Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

The thing is, GW Bush was developing into, or had become an alchoholic misfit by that time. That lasted until he was 40, had his personal talk with Jesus, and found his mission (to be the tool of Enron and neo-con types to ruin the world, that is).

Up to now Bush has found this period embarassing and avoided it, except at the conversion point. All of his Christian audiences understand the story, and like him BECAUSE of it.

When we take this national guard story where it is leading, it will be to forcing Bush into an AA confession that will likely actually get him more votes than less. The electorate will forget the lies and praise the candor when he says, a la Clinton, "I'm not proud of how I behaved. I was an alcoholic, and out of control. But I cleaned myself up, I became a new man, with the help of Americans and God and the flag and ..."

You get the picture. Bush isn't being driven into a corner on this, he's being offered a public confessional that will get him more sympathy if he makes use of it. He already has his AA Band of Brothers ready to help. Perhaps it's why the White House has cut back on the denials.
It sure would be nice if the Dems had something better up their sleeves.

I begin to hope that this is actually going to stick--the foofooraw has made W. Bush's Guard career a visible embarassment, something that nothing else has done. Let's see if we can make it stick fast enough to do some damage.

...and what is this going to do to military morale?

Perspective is everything. To me his record looks just like that of many young officers I knew who were heading to the end of their Reserve commitmant and put it on the back burner to persue civilian interests. Not unremarkable. Not wonderful. His retirement points show that he routinely put in three times as much time as required in his early years...and had to make up days in his last. I see people noticing a waning of interest

To the author of this peice it is an idictment of Bush as snorting coke. he sees oficers concerned about coke. He and Kitty Kelly......

But really...what does any of this have to do with leadership? Are you the same person today you were decades ago? THe NAtional Guard issue, The Swift Boat issue...intreresting, but they _shouldn't_ be the reason that a person votes for either cadidate.

And a note to Brad: Does the newest Spanish language Kerry Commercial mean that he wants to make sure that illegal immigrants get medical coverage?

Jody, you are right that events of 30 years ago are not dispositive to today.

However, what is of value and seeing decision-making patterns: not only did bush want others to fight a war he favored (shades of "bring 'em on") but - despite his general narrative of "when i was young and foolish, i was young and foolish" - he has continued to act like a man with something shameful to hide.

Had he simply acknowledge reality in 2000, of course, he might never have been elected, but by now he'd be spared this further exhumation....

Anyone want to hazard a guess why John Kerry who enlisted in 1966--two years before George W. Bush--didn't get his honorable discharge until 1978--five years AFTER George W Bush (1973)?

They both had six year obligations. Why aren't you crying for Kerry to explain his missing YEARS instead of Bush's missing four months.

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/

Everyone should consider that at the time where the physical examination was to take place, excessive signs of alcohol use would have caused no comment. Signs of Illegal Drug use would have gotten him a sentence in a military prison. George W. Bush avoided a physical examination because of the potential criminal liability. I would suggest pressure be brought to bear to release information about found intoxicants and Drugs upon his next scheduled Physical, there being some basis to believe he has not changed. lgl

Bush wasn't young and foolish, he spent a quarter of his life a drunk and likely a drug addict, continuing until at least the age of 40. Other men were gaining experience and skills, Bush had his nose in a bottle. Bush was given a boost by his privileged birth, set himself low goals, and yet he rarely met them. The Presidency has an age requirement so we can judge candidates by the decisions they've made, so we can pick a person with a track record of accomplishment and a proven leader. America can do better than Bush.

Of course America can do better than Bush. Is it even possible to do worse?

What's your point, Sully?

"But really...what does any of this have to do with leadership?"

It has lots to do with leadership. Only an idiot would hold a leader to the same standard as Joe Loser. This bending over backwards to justify slacking off is really starting to annoy me.

"Are you the same person today you were decades ago? THe NAtional Guard issue, The Swift Boat issue...intreresting, but they _shouldn't_ be the reason that a person votes for either cadidate."

I didn't mess around in my college days like Bush did. I'd like for that to count for something, thank you very much!

Besides, you forget one key point: Kerry isn't President. Bush has a track record, but Kerry's tenure as a Senator is hardly analogous. We NEED some way to directly compare the two candidates, and in this case, we have Viet Nam: An event that directly affected both, and therefore indicates how the two would approach the same situation.

Now set aside proportional-font memos and medals. Bush did the bare minimum Joe Loser would try to get away with. That makes him popular among beer-bellied assholes, but is hardly worthy of Commander-in-Chief. Kerry, on the other hand, completed a full tour of duty in Viet Nam, then came back and VOLUNTEERED for a risky assignment.

The rest of the equation is a simple SAT analogy: Bush's Viet Nam:Kerry's Viet Nam::Bush's Iraq:Kerry's Iraq.

"But really...what does any of this have to do with leadership? Are you the same person today you were decades ago? The National Guard issue, The Swift Boat issue...intreresting, but they _shouldn't_ be the reason that a person votes for either cadidate."

First problem: The charges against W. Bush are true; the charges against Kerry are, so far as I know, false.

Second problem: W. Bush has never once admitted any shame, or even any wrongdoing. This is a crime we're talking about. People get court-martialed for it, and similar desertion got a lot of less-well-connected shirkers drafted into the regular military, and sent off to 'nam.

Seriously, do you really think the voters would have elected a man with a record like that in the first place, if they'd known about it?

Third problem: as far as anyone can tell, W. Bush is the same man he was when he was 20. Oh, he may not drink any more. But other than that--look at his biography and his record.

Fourth problem: "shouldn't". Now you or I might wish that voters would make a thoughtful study of the issues. But that isn't what US voters do these days. We can worry about the state of political discourse later--right now I want to see the radical right out of power.

Doesn't drink anymore? What then accounts for the smashed in faces he more that a few times has displayed?

Are you the same person today you were decades ago?

Yes I am, and so is everyone I am acquainted with that hasn't suffered a severe blunt force trauma. The idea that, in adulthood, you can become something other than what you are reflects nothing but the baleful influence of religious (mainly Protestant) cant upon common sense. It bears only the slightest resemblance to reality.

You haven't changed in thirty years? Then you are an ass. Everyone changes, and one hopes, grows. And that isn't some silly protestant ethic either.

I commanded far more men than John Kerry did and it does not qualify me for the Presidency.

Alvin York and Audie Murphy both led squads the size of Kerry's boat and _neither_ of them were qualified to lead the nation. And they won more medals.

What a bunch of Hogwash. What utter bullshit to judge either man by the faint recollections of thrity five years ago.

I object to Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" but I take Brad's explanation of it as reasonable. I also know that when people are shooting at you that things are...different. You have to be there.

I also know that when young officers came to the end of their term they slacked off. They often, quite often, had to make up drills. Doesn't make Bush a bad man nor a good man. Just a man who acted like literally thousands of others did.

I think Kerry served his country well in Vietnam, and did less than that afterwards. But that was thirty-five years ago, kids, and emotions were far higher than they are today. Really.

The issues which should elect our next President are not Thirty-five years ago. They are the issues that face us today: medicare, social security, the Islamo-facist threat, the erosion of environmental protections, the _sane_ enforcement of environmental protection....the list goes on and on.

All of which affect me and my children. What happened thirty-five years ago does not. These are, neither of them, the same man they were three decades ago...or two decades ago.

John Kerry is no longer the fact twiddling activist he was during Winter Soldier. George Bush is no longer the privileged son who played in Fighters. And the fact of the matter is that Killian's own words say Bush cared. And John Kerry sees that the games he played for Massachusetts's support now hurt him.

So the argument should be "Whose Vision of the Future" do you want to follow?

Any other answer reveals you as the dupe of the political hate-mongers. Honestly, do we want to select our government by the machinations of Car-Vile and Rove?

QM

Randolf.

You believe that Kerry was in Cambodia for Christmas? That was a major charge on the Swifties Book. He wasn't.

son-volt: If you haven't changed in the decades between the Twenties and what ever you are now... I feel sorry for you. Having babies, seeing death, seeing the consequences of not-too-mature thinking. Thay all change who you are.

Do you still make the unthinking mistakes we made in college? Smoked a joint or drank a beer and then drove? Screwed some chick that you told you loved...and didn't? Made _any_ of the immature mistakes that the vast, whopping majority of humanity makes? No?

More's the pity for you.

That's why we call certain Old People...Wise.

QM

I want a Vision of the Future as outlined by a man whose life has been characterized by courage, honesty, and intelligence.

I won't agree with everything he says and does, but I have reason to trust his basic integrity and realism.

That's a hundred times, a thousand times, better than a man whose life has been characterized by fecklessness, exploitation, and total irresponsibility.

I can't trust a single thing Bush says -- not because he's lied once or twice, but because he has never told the truth about any policy he's pursued. I can't trust his judgment -- not because he's been wrong once or twice, but because he's been wrong consistently, and is incapable of recognizing or admitting error, and because his errors in judgment have caused widespread misery and destruction, and will continue to cause widespread misery and destruction.

Everyone knows the wit's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

It's insane to think Bush will be any better in a second term, since he has in no way indicated he's learned anything in the first.

Unfortunetly, Ceil, no one fits your requisite. They both have lied. Not once, not twice, but repeatedly.

Both. Might we remind you of Christmas in Cambodia?

I think that Bush has pretty clearly laid out where he wants to go. You don't like it at all. I don't like much of it. That doesn't make it a lie.

Kerry is, just now, unless Car-Vile interferes, beginning to lay out where he stands. I'm pretty sure I won't like most of _it_ either. But I'd like to know.

Ciel, it isn't enough anymore to get our wit and witticsm from our favorite blogs. The hyperbole they create, and we read, has to be tempered with the knowledge that quite possibly everything we know is wrong. I've found in my life that the louder, the more uncomprimising,someone shouts the less likely it is that they have the right answer.

There's a lot of shouting.

QM who is voting for Badnarek.

Military service is different than civilian life. I think that Jody is correct that, in general, drunks who bogued on their military obligations gain a more valuable experience than those whose military service was distinguished. We're presently reaping the fruits of the superior preparation for life that young George Bush's National Guard experience gave him.

I think that Jody has just discovered the "both sides are equally bad" "On the one hand, and on the other hand" strategy.

Put a gold star on his notebook, and send a note to his proud Mommy. It's only September, and he's already ready for second grade.

Whatever Kerry did, he wasn't a deserter. He also volunteered for dangerous combat duty and executed it with skill and bravery, something that W. Bush has never done.

Y'know, the right wing, here, is doing something I remember from a roommate I had a particular series of difficulties with. Said roommate was a salesperson & when they wanted to persuade me of something, they'd just run through arguments, looking for one that stuck and would make the "sale". That's what's going on here. That's why the arguments keep changing--they're just looking for arguments that stick. If there is any interest in truth in this farrago of character assassination, I've never seen it--admittedly I can only stomach so much of the garbage, so I have not studied all that much of it.

Kerry has done things with his life that show courage and conviction--volunteering for 'nam, his later opposition to the war, and his investigative work in the Senate. What has W done that's comparable?

Well, no, zizka. You really _should_ study your namesake, eh? Everyone isn't perfect. That's quite a bit about why Jan Zizka joined the Hussite Rebellion and helped to found the Hussite's capital. Where it wasn't "your's or mine but ours".

Whose Army was betrayed by the middle-class Utraquists who only wanted a return to the status quo with the Hapsburg rulers.

Of course peasantry and middle-class aren't all that well understood by today's Americans. Live in Central America for awhile and you will.

But I digress.

It isn't that both sides are equally bad. It is that both sides are equally human. Prone, as we all are, to mistakes and gaffs. I can find just as many faults in LT(jg) Kerry's tactical commands as I can with Bush's begging out of drill. Both are not important in today's world.

"What are you, Mr. Candidate, going to do for me" has never been more important. You seem bent on avoiding that question, zizka, whereas the real Zizka would have drawn his enemy out to the field of his choosing. A field where his peasant army could wreck their vengence on the Aristocracy.

I know Zizka, Mr. Emerson, and you ain't he.

QM

Mr. Fritz,

You make some good points. You do know, don't you, that a Guardsman who is not on Active Duty cannot be either AWOL nor a "deserter" don't you?

So much for not standing so much garbage.

Senator Kerry ran a _very_ good committee on the MIA/POW issue. Until Three years ago he was a loud and vocal critic of the the Pentagon's profligate spending habits.

Senator Kerry has been a strong supporter of increased Medi-care, desiring a large increase in who it covers. He wants to send more money to the poor school districts and disparages the so-called "voucher system" He has championed the taxation of the Rich to make the budget balanced.

Have I missed anything?

QM

Kerry broke the Iran Contra scandal and the myriad of related scandals showing the corruption and treason at the heart of the Republican party beginning, really, in the 1930s. Had it not been for the willingness of union members and representatives to stand against the totalitarian urges of the monied class we would be speaking German today. Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, the Dulles brothers, and many others worked with, supported, and believed in German Nationalist Socialism, even after the formal declaration of war. After the war, safe haven and passage from postwar Germany was provided to good Germans who were firmly right wing and opposed to Communism at any cost. Gehlen and Odessa? Operation Paperclip? The same secretive people and back channel operatives worked through the intervening decades to provide us with poor quality military intelligence, corrupt funding of covert activity, overthrown governments worldwide, and an enduring contempt for American democratic ideals. George W. Bush is heir to this tradition as his father was before him. Kissinger's realpolitik sent money abroad to support people trained by fascists and nazis from South Africa through the Middle East to interfering with elections in Canada, Australia, and Europe.
As heir to this decadent heritage, Bush II is a pampered, spoiled, arrogant nincompoop, who has floated on the backs of others to every plum position he has subsequently failed to perform in.
Kerry had many of the same advantages but chose another path-a path of honor, heroism, honesty, service, and sacrifice. He isn't trying to be president on a whim, because his parent's friends can buy it for him-we need Kerry to save what is left of America from the financial, economic, and public health disasters that Clinton couldn't stop Gingrich from enacting and Bush from continuing. God help us all if that imbecile is returned to the White House.

"You haven't changed in thirty years? Then you are an ass. Everyone changes, and one hopes, grows."

Maybe so. But your compulsive excuse-making is a SERIOUS slap in the face to those who DIDN'T fuck around in their younger days, and only worked hard to get better.

I'm hardly a model example of humanity, but my personal histo
If you don't

damn laptop keyboard

Jody provides us with a good rant on dismissing the character issue as 1) they both appear to have been less than the projected image and 2) that was 30 years ago and they're both different characters now ( reviving that old problem in philosophy about personal identity).

Unfortunately the campaigns both depend heavily on these projections and not very heavily on recent pertinent performance.
For me, the character issue IS central. The military records, however portrayed, are only a small and distant part of the personal histories that inform me about who I'm voting for.

Exactly. I'm getting sick of these "Bush isn't that bad" excuses when I, and countless people I know, have lived their lives with more hard work and integrity than Bush.

If Bush is a good guy, then I'm a friggin' saint. And I'd be the first to admit I'm no saint. Makes me wonder about the work ethic of people who think Bush's slacker days were acceptable.

"You do know, don't you, that a Guardsman who is not on Active Duty cannot be either AWOL nor a "deserter" don't you?"

He became active when given orders to report, not so?

I am bemused to find that the TANG "Regs and Pubs" web page requires a password. One can read the UCMJ on-line, however.

jody> Does the newest Spanish language Kerry Commercial mean that he wants to make sure that illegal immigrants get medical coverage?

No. It means he wants to make sure that voters who speak Spanish hear his message. How did you manage to fail your language comprehension die roll here, Jody?

How much can we change over 30 years? Considering I was 8 at the time, I may not be able to answr that question very well. . .

But let me remind us all that as a society, our official response is "not very much." We regularly mete out long, no-parole sentences to convicted criminals because we believe that in 10 or 20 or 30 years, these individuals will remain dangerous. In places like Florida, mistakes made half a lifetime ago can bar one from participating in the most basic of civil acts, voting.

Born again? I seem to recall that George W. Bush himself was not impressed with the claims of Carla Faye Tucker that she had found Jesus. He signed her death warrant because he surely believed character was immutable.

Really. This idea that you can magically erase a lifetime of antisocial behavior is repugnant to those who work hard, play by the rules, and own up to our failings.

"I can find just as many faults in LT(jg) Kerry's tactical commands as I can with Bush's begging out of drill."

So you say, Jody. But go defenstrate yourself.

Haven't noticed anyone commenting on the nexus between this story and another one from two weeks back. (I know, that's soooooo long ago in the election cycle...):

In the spring of 1972, George HW Bush phoned his friend and asked a favour: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/salon/story/0,14752,1295934,00.html

So just how was he "getting in trouble and embarrassing the family," and did that have anything to do with him becoming unfit to fly and missing his physical at that same time?

Tim

Take some of that back--that's precisely the point of Russ Baker's article in The Nation linked from the Wapo piece.:

> "He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George
> [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he's killing us
> in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that
> campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out
> of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take
> him up there with you."
>
> Allison said that the younger Bush's drinking problem was
> apparent. She also said that her husband, a circumspect man
> who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her
> that some use of drugs was involved. "I had the impression that
> he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps
> cocaine," she said.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=baker

Be nice if he gave more solid backup for the charges though...

Tim

"Of course America can do better than Bush. Is it even possible to do worse?"
Posted by joe at September 15, 2004 04:44 PM

Yes, actually electing him.

If his TANG service is really irrelevant, how about moving up a few years to his years at Harvard. Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard Business School recalls a G.W. Bush* moment.

"We were in a discussion of the New Deal, and he called Franklin Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism.To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically." (from "The Dunce", Salon.com)

Now look at his so-called adninistration. Has anything really changed?

Liberals have stopped looking for solutions to problems altogether at this point - you have digressed to simply picking at George Bush.

I know a lot of drug addict slackers (with low goals) who graduated from Yale, Harvard and fly fighter-jets. We all make mistakes people...

John Kerry has a wife that won't take his last name. He also uses Botox to keep that face from completely falling off his body. Nobody cares what you look like, John. Be tough and come up with some solutions - you would be a shoe-in. But, you are a flopping liberal who claims to be a "devout" Catholic (but doesnt live it)- so you probably won't.