by Goldy, 02/27/2008, 10:48 PM

Thanks to all of you who’ve contributed to Darcy Burner during this current fund drive. Yesterday we set out to respond to First Lady Laura Bush’s $500 per person fundraiser for Dave Reichert by matching the White House donor for donor. We started with a target of 250 donors, and in less than 48 hours have smashed through that to a current tally of 320 donors and over $15,000. By comparison, a birdie tells me that about 125 cars were parked at the event in Medina today, mostly with single occupants. (Of course.) So once again we have proven that there are more of us than there are of them.

Great job, but then, as Joan wrote over on Daily Kos:

Of course, if you wanted to make it an even 500 donations….

I like the way Joan thinks. Let’s extend this another day and go for 500 donations nationwide. And more importantly, don’t let those bastards at Daily Kos and Open Left do it all on their own. They’ve generated considerably more contributions than HA has thus far, and while sure, they’re a helluva lot bigger than we are, damn it, Darcy is our candidate.

I’m not asking for much, just $5 or $10, whatever you can afford. It’s a matter of pride. So please give today.

Help Darcy Burn Bush: $

57 Responses to 250320… 500?”

1. Arjifar spews:

Here is what your hero (and probably Darcy’s–she really ought to weigh in on this) Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger said: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”. This from Sanger, who also “lamented the ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

It’s said that 80 percent of PP’s abortuaries are located in minority neighborhoods, which supports Sanger’s view that eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

This is the truth of Planned Parenthood. You can continue to embrace this shameful organization, or finally admit to what it really is.

2. Don Joe spews:

I notice how this blog keeps attracting new trolls, yet they keep regurgitating the same, repeatedly debunked bullshit.

The one thing I miss from the old Usenet days is killfiles.

3. Max Renn spews:

Wow. Forest-dwelling Natural Law trolls really like this blog. Go Darcy!

4. puget sound octopus spews:

Besides being a candidate, what has Darcy Burner done for the people of her district? What provides her with unique insight or judgment?

She’s a bad candidate. We can do better.

5. Don Joe spews:

@ 4

I’m guessing you’re just another wingnut troll, but I’ll give you a shot. Tell me what skills Burner would obtain through some other public office that she hasn’t already demonstrated in the private sector.

6. The Blatantly Obvious spews:

@ 4 “She’s a bad candidate. We can do better.”

Explain. You seem to be very interested in a better Democratic candidate. What would that candidate stand for? Who would that candidate be?

I await your guidance. Until then, I will continue to contribute to Darcy.

7. The Blatantly Obvious spews:

I mean, do you think Dave “Bush” Reichert is a better candidate?

8. ByeByeGOP spews:

All the trolls get their talking points from the same factory – right wing talk radio. This is nothing new. Unfortunately, the great medium of radio has often been the breeding ground for the crazies – in the old days, the UFOers and space junkies used talk radio to surmise that the government had aliens tucked away. It’s also been used by any number of con artists selling snake oil. In fact still is. If you listen to the kind of ads they run on some of these right wing stations, you realize – oh yeah – I forgot – only inbred idiots believe this shit so why not sell them oceanfront property in Arizona.

9. Thomas Trainwinder spews:

I think she should have re-recorded that clip. Not a great clip by any means.

10. Roger Rabbit spews:

I’ve donated to Darcy twice this year, even though I don’t live in her district, because every vote in Congress affects the whole country and Darcy hugs rabbits!

11. Roger Rabbit spews:

@1 Sanger has been dead for 42 years. If you read a newspaper once in a while, maybe you could find something more relevant to say.

12. Roger Rabbit spews:

So the wingnuts plan to run on what some chick said half a century ago? Go for it, fools.

13. Roger Rabbit spews:

@2 Probably the same old trolls hiding behind new screen names.

14. Roger Rabbit spews:

However, just in case we have a newbie here, it’s my duty as the unofficial greeter to announce the ad hoc HA posting rules:

1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here.
3. There is no censorship.
4. As liberals, our mission is to verbally kick the living shit out of the stupid, ignorant, unpatriotic wingnut morons who come here looking for an argument.
5. No mercy for wingnuts!
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender; there will be trials.
7. Klake is a nazi.

Any questions?

15. Roger Rabbit spews:

@4 More to the point, what will Reichert do for his district if he’s re-elected? With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, his only function will be to delay, obstruct, and interfere with the reforms we need to get America moving again. Why should taxpayers pay someone $150,000 a year just to say “no”? He doesn’t even hug rabbits. The best thing to do is vote him into retirement. After spending over 20 years trying to catch 1 killer, and then doing absolutely nothing in Congress for his district for 4 years, the guy obviously needs a rest.

16. Roger Rabbit spews:

@9 Who gives a shit what you think. Tell someone who cares. You can find them on the sucky little rival blog.

17. Roger Rabbit spews:

Guns Cost $100 Billion A Year

A story in the fishwrapper says gun crimes cost America $100 billion a year. Since there are 200 million guns in the U.S. that’s an average of $500 a year per gun. Most of it is paid by taxpayers.

If you tried to raise Republicans’ taxes by $500 a year they’d raise holy hell. But if you try to do something to control gun possession they’ll raise holy hell.

Go figure.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004247675_wounded28.html

18. Roger Rabbit spews:

Why We Need Government Controlled Health Care

According to the fishwrapper, a Tacoma hospital charged a patient $34,605 for a 6-hour hospital stay for knee surgery. That doesn’t include the surgeon’s fee.

The patient had health insurance but owes the hospital over $25,000 after insurance payments. His insurance company keeps 32 cents of every premium dollar, paying only 68% of its customers’ premium payments for health care. The company is under investigation by 34 states, including Washington.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004247661_mega28m.html

Another article in the fishwrapper says government already pays 46% of all health care costs.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004202932_healthcare26.html

Given that the government is already paying nearly half of all medical bills, and it costs the taxpayers a lot to regulate and investigate the private insurance industry, when not simply get rid of private insurance and have government provide the insurance? Instead of paying 32% of our health care dollars to insurance companies who deliver no health care and add no value, why not let government perform the same bill-paying function? Medicare does it for 1/2 of 1%. So why pay an insurance company 64 times as much to do the same thing?

19. Roger Rabbit spews:

The whole idea of free markets, competition, etc., is total bullshit when it comes to health care. Nobody can shop for health care. When you’re hauled into a hospital on a stretcher and they wheel you into the operating room, you’re in no position to even ask what you’re buying, much less what you’re being charged for it, and of course you can’t possibly shop around for a better deal.

Conservatives tell us letting government run the financial side of our health care system is “socialized medicine.” I have news for them. We already have “socialized medicine” in this country, and have had it for a long time. As noted above, government already pays nearly half of all medical bills with money it collects from taxpayers. The other half — the half managed by private insurance companies — runs on Marxist principles, too. There are so many people who can’t pay their medical bills that providers and insurance companies simply pass those costs along to those who can. When that guy was charged $34,000 for a 6-hour hospital stay, he was paying not only his own bill but the medical bills of several other patients too. The providers and insurers simply shift the bad debt left behind by those who can’t afford health care to those who can pay. If that isn’t socialism, I don’t know what the hell is.

Conservatives say the problem with government health care is that it transfers your money to someone else. What the hell do they think private insurance companies do? The difference is they charge you 50 to 64 times as much as the government for doing it.

Now let me ask all you conservatives a simple question. Let’s say you could buy a car from the government for $20,000. Now let’s say a private dealer will charge you $1,280,000 for the identical car. Who would you buy it from? The conservative will say he’s going to buy it from the private dealer because we can’t afford to let socialism get a foothold in this country. Of course, he has no intention of buying it with his own money, which is where your money comes in. That’s how stupid conservatives are, and that’s what I call conservative socialism, which is the worst kind.

20. Roger Rabbit spews:

Roger Rabbit’s Tax Cut Plan

Republicans always promise tax cuts. I’ll go them want better: I have a plan to cut taxes and get rid of socialized medicine at the same time.

Here’s how it works.

In the future, when the government collects money from us to pay our medical bills, instead of charging us only 1/2 of 1% for this service, they should charge 10 1/2%. The other 10% is profit. That might seem like a big price increase, but remember, it’s still less than 1/3 of what private companies charge for exactly the same service.

This profit can be used to give everyone tax cuts. And because government will get out of the nonprofit side of the business and provide this service for a profit just like private companies do, it won’t be socialized medicine anymore. Just to make sure it isn’t they could set up a separate corporation like Fannie Mae or Sallie Mae to do the collecting and paying. Then it will be a private, for-private business like everyone else’s.

Republicans ought to love this plan, because they’ll get a two-fer: They’ll get lower taxes and get rid of government-provided socialized medicine. Then, the only socialized medicine we’ll have left in this country is private health insurance. And I have a plan for getting rid of that, too!

21. slingshot spews:

I gave a little to Darcy this morning. I was in my bathrob. It was very, very satisfying for me, and for her too. I’m certain.

22. Roger Rabbit spews:

erratum

go them one better

23. Roger Rabbit spews:

Well, it’s my bedtime. As you know, rabbits are nocturnal. My work day is over and I’m (yawn) getting sleepy. I’ll see you Republican trolls later — I still have some unfinished business with you commies.

24. Marvin Stamn spews:

#2 Don Joe says:

I notice how this blog keeps attracting new trolls, yet they keep regurgitating the same, repeatedly debunked bullshit.

  
Margaret sanger and her racist eugenic views were debunked?
Or are you saying that planned parent hood doesn’t have 80% of their clinics in minority areas?
  
I would most enjoy seeing the links that debunked this.

25. The Big Gipper spews:

@24 Stamm

OF COURSE Sanger has her clinics in minority areas! You neolibs don’t get it! Wew NEED government to cleanup these messes today just as we needed government to move the indians when this country was being settled.

The onloy difference between you neolibs and the dimwits is they are smarter.

26. rhp6033 spews:

Taking up on 1st shift where Roger Rabbit (3rd shift) left off…..

In the past most doctors were opposed to “government-run health care” because they feared that the government would cap their fees, restrict their treatment options, dictate who their patients would be, and make them all government employees. But as abuse by the insurance industry has spread, many of them have found that their worst fears have already come true: their rates have been capped and reduced considerably, the insurance companies decide who gets to be their patients and who doesn’t, and the insurance companies decide what treatments will be covered and which ones don’t.

As for whether the doctors are forced to work for the government or some agency, consider that an insurance company recently broadcast a letter to all doctors in their network, instructing them to review patient files and report to them of anything which might be considered a “pre-existing condition” which would allow the insurance company to deny coverage. The insurance company argued that it wasn’t a breach of confidentiality rules, becuase the patients had already signed a form allowing the doctor and insurance company to share information in order to process claims. But in this case there weren’t any claims – the company just wanted to fill it’s files with information which it could later use to deny claims in the future. The doctors have come to the conclusion that they really are working for the insurance companies, not the patients.

As a result, many more doctors than before are willing to consider a government-run health plan of one sort or another. I don’t have any hard numbers, but doctors I have spoken to, many of whom have voted Republican for decades, have expressed a surprising change of heart on this issue.

27. Marvin Stamn spews:

#17 Roger Rabbit says:

But if you try to do something to control gun possession they’ll raise holy hell.

  
What do you suggest be done? I’m sure you understand those buy-back programs to turn guns in only the law abiding citizens turn guns in.

28. correctnotright spews:

I love how the wingnut republicans think the private sector is a better training ground for candidates – because it is real world – than public service.

Unitl a private sector democrat is running – then they have no “experience”.

29. Marvin Stamn spews:

#28 correctnotright says:

I love how the wingnut republicans think the private sector is a better training ground for candidates – because it is real world – than public service.
Unitl a private sector democrat is running – then they have no “experience”.

  
I love it when the wingnut democrats think military service is important, ala john kerry vs. bush.
Until it’s a republican with the military service, ala mccain.

30. slingshot spews:

Sorry Marv, it’s only the Fascist, goose-stepper, clown- Patriot, star spangle-eyed,McCarthy worshippers that think military service is next to godliness.

31. rhp6033 spews:

Of course, the whole argument over competition in health care assumes that you are shopping around for doctors or hospitals based upon price comparisons. Anybody here know anybody who does that?

In reality, those that are insured, if they have the time and opportunity to do so, spend a considerable amount of time to try to make sure that they go to doctors who are covered under their plan. It’s not an easy task – you need to find out if the doctor is “in network”, as well as the clinic through which the billing will be sent, and the lab, and the radiologist, or anybody else who will be touching the file and sending out a bill. If you show up and your doctor is sick and they are having you see another in the clinic, a wise person must stop everything until they get on the phone and confirm, with their insurance company, that the substitute doctor is also covered under the plan.

Even so, you can get some nasty surprises: I found out that the lab my doctor was using dropped out of the network three days before my appointment, and instead of having to pay 10% of a $230.00 bill (reduced by contract between the insurance company and the lab), I had to pay 50% of the lab’s entire bill of $485.00. (The difference between the rate paid by my insurance company and the lab’s “entire bill” is really a hidden tax on the uninsured, but that’s another subject).

Last week I was trying to explain this proceedure to a gal from Japan who had only been in the U.S. for six months, and was working for our company. She was very perplexed. “But in Japan, I only have to pay $168.00 a year to the government, and I don’t have any problems seeing a doctor! And the doctors there are just as good, or even better, than the doctors in the U.S.!” she protested.

And God help you if you have to go to the emergency room. You won’t have much of an opportunity to check to see if the hospital is “in network”, much less to check out if the emergency room operations are out-sourced to a different company, what company the emergency room doctors are using for their billing, much less radiologists or other specialists.

And as for shopping for the insurance companies? Our national health-care policy presumes that most people have insurance available through their workplace. The company has the right to shop for health insurance, but the cost to the employee is a far lower priority to them than the cost the company incurs. So most employers are more than happy to accept “cost reduction” plans by the insurance company, which invariably mean that the employees have to pay more, or get fewer treatment options. And by passing more of the insurance premium cost onto the employees, the companies reduce the employee complaints about such measures, by arguing that the company is actually “working to save money for the employees” by choosing lower-premium options.

Of course, that doesn’t even begin to approach the question that employer-paid insurance is increasingly becoming irrelevent. For one thing, it encourages out-sourcing to other countrys, or a variety of schemes to make sure only management receives the benefit, and not the employees (such as the infamous 34-1/2 hour workweek at many retailers – they have to reach 35 hours per week in order to qualify for insurance benefits).

Also, insurance companies would usually rather pay for problems than preventive care – they know that employees will change jobs, on average, at least once every three to five years, so they don’t see any cost benefit to preventive care. That is why states like California have required insurance companies to offer coverage for preventive care such as mamograms, but the insurance companies have fought it tooth and nail – including getting the Bush administration to try to pass legislation making such state-mandated requirements void.

Then, there is the pre-existing condition exclusion. Originally these were clauses rarely invoked, to prevent people from taking a job just for the purpose of having expensive treatment covered, after which they would quit. But insurance companies have found it to be a fertile ground for denying coverage of, well, just about everything. One-year exclusions of coverage for pre-existing conditions are not uncommon. But if the average employee changes jobs – voluntarily or involuntarily – every three to five years, it means that there will be a gap in cover of between one-third to one-fifth of their working lives. Sure, something entirely new might arise which will be covered. But it is just as likely that somewhere in your medical files is a small reference to a test result which raises a flag about a potential future problem, which the insurance company will use to deny coverage.

More to follow, but not necessarily today….

32. Sempersimper spews:

Don Joe @2

I’d settle for seriouslywoundfiles.

33. Sempersimper spews:

Oh, say, Marvin: why do you spew bullshit and then flee from the thread when called to demonstrate your vast knowlege??

Pussified counterfeit Puddyclone.

34. Sempersimper spews:

Back on Topic: I got a postcard from her last week and gave directly. Probably others here did as well, being on her mailing list from the last round.

Where the hell is that district, anyway, and what did they do to deserve to deserve the imitation sherf?

35. Sempersimper spews:

UHm… that’s “to deserve to deserve to DESERVE the sherf.”

36. PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

Marvin yes that gun buy back plan really worked in Australia.

37. Sempersimper spews:

Puddy and Marvin are the same Idiot. Thank God. One is enough.

38. Marvin Stamn spews:

#33 Sempersimper says:

Oh, say, Marvin: why do you spew bullshit and then flee from the thread when called to demonstrate your vast knowlege??

  
headless lucy, I’ve never said I have vast knowledge. But to a 24/7 racist like you I can see why you would believe that.
Why do you keep using so many different names? I don’t know about the Pudman, but I don’t hold you responsible for being a racist, it’s the fault of your parents. They passed on their racist beliefs to you when you were just a kid. How could you know any better. Get into therapy and get that shit worked out.

39. PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

Marvin: I hold headless sempersimper lucy responsible for his everyday actions. Each person carves their own way in life.

Even George Wallace say the light. Of course it took a bullet into the spine for his “epiphany”. The jury is still out on Robert 3K Byrd.

40. PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

Wallace saw the light…

41. Marvin Stamn spews:

#36 PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator… says:

Marvin yes that gun buy back plan really worked in Australia.

  
OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
• Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
• In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
• Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
• Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
• There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
• At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said “self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm”
• From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
• Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns”. Their response has been to “wait longer”.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
  
The gun program in australia worked perfectly. Now the unarmed victims will be more dependent on the government to swing by after the crime and take a report or haul away the victim’s dead body. Hhmm, I wonder if becoming more dependent on the government is why the democrats are against the constitution.

42. PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

DustinJames: John Lewis finally came around.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2V0TO1.html

43. PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

SeattleJew: I expect your commentary on Slingshit@30. Notice the code words from another NEW Progressive 16%er lefty.

44. Sempersimper spews:

@38

Jesus Christ. I’m trapped in the asylum.

45. correctnotright spews:

I love it when republican trolls try to make out the Democrats as the racist party – what is the party of poll taxes, wille Horton, southern strategy, code words

and what party front runner is African-American?

Way to to twist history – and the argument that the democrats USED to be bad racists – well – the parties switched – since Kennedy/LBJ – that was over 40 years ago – get with the current situation and read Lee Atwater and his southern “whites” divisive strategy for Reagan and Bush. Reagan talked up states rights and used code words in Alabama to kick off his campaign.

46. Don Joe spews:

Margaret sanger and her racist eugenic views were debunked?

The notion that Margaret Sanger’s views from a century ago have anything to do with today’s Planned Parenthood is a prime example of the fallacy of transitive relationships.

As for the percentage of neighborhoods, correlation isn’t causation. You have to come up with a plausable reason to think the connection is race and not some other factor (if, indeed, there is any connection at all). Burden of proof is on you, and insinuations don’t meet the bar.

As I said before, if your thoughts were food, we’d all starve to death.

47. Don Joe spews:

Are you wingnuts ever going to come up with a new schtick?

Australia and guns:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

New trolls, same old debunked bullshit.

48. Marvin Stamn spews:

#46 Don Joe says:

The notion that Margaret Sanger’s views from a century ago have anything to do with today’s Planned Parenthood is a prime example of the fallacy of transitive relationships.
As for the percentage of neighborhoods, correlation isn’t causation. You have to come up with a plausable reason to think the connection is race and not some other factor (if, indeed, there is any connection at all). Burden of proof is on you, and insinuations don’t meet the bar.

  
My bad. When you wrote that it had been debunked I assumed there were facts to prove your point.
  
  
(I didn’t really assume you had any facts to prove it’s been debunked, I was kidding.)

49. Marvin Stamn spews:

#47 Don Joe says:

Are you wingnuts ever going to come up with a new schtick?
Australia and guns:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/st atistics/ausguns.asp
New trolls, same old debunked bullshit.

  
Okay, I screwed the pooch on this one.
Did you notice you proved your point on this one but not the planned parent hood thread although that one has also been debunked in your opinion?

50. slingshot spews:

@43
Ever notice the trolls are never around here posting during the time slot taken up by the O’really Fuctor? It’s because they have to plug in their BioUSB ports to receive the daily doctrine download: repackaged Goering, mostly.

51. correctnotright spews:

Marvin Stamm – sorry citing stuff from 90 years ago as current policy – consider your statements on Australian gun control and on Planned parenthood totally and completely debunked.

Why is it when one examines the right wing arguments critically – with reference to facts – they fall apart under their own weight?

52. correctnotright spews:

@29: I love it how they downplayed Bush and his avoidance of Vietnam. but suddenly , the “war hero” McCain is special because he served over vietnam.

Actually, McCain’s claim to fame is that he is a straight-talkin’ reformer – too bad he is advised by a ton of lobbyist with corporate interests and lied about his relationship to a lobbying firm. Not to mention his weasly attempts to get out of public campaign financing – and break the law he sponsored.

But – this puts him squarely in the republican mold: Corruption and Hypocrisy.

53. rhp6033 spews:

CNR @ 52: I’ve always wondered why Republican wingnuts have such a dislike of McCain. My working theory: they know he is a hypocrite on campaign finance reform, and dislike being lectured to, publically, by someone who is just as guilty as the rest of them. It’s not the hypocracy they dislike so much, its that he breaks the conspiracy of silence on the issue.

54. rhp6033 spews:

Republican positions on how military service better qualifies a man to be President, and how they have evolved over the past few years:

1960: “He who played poker stateside while serving in the WWII Navy (Nixon) served just as honorably as he who captained PT boats in the Pacific and earned medals for heroism (Kennedy):

1968: (I forget)

1972: “WWII experience piloting B-24 bombers in combat (McGovern) is completely irrelevent to the qualifications of who knows best how to resolve the Vietnam war.”

1976: “WWII Navy experience (Ford) is superior to peacetime Navy experience, even if the candidate is an Annapolis graduate and knows nuclear engineering (Carter)”

1980: “Serving as an actor in WWII training films (Reagan) is just as honerable as being an Annapolis graduate and officer in the peacetime nuclear Navy” (Carter).

1984: Not an issue – both Reagan and Mondale served in the U.S. army stateside, Reagan as an actor in Army training films, Mondale as a corporal stationed at Ft. Knox during the Korean War.

1988: “No one is qualified to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces unless he has served in the U.S. Military during time of war” (George H.W. Bush did, Dukakis did not).

1992: “No one is qualified to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces unless he has served in the U.S. Military during time of war”. (George H.W. Bush was a pilot in WWII, Clinton avoided the Vietnam era draft through various deferrals).

1996: “No one is qualified to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces unless he has served in the U.S. Military during time of war”. (Sen. Bob Dole was disabled in combat in Italy in WWII, Clinton avoided the Vietnam era draft through various deferrals).

2000: “It is unpatriotic and unfair to question the service record of someone who served their country protecting it from it’s enemies” (George W. Bush was a part-time pilot in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War who’s performance of his duties was questionable, Sen. Al Gore was in the Army in Vietnam in a non-combat post working for the Stars & Stripes newspaper).

2004: “You can’t prove that our candidate shirked his duties because we know we destroyed all the records, but your candidate wasn’t really a war hero despite his medals”. Okay, I paraphrased that one a bit, but I think fairly. (George W. Bush again vs. John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran in Vietnam).

2008: “My sons served their country by campaigning for me for President” (a comment by Rep. primary candidate Romney, who’s several sons of draft age had never served in the military, despite their father’s gung-ho position on Iraq).

Anyway, I think it’s hilarious how the Republican talking point on military service changes each election cycle depending upon who their candidate is, and how they can really continue to spout that language with such a straight face as if this were a principle espoused by the Founding Fathers.

Expect a return to the “How can anyone be qualified to serve as Commander-In-Chief unless …” line this spring.

55. Marvin Stamn spews:

#51 correctnotright says:

Marvin Stamm – sorry citing stuff from 90 years ago as current policy – consider your statements on Australian gun control and on Planned parenthood totally and completely debunked.
Why is it when one examines the right wing arguments critically – with reference to facts – they fall apart under their own weight?

  
Okay, show me the facts about planned parenthood. The facts why the majority of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

56. rhp6033 spews:

Actually, reviewing the records since 1960, it appears that both parties are pretty equal in having combat veterans as presidential candidates.

For the Republicans: Ford, Bush I, Dole, and McCain all served in combat.

For the Democrats: Kennedy, McGovern, and Kerry all served in combat.

Both Goldwater (Republican) and Johnson (Democrat) served in WWII, but not directly in combat. But Goldwater’s service as a ferry pilot flying “the hump” over the Himilayas deserves considerable credit. Although Johnson received a medal for volunteer to fly on a recon/bombing mission during WWII where the aircraft came under fire, the whole episode is rather suspect, with Johnson already being a Congressman, and McArthur’s arranging the flight and then giving Johnson a medal afterwards after Johnson had already been ordered home.

As for those other Presidential candidates who served in the military in non-combat positions, the parties are also equally divided: three Republicans (Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II), and three Democrats (Carter, Mondale, Gore).

(Gee, ever notice that the most belicose Republicans are the ones who served in non-combat positions in the military?)

57. GS spews:

I tried to put in -$500 but the actblue wouldn’t take it, so my election account didn’t get a penny