as Scrooge’s own night
    time visits by Morley ..the ghosts of wars
    past have come back to haunt Kerry and portend
    his future. Perhaps rattling medals instead
    of chains to horrify his sleep.

  12. Regarding Bush’s National Guard service – I think it’s worth noting that at the time he enlisted, the unit he was joining had jets flying in Vietnam. The unit was recalled to the states before Bush completed his flight training, but when he joined, there was every reason to believe that he could be sent overseas…

  13. I don’t think I agree, although the thesis is so timid it’s hard to tell. It’s certainly about character, but it’s also about Vietnam. I think we’re finally going to have a referendum on Vietnam, that has been delayed for 30+ years. The difference being that Iraq will be the replay: a Vietnam that the US wins. And that will help to correct the Marxisant myths that were given legitimacy when the “false truce” was declared after the cowardly and unjustifiable flight from Saigon, leaving those who had trusted us to be slaughtered indescriminately. And a large part of the responsibility for that slaughter, as well as the millions killed in Cambodia in the vacuum created by our withdrawal, rests on the shoulders of none other than John F. Kerry for his false “Winter Soldier” testimony.

    “About character?” I’d say it’s about a good deal more than that. If there’s the slightest justice, this election won’t even be close. A margin of 20% would help to clear the air. And it’s also a referendum on the press, which can probably account for a vote margin in favor of Kerry of 10% as a result of their purposeful framing of the issues (or simply ignoring them in a fatal nostalgia for their “coming of age” experience.) Thus the real margin, after accounting for the distortion of the electoral landscape by these sons of yore, would have been closer to 30%.

    I’m sorry but I can pass judgment on John Kerry’s “performance” over the years, because I bolong to the generation that listened to him, and was misled by he and his ilk, always assured that they knew enough to ignore the constraints of honesty. Yes, I imagine that’ll make one or two Vietnam vets crack a smile after all the years of “stuffing it” about the “mini-JFK.” Might as well kill two birds with one stone. If this fellow feels guilty about judging John Kerry issue him a weapon and send him to Iraq to do pennance. (It would probably help me to lose some weight.)

    What will I do if Kerry wins? Heap coals of fire on his unworthy head, precisely as I ought. Offer to help every right impulse, and trip up his every false impulse. I’d just as soon he were a robot, frankly. What I fear is that the wiring is so screwed up that there’ll be no relationship between the buttons and the functions they’re supposed to activate.

    Oh yeah, I’ll probably move someplace far away from “target rich” locations. I’ll probably figure we’ve flunked a major test and will have to reap some pretty nasty consequences before we get it right. But we’re a long way from that. Signs are, Kerry is imploding.

  14. Kerry is stuck in a corner. He does not want anyone to focus on his Senate record so Vietnam was a good topic he could focus on since he DID go to Vietnam and Bush did not. This is evident in his constant name calling of George Bush as being AWOL even after defending Clinton for not serving by using his VVAW credentials. The problem is that he embelished his record way to much that he has a Silver Star V which doesn’t even exist. Even in the face of all this controversy, he continues to keep the focus on Vietnam instead of his Senate record. The disgusting display of sending a crippled Vietnam Vet to Bush’s ranch has got to be the worst display of this and says a lot about his character. The fact is, Kerry has no character and therefore does not care what people think about it. All he cares about is becoming what he was groomed to be all his life, The President. If God forbid he does become President, I will do everything I can to make sure none of his policies ever get enacted because from his record, I already know that they will be wrong for America.

    *A leopard never changes it’s spots.*

    God Help Us All,

    SBD

  15. If God forbid he does become President, I will do everything I can to make sure none of his policies ever get enacted because from his record, I already know that they will be wrong for America.

    A leopard never changes it’s spots.

    I’m not sure John Kerry has any spots. At least none that are permanent. Were he to become President my primary concern would be to maintain my own peace of mind and self esteem, and to do that I’d simply need to support those policies that I feel are good, and oppose those I feel are bad. I wasn’t a Bush supporter before 9/11, and to be honest I don’t care about him now. What I care about is winning this war with as few casualties and at the least cost that we can.

    Having said that, however, I think John Kerry’s problems have just begun. I’ve thought for the last few days that the media establishment had pretty much put the public back to sleep, and that they’d be happily in dreamland before long. Then I saw Bob Dornan’s performance on Hannity and Comes and his passion just rolled over all the “tutt-tutting” of Pat Cadell and Comes, and everyone else. He was present when the anti-War veterans, including John Kerry, were flying N. Vietnamese flags and desecrating American flags, and kept a few of the relics for over 30 years, just so he could bring them out and show them if John Kerry ever ran for President.

    I do not think this is going to go away. I don’t think these vets are going to be denied, and I think Kerry may end up as a kind of anti-American icon and pariah before long. These folks could care less about Bush. They want to set the record straight, and they aren’t going to tolerate or suffer John Kerry in a role as the Democratic candidate. They’re going to drive him from the stage of history, if it’s the last thing they do.

    Now, he could have done something about this years ago. He could have said he was wrong and apologized… and I daresay people might have forgiven him. But he never did that, and now it has become a matter of his honor or theirs, with nothing in between. And my sense of it is that their time has come, and Kerry’s has passed.

    And Bush will win by default, essentially.

    Beyond that, I think the Democratic Party itself is probably on its last legs. I have long felt that we’re on the verge of an enormous realignment of American politics. Most of the “deep” polling research, that gauges values more than attitudes, has, for at least the last decade, shown a growing consensus in the country… a kind of deepening appreciation for the founding values that transcends both regional and partisan politics. This hasn’t usually even been conscious, and is often not reflected in attitudes, because those tend to change with changing events. But values change very very slowly, or in response to catastrophic events. The set the conditions for what is politically possible.

    But, with the right constellation of events the attitudes that emerge, and that look like a normally distributed set of positions to superficial observers, will set up a kind of “perfect storm,” that sweeps everything seen to be unlike itself from the picture. These core values in the US are whig/liberal, and simply don’t mix with the counter-enlightenment values that represent the opposition. What we’ll have, at least for a short time after the collapse of the Democrats, is a single party system… a kind of national consensus from which the counter-enlightenment left (or the “left of the left”) will be excluded. They’ll get violent.

    That leaves a host of social problems unanswered, and the dross will continue to hang around disturbing things until we come up with some creative solutions to those social problems. But we’re right on top of this realignment right now, and like the early stages of an immense wave, it’s probably not even recognizable. Things just look “normal,” but a little weird.

    Eventually we’ll end up with a two-party system again, but organized on different axes. And when that happens the policy debate will at least become rational again… and problem oriented rather than ideologically anchored.

    What’s the name of this blog again?

  16. Demosophist, that was a very inspirational and insightful post. I agree with you 100%. I believe that this country needs to go back to its roots and realize that it is based on values and principles. America has always stood for what was good in this world mostly because it is based on Judeo Christian beliefs which is why I think the Islamic fundamentalists hate us. Maybe their attacks such as the slaughter of Christians in Sudan will bring us together to fight their bigotry against the Christian and Jewish people.

    SBD

  17. Demosophist

    bq. _”Most of the “deep” polling research, that gauges values more than attitudes, has, for at least the last decade, shown a growing consensus in the country… a kind of deepening appreciation for the founding values that transcends both regional and partisan politics. This hasn’t usually even been conscious, and is often not reflected in attitudes, because those tend to change with changing events. But values change very very slowly, or in response to catastrophic events.”_

    I don’t see this as a new phenomena. It has long been noted that the US has been on the slippery slope concerning morality and values with *toleration* as the base for consensus. With that in mind most were willing to live and let live and seek out the environments that best suited there beliefs. What has changed in this area is *tolerance* is no longer acceptable by those who claim foul. They now wish to *mandate* by law what was once accepted by tolerance.

    bq. _”These core values in the US are whig/liberal, and simply don’t mix with the counter-enlightenment values that represent the opposition. What we’ll have, at least for a short time after the collapse of the Democrats, is a single party system… a kind of national consensus from which the counter-enlightenment left (or the “left of the left”) will be excluded. They’ll get violent.”_

    The shift of power is no different than what has occurred before. As for the violence it exists on both sides of the aisle of extremism (left or right). One can certainly argue the political agendas of the Skinheads or KKK as much as one can argue for the political agendas of the Greenies or ELF. It is the extremist that see no compromise with violence being the last resort.

    Has the Democratic party finally stepped out of bounds? I don’t believe so. Where they are lacking is they have lost the focus of their parties platform. You can certainly say the same about the Republicans.

    Political pundits claim politicians must pander to the entire populace hence the stumps for extreme to moderate speeches. Let’s run to the middle to get those undecided that view the issues and let’s keep the base fired up with agendas we firmly espouse.

    The problem is there is no party for the middle that views the issues. We are left with a choice of weighing the facts and choosing the best of two worlds based on past and present performance.

    On international issues it is our interpretation of how the candidate will handle the issues that are squarely in the middle such as NAFTA, IMF, WTO, ICC, NATO, and the UN to name a few. (all of which we have no control over) I’ve no doubt that all parties see some value in these international issues and agencies. Where we don’t see eye to eye is how, when, why and what boundaries we should place on our participation.

    On national issues parties are more in tune with their core platform. Either your for more government control or your against it. Either your for a strong defense or your against it. This is not to say either party has a strong hold on any these core issues and our nation is pretty much split down the middle concerning these national concepts. It could be argued that the driving factor that splits us down the middle is the finite level of resources and economies of scale. These factors must be weighed against the social agendas on both sides. After all there isn’t a single government employee or agency that is self sustaining. The government employee or agency is reliant on the funding of the general populace. One would think the better off the general populace the healthier the government. Sadly this is not the case do to the lack of accountability and responsibility.

    National moral and middle of the road issues such as education, health care, equal opportunity, equal employment, child care, welfare, abortion, marriage and social security are the gray areas. I don’t think anyone denies the fact that social or moral programs have value. The question is what to implement, how to implement, how to monitor and where do you draw the line. When and where do you say on an individual level that ones ethnic or sexual background is no longer a factor therefore you don’t qualify. When and where do you say self responsibility for personal actions is your problem and not societies. The Republican party espouses boundaries on these issues. The Democratic party sees no limits or boundaries need be placed on these issues.

    One party espouses utopia with mandates at the expense of individual liberty and freedom. The other party espouses a utopia of self responsibility with individual liberty and freedom. Is there a compromise? I believe there is but neither party will give an inch.

  18. >>I don’t think anyone denies the fact that social or moral programs have value.

    Of course they all have value. A NEGATIVE VALUE IMHO.

    >>The other party espouses a utopia of self responsibility with individual liberty and freedom.

    You seem to be getting the Republicans and the Libertarians confused.

    In principle, the Democrats want your money, while the Republicans want to run your life. Extreme Democrats (Communists) want ALL your money, while extreme Republicans (Fascists) will let you “own” money and property, but want the Government to have total control over how it will be used. Certain very scary “moderates” want both all your money AND total control over your life.

    Recently, the Republicans have become more “moderate.”

  19. T. J. Madison

    bq. _”The other party espouses a utopia of self responsibility with individual liberty and freedom.”_

    The statement was not meant to delineate between Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians. The statement was meant to delineate party lines and thoughts. Illustrating both ends of the extreme. I agree I could have been more clear in writing by wording the statements differently and providing the links and descriptions below.

    “Left and Right”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
    In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism, theocracy, or Fascism (“the right”) on one end, and Socialism or Communism (“the left”) on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints, often seen as divergent between the United States and the rest of the world. The term left and right was also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues often were very different from the ones in Western nations.

    “Libertarianism”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    “Conservatism”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

    Economic and fiscal conservatism coupled with liberalism is called (at least in the U.S.) “Libertarianism”, or (in its more extreme forms) right-wing “Anarchism” or “Anarcho-capitalism”.

    An openness to government intervention in the economy coupled with social conservatism is typical of right-wing “Populism” and (in its more extreme forms) “Fascism”.

  20. A.L. Says:

    Anyone such as Kerry, who carries shrapnel in his body

    Actually A.L. there is no more proof of the above assertion than there is for the Christmas in Cambodia story.

    In addition with the three different medal citations story it is possible that Kerry comitted fraud to enhance his record.

    Did I mention his sell out to the Communists while an officer in the USNR?

    As for policy he plans to do for Iraq what he did for Vietnam: bring the troops home leaving the Iraqis to the tender mercies of the local thugs. In ‘Nam that got 2 million plus killed and several million more displaced.

    Now that I’ve covered Kerry’s pluses let me cover his wifes minuses. If her charitable contributions are any indication she like communism a lot. A whole lot. In other words she is another guilty liberal.

    Well any way. As a vet I’d say this was a grudge match. Doubly so for me because in ’71 I believed Kerry. I have the 2 million on my concience. Doesn’t seem to have bothered ole Kerry though.

    –==–

    I believe John Kerry. He always tells the truth. Like when he told the US Senate that the memory of being in Cambodia during Christmas was seared in his memory.

    And I believe John Kerry when he says in his diary he was never in Cambodia.

    John Kerry, a man you can trust.

    –==–

    Steal this sig:

    There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

    What is the War Hero Afraid of?
    Form 180. Release ALL the records.

    The Ads: Video links

  21. Minor correction on the origin of the terms “left” and “right”:

    They come from the French Revolution. Two opposing factions sat on opposite sides of the aisle, one on the Left and one on the Right. The names have stuck ever since.

    Please also know that Leftism and Communism are far from identical. Lenin made this point in his book, “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder”. His point was that communists out of power should be leftist (because that was an effective way of breaking down the central authority they opposed), while communists in power should be rightist (because that was an effective way of building up the central authority they supported).

  22. lacoon

    Points well taken. The links are meant to give everyone a basis for research. There are many points along the middle and outside of the boundaries that have other various and sundry names. The problem as noted with the philosophical boundaries concerning left / right and all models for depiction of the political spectrum are debatable but such as they are they serve the purpose depending on the definitions you choose to use.

  23. M. Simon

    bq. _”Well any way. As a vet I’d say this was a grudge match.”_

    That is a point I would certainly agree with. One with which I’m sure Kerry acknowledges even if he doesn’t want to or can’t admit it. Any admission of a grudge or apology on his part at this point would only confirm he was at odds with and remains at odds with the Vietnam veterans.

  24. One needs to be cautious with terminology that often has changed meaning over time. As Ludwig von Mises points out in his Preface to (English-Language Edition) of “Liberalism”:http://www.mises.org/liberal/preface2.asp/ .

    bq. Today the tenets of this nineteenth-century philosophy of liberalism are almost forgotten. In continental Europe it is remembered only by a few. In England the term “liberal” is mostly used to signify a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists. In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.

    bq. Ludwig von Mises
    New York, April, 1962

  25. George Bush never called me a war criminal.

    –==–

    Steal this sig:

    There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

    What is the War Hero Afraid of?
    Form 180. Release ALL the records.

    The Ads: Video links

  26. Gary

    The problem with the labels of Democrat / Republican / Liberal etc. Is they have all come to mean something different that the original intent. This is why the term neoconservative was coined. One could argue the meanings of such words as being the meaning generically accepted at the time be it today or 1776. The issue with this is it doesn’t give any dictionary or past philisophical writings any justice unless the meanings used are those of the times when such definitions were written. Are the words being hijacked to mean something else? In a sense yes. That is why the generally accepted terms of left, middle and right are used.

    If some one claims to be a Liberal, a Democrat, a Republican etc. The next question should be “what kind are you?”. These terms play in the same light as the general term dog. It would be beneficial to know what kind especially if one is looking for a house pet, a hunter, or a sentinel. These narrow down the field but it can be narrowed down even further a house pet that doesn’t shed, a hunter that points but doesn’t retrieve, a sentinel that barks but doesn’t attack.

    BTW Gary your link yields a 404.

  27. If Kerry gets elected if he apologizes to the military and the nation for the below items I will bury the hatchet:

    George Bush never called me “baby killer”.

    There is a big difference between William Calley and John Kerry. William Calley is a proven war criminal. For John Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

  28. Greg F

    Outstanding link on Liberalism talking points and explaining how the true meaning of Liberalism has been hijacked. Whether or not Liberals will reclaim the moniker remains to be seen.

    Many thanks for the links.

    Gary / Greg please accept my apologies for confusing the two of you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>