"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.''

John Kerry, California, October 30, 2006

 

 

If this is not what you meant to say, apologize. The Democrats are going to need to do some quick damage control.

300 million people in this country; seems like we could come up with better candidates

We can, but the way the big money has overwhelmed the political process, those with fresh ideas, independent thinking and the individual willpower to do what is difficult rather than what is easy will not receive the campaign money to achieve victory. And until this political process is changed, America will continue to offer weak leaders (now there's a contradiction in terms!) while our competitors keep kicking our economic ass.

Kerry was probably commenting on how the military recruits individuals.  They go hard and heavy into towns with economic troubles and places where the military is really the best/only option for those young individuals.  It is a rediculous standard, I would like to see some stats on the average household incomes for the families that military members come from.

 

I would venture to say that it is low.  I am not condoning what he said, or the context of how he said it (which is not stated), but this issue is real, and is often times overlooked by the general public.  For the most part it is the middle-class and below that fight and die for this nation...not the wealthy elite.  :|

Nonsense.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm

 

t is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

 

^^While that was my first impression, Kerry's office released what he had prepared to say:

 

"'Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.''

 

An attack on Bush, not on the troops or recruitment.

 

However, since the statement came out, and he refused to apologize for his 'botched joke', tons of information has come out about our troops. Their education level and intelligence is extremely high, the highest in the history of this nation.

Not entirely nonsense RV...also from the link you provided:

 

Like their peers in 1999 and 2003' date=' recruits in 2004 and 2005 came [b']primarily from middle-class areas[/b]. Poor areas are proportionally underrepre­sented in the wartime years (2003–2005).

 

So, while it may seem to be unfair to say that the lower-class is unproportionally represented, it is fair to look at the representation from the ever diminishing middle-class.  The middle-class is a wide range of income levels, and to break it down further from their (Heritage Foundation) type of analysis would be quite difficult.

 

I am not attacking republicans, or the war in Iraq, or any of the other nonsense.  But I am simply bringing up a notion that holds some truth to it.

One other thing is that you must look at where the statistics/information is coming from when it comes to anything political...here is some info on The Heritage Foundation:

 

The Heritage Foundation is an influential public policy research institute based in Washington, D.C., in the United States.

 

Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Its operations have transformed the traditional concept of the "think tank" and have had a significant impact on the domestic and foreign policies of the United States government.

 

Founded in 1973, Heritage's initial funding came from political conservative Joseph Coors, co-owner of the Coors Brewing Company. Coors funding was later augmented by financial support from billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich was its first head. Since 1977, Heritage's president has been Edwin Feulner, Jr., previously the staff director of the House Republican Study Committee and a former staff assistant to U.S. Congressman Phil Crane.

 

Until 2001, the Heritage Foundation published Policy Review, a public policy journal, which was then acquired by the Hoover Institution.

With this spectacular gaffe Kerry rises from the dead and returns to the front page.  And I am reminded of the column William F. Buckley wrote a day or two after the 2004 election in which he recalled a dinner in the mid-90's where for the life of him he couldn't remember the name of the man sitting down the table a seat or two until he introduced himself as Michael Dukakis. 

 

If the Army is getting nothing but the best and the brightest of our educational system why did they have to recently lower their admission standards?  Just because they are getting more of their recruits from the middle class doesn't mean they are getting the straight A students.  It was common knowledge at my high school that those of us who worked hard at school went straight on to college, those that slacked off and didn't have the grades to get academic based scholarships had to rely on the military to pay for their education.  My own father partied his way out of college, so he joined the Air Force as a last resort, which he wound up making a 23 year career out of.

So Bush feels it's a winning strategy to drive a wedge between the Democrats and military families? That's a toughie. Military folk vote Republican by something like an 8 to 2 margin.

 

Good luck Karl and George. Go ahead, guys. By any and all means necessary, let's keep Iraq on the front page. This is helping the Democrats, as the vice president says, "Big time."

Alright, fine, I'll bite.

 

The main point is, this is stupid ground to fight on.  Kerry said something unbelievably stupid - so stupid that it was obvious to me the first time I heard it that he couldn't possibly have meant what he said.  Of course he'd write it off as a gaffe and back away.  Because what, is he arguing that the military is primarily dead-end losers who couldn't graduation from college?  Is he honestly going to argue that?  A week before a national election?  Christ, what happens if he wins that argument, is he positioning his party as the "our soldiers are losers" party?  It had to be a gaffe.  I still believe it was a gaffe.

 

And instead of backing away, dude started lashing out at Bush and Snow.  Honestly, someone tell me - is he a Republican plant?  Because Jesus, first off, what the hell is he doing?  Kerry should be the last person on the front page of tha paper.  Kingfish, this ain't turning the conversation to Iraq - it's turning the conversation to a guy who's proven he can't win a national election.

 

And handing the Republicans a statement like this, from a guy chosen by the party to represent them two years ago - not some nutjob from an obscure district, but their last national candidate - is not driving a wedge between the military and the Democrats - Jesus, insulting the military cuts to the core of every last American.  I don't believe you'll find anyone in either party who isn't proud of our armed forces as individuals, and putting the Democrat's last presidential candidate in the position of defending a statement insulting them - my God, Rove must have cancelled all his meetings for the last two days because he couldn't stop doing his happy dance.  It's just unbelievably stupid, that's all.

 

 

A couple asides: Randy - when you've got two conflicting sets of data, impeaching the reliability of one set is a good method for resolving the conflict.  However, when you've got raw assertion on one side, and documentary evidence on the other, impeaching the source of the evidence is substantially less persuasive.  The fact is, the military looks like America, except that it's underrepresented by poorer folks.  You said, "I would like to see some stats on the average household incomes for the families that military members come from.  I would venture to say that it is low."  You were wrong.  It's a losing argument.  And figuring out some way to make it appear that the military is a bunch of dead-end losers with no other choices goes back to my point above - do you really want to win that argument?  And do the Democrats really want to fight on that ground?

 

JohnOSU - an anecdote from the 1970's or 1980's doesn't really tell us anything about the military today.  But tell me, how exactly did they "lower their admission standards"?  Do you just mean raising the maximum age for non-prior service admissions?  Because I don't think that really speaks to the income/"last resort" argument...

 

^As I told you...I am not fighting you on that ground:

I am not attacking republicans, or the war in Iraq, or any of the other nonsense.  But I am simply bringing up a notion that holds some truth to it.

 

I was offering the other side of the argument to this disscussion board.  I didn't claim to know the facts, I rather asked to see the data.  You then presented some data, and when you looked into it, they too stated that they had no idea about the average household income for which military personel come from.  They simply project and guestimate by zip codes (i don't think that is an accepted form of statistical data collection).

 

I don't mean to offend/upset...just bringing up the issue at hand :speech:

They are now overlooking blights on a candidate's criminal record, e.g. drug charges. 

 

RiverViewer were you this upset during the 2004 Presidential election when Kerry's military record was called into question?  Did you feel that the Republican party was insulting every decorated veteran when they down played Kerry's own war medals?

 

Where is the outrage over Bush's failed war plan?  Where is the outrage over the lack of a winning exit strategy? 

 

I thought Kerry's response to the GOP attacks on him yesterday was right on. 

 

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

 

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

 

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

 

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

 

Randy - when did I mention Republicans?  I'm not talking about Iraq either.  I'm talking about the military, which is not made up of disproportionately poor people.  I think we're talking past each other at this point, but I think we're both pretty much on the same page, so I'll happily move on...

 

 

John - who is upset?  Where do you get that?  I'm baffled, astonished and embarassed for Kerry, sure, but upset?  No...

 

You ask if I also got upset by attacks on Kerry's record - and no, I didn't.  I didn't like the strategy, but he's a politician, and if you're gonna get upset every time a politician is attacked, you're gonna spend your life upset.  He's a big boy, he can handle it.  And honestly, the military is filled with big boys, and they can handle it as well.

 

All I'm saying is that it's stupid.  He said something extremely stupid, and instead of backing off, he came out firing.  He's completely hijacked election news, so at least two news cycles have been focused on a losing national candidate who isn't even on the ballot, and his apparent attempt to defend the indefensible.  Dude needs to get the hell off the stage and let the future of the party talk about what they believe are their winning issues - Iraq, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, whatever.  But talking about John Kerry when you're 8 days out, and when he's the guy with the death-dealing soundbite?  Just astonishingly stupid.

 

Where is the outrage over Bush's failed war plan?  Where is the outrage over the lack of a winning exit strategy? 

 

Where is the outrage? You must be blind. The past 1 1/2 years all I've heard is outrage...constantly. CONSTANTLY!!!

 

I thought Kerry's response to the GOP attacks on him yesterday was right on. 

 

Political scientists are calling his statement a parody; both sides of the spectrum are upset by his stubbornness not to apologize, especially when he didn't mean what he said. If you aren't going to stand by it, why not apologize for it?

I haven't seen the news since this story broke, so I'm a little behind on the reaction to Kerry's comment.  What political scientist are calling his comments a parody?  Which Democrats are calling for Kerry to apologize?

What political scientist are calling his comments a parody?  Which Democrats are calling for Kerry to apologize?

 

Yeah, the article I read yesterday...from Drudge Report...was general, didn't provide names. It was based on the mainstream blogs, and varying quotes, but I can't find it. My political science professor, who is extremely liberal, shared the same concerns, that her field found his statement tragic for Democrats.

 

A democratic senator in Iowa has asked Kerry not to attend a campaign event later this week, because of his irresponsible comments. Kerry is not appearing in events in Minnesota and Philedelphia as well, because Democrats fear Republicans bringing up this issue, which could have been over with a simple apology.

 

 

BTW, I thought I would post McCains' call for apology...right from the Kerry dubbed "Republican Hate Machine:"

 

Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

 

They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn’t live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

We can, but the way the big money has overwhelmed the political process, those with fresh ideas, independent thinking and the individual willpower to do what is difficult rather than what is easy will not receive the campaign money to achieve victory. And until this political process is changed, America will continue to offer weak leaders (now there's a contradiction in terms!) while our competitors keep kicking our economic ass.

 

We need "Clean Election" legisaltion  --- see Arizona and Maine

The artful thing--and the change the debate to issues thing--for Kerry to do would be to come out and say:

 

"I agree with my fellow soldier John McCain. He knows as well as I that our military is comprised of our nation's best AND brightest. I apologize for my botched joke, and remain heartbroken about its unintended meaning. And I will challenge anybody cynical enough to capitalize on the belief, as some in the press have, that our men and women in the military are NOT the best and brightest. Because they are. And they deserve more. They deserve a responsible commander-in-chief. They deserve a congress willing to take a stand on their behalf. They deserve a clearly defined mission, and they deserve the tools and tactics and timetable to accomplish this mission. And more than anything, they deserve to be told the truth..."

 

I'm available for corporate events, dedications and celebrity roasts, if anybody needs me.

What political scientist are calling his comments a parody?  Which Democrats are calling for Kerry to apologize?

 

Yeah, the article I read yesterday...from Drudge Report...was general, didn't provide names. It was based on the mainstream blogs, and varying quotes, but I can't find it.

 

Consider the source.

I'm available for corporate events, dedications and celebrity roasts, if anybody needs me.

 

Without a doubt, they should hire you.  Why he didn't say something like this, I'll never understand...well, I'd probably have stopped at "Because they are." - the rest of it still gives fodder to a news cycle, still keeps him as the lead story - "Kerry Attacks Whatever" - but the first half, on its own, is beautiful, and would be a complete story-killer.  Democrats could get back to their issues, not The Ultimate Republican Wet Dream.

 

He should have said something along the lines of what Kingfish said, and it would have been over in one news cycle.

 

But I think part of what keeps him from doing it is the feeling on the part of Dems that they get pushed around by Republicans. Kerry doesn't want to apologize, since that will make him look weak. Republicans say stupid shit all the time, but by not backing down, they look tough. And in today's political environment, I think they're betting that it's better to look tough than smart or nice.

He should have said something along the lines of what Kingfish said, and it would have been over in one news cycle.

 

But I think part of what keeps him from doing it is the feeling on the part of Dems that they get pushed around by Republicans. Kerry doesn't want to apologize, since that will make him look weak. Republicans say stupid shit all the time, but by not backing down, they look tough. And in today's political environment, I think they're betting that it's better to look tough than smart or nice.

 

Bingo.

But I think part of what keeps him from doing it is the feeling on the part of Dems that they get pushed around by Republicans. Kerry doesn't want to apologize, since that will make him look weak. Republicans say stupid shit all the time, but by not backing down, they look tough. And in today's political environment, I think they're betting that it's better to look tough than smart or nice.

 

I agree with Cramer on this point in general.  It's really still more offensive that Bush brought up in a press conference that Saddam tried to "kill my dad".  Perhaps Kerry was referring to Bush with his statement, though I doubt it.  It's hard not to read that as insulting to the common soldier.  As a college graduate currently serving as a regular enlisted infantry soldier in the U.S. Army, though, I can't say I really give a damn about either the current Kerry or previous Bush statements.  There seems to be a lot of speculation in this thread about the current state of the soldiers and officers who comprise the thin green line, and I feel my vantage point allows me to make some observations:

 

1) Given that the Army relentlessly pushes the personal benefits (particularly with regard to paying for college) of what essentially is a self-denying act (enlistment) the thesis of Kerry's argument, study hard now or realize later that you should have while you're in the shit, holds some validity.  I suspect, however, that Kerry was trying harder to be cute than he was to press that point;

2) The idea that the Army dredges the poor and indigent of society to fill its ranks is a myth; most of my fellow soldiers seem to be middle class, some in fact have parents who are quite wealthy.  Certainly all view themselves as middle class.  The Army's main base of recruitment isn't the neglected poor of society, it's the fuck-ups- people who have a tought time dealing with the adult outside world.  Most people joining up who are younger than 21 either always wanted to join the Army, or just couldn't get it together on their own in the outside world and weren't interested in school.  Those older than 21 who join are all basically looking to make some sort of drastic change to improve their lives.  Of course there is an element of patriotism and responsiblity to every enlistment, but if the military could fill its ranks simply through an appeal to patriotic sentiment, it would have a much smaller advertising budget.

3) When comes down to it, most of these guys (including officers at the Company level) miss the structure and intimacy of high school, they've been socialized to it, and seem to have a real tough time away from it.  There are strong contingent of guys who seem to miss the competitive world of varsity sports.  The social dynamics are very similar to those in high school themed movies: seniors (NCO's) on top harrassing freshmen pukes (privates) with the occasional wealthy golden boy (officiers) prancing in, but generally keeping to themselves.  And just like high school, you tend to advance just be being there long enough.

 

BTW, I thought I would post McCains' call for apology...right from the Kerry dubbed "Republican Hate Machine:"

 

Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

 

They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn’t live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

 

I don't like John McCain.  In my opinion, the above just canned political pieties.  To paraphrase Henry Clay speaking of Andrew Jackson, I don't see how being tortured in a Vietnamese prison qualifies one for the supreme office of the land.  We might as well elect any number of ex-Saigonese businessmen President.  A soldier is the tool of his government by which it conducts "politics by other means".  There's a member of Congress (also a former officer who attained the same rank as McCain) who's actually talking candidly to the American people about our current use of politics by other means, and whether it is working or not.  His name is John Murtha.

 

In closing, unless you're a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts (and really, not even then) who gives a damn about John Kerry making a bad joke.  The people who already disliked him are just going to try and point to it as how it makes their political opinions objective, while those who are inclined to side with Kerry aren't good to be swayed by it.  Remember when Bush made that awful joke about open-heart surgery to Letterman back in 2000?  Who cares about that?  I realize people think this is fun to talk about, but why is this important?

Interesting that John Kerry being attacked for a moronic statement (sure, it was moronic) yet the criticisms are coming from Republicans is almost the ultimate irony.

Not as eloquent at Kingfish's, but you'd swear Kerry was reading this board based on the structure...unfortunately, he's a day late, which means the story will have eaten at least three days before it dies, but hopefully it will die now:

 

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

 

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

 

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

 

I'm Kingfish out of water, and I approve this message.

:lol:

 

 

 

It's self evident that he didn't intend to insult troops. He was in the Army himself after all. That picture is funny though.

:lol:

 

Unfortunately, the photo was taken last year.

 

 

Damn, is that funny...nice find ink!

Kerry was probably commenting on how the military recruits individuals.  They go hard and heavy into towns with economic troubles and places where the military is really the best/only option for those young individuals.  It is a rediculous standard, I would like to see some stats on the average household incomes for the families that military members come from.

 

I would venture to say that it is low.  I am not condoning what he said, or the context of how he said it (which is not stated), but this issue is real, and is often times overlooked by the general public.  For the most part it is the middle-class and below that fight and die for this nation...not the wealthy elite.  :|

 

Directed at anyone and everyone...just using Randy's post.

 

So, if this were true, why is it a problem? It is still voluntary, we arn't wouldn't be drafting the poor. I'm not saying their isn't a problem, but I can't come up with it.

 

Now if you want to talk about how legislation like campaign finance reform has made it very, very dificult for poorer candidates to be President, I can see a complaint.