The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Options
11314161819252

Comments

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    Chalk one up for McCain Wink

    The New York Times

    Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

    May 20, 2008

    Older Brain Really May Be a Wiser Brain

    By SARA REISTAD-LONG

    When older people can no longer remember names at a cocktail party, they tend to think that their brainpower is declining. But a growing number of studies suggest that this assumption is often wrong.

    Instead, the research finds, the aging brain is simply taking in more data and trying to sift through a clutter of information, often to its long-term benefit.

    The studies are analyzed in a new edition of a neurology book, “Progress in Brain Research.”

    Some brains do deteriorate with age. Alzheimer’s disease, for example, strikes 13 percent of Americans 65 and older. But for most aging adults, the authors say, much of what occurs is a gradually widening focus of attention that makes it more difficult to latch onto just one fact, like a name or a telephone number. Although that can be frustrating, it is often useful.

    “It may be that distractibility is not, in fact, a bad thing,” said Shelley H. Carson, a psychology researcher at Harvard whose work was cited in the book. “It may increase the amount of information available to the conscious mind.”

    For example, in studies where subjects are asked to read passages that are interrupted with unexpected words or phrases, adults 60 and older work much more slowly than college students. Although the students plow through the texts at a consistent speed regardless of what the out-of-place words mean, older people slow down even more when the words are related to the topic at hand. That indicates that they are not just stumbling over the extra information, but are taking it in and processing it.

    When both groups were later asked questions for which the out-of-place words might be answers, the older adults responded much better than the students.

    “For the young people, it’s as if the distraction never happened,” said an author of the review, Lynn Hasher, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and a senior scientist at the Rotman Research Institute. “But for older adults, because they’ve retained all this extra data, they’re now suddenly the better problem solvers. They can transfer the information they’ve soaked up from one situation to another.”

    Such tendencies can yield big advantages in the real world, where it is not always clear what information is important, or will become important. A seemingly irrelevant point or suggestion in a memo can take on new meaning if the original plan changes. Or extra details that stole your attention, like others’ yawning and fidgeting, may help you assess the speaker’s real impact.

    “A broad attention span may enable older adults to ultimately know more about a situation and the indirect message of what’s going on than their younger peers,” Dr. Hasher said. “We believe that this characteristic may play a significant role in why we think of older people as wiser.”

    In a 2003 study at Harvard, Dr. Carson and other researchers tested students’ ability to tune out irrelevant information when exposed to a barrage of stimuli. The more creative the students were thought to be, determined by a questionnaire on past achievements, the more trouble they had ignoring the unwanted data. A reduced ability to filter and set priorities, the scientists concluded, could contribute to original thinking.

    This phenomenon, Dr. Carson said, is often linked to a decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex. Studies have found that people who suffered an injury or disease that lowered activity in that region became more interested in creative pursuits.

    Jacqui Smith, a professor of psychology and research professor at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the current research, said there was a word for what results when the mind is able to assimilate data and put it in its proper place — wisdom.

    “These findings are all very consistent with the context we’re building for what wisdom is,” she said. “If older people are taking in more information from a situation, and they’re then able to combine it with their comparatively greater store of general knowledge, they’re going to have a nice advantage.”


  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    Paulette,

    Oh too bad, it was suffragette women marching down 5th Avenue back in the day. The on-looking crowd was amazing in size. 

    Susie, it took me 24 hours to remember Gil Hodges name, the baseball player.  I see that might be a good sign now.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    My brain ain't worth poot!

    Paulette, I believe McCain is the closest to telling us the truth about what HE'LL do for our healt care.  And, since my brain "ain't worth poot" I can't even tell you what he said.  However, I don't remember getting excited about it.

    The government CANNOT offer us the same healt care they're getting.  I used to have the best insurance until this year and now it's horrible and it's gonna break us!  Oh well, I'll find a big box.  Laughing

    Shirley

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    Whatever your political leanings the news about Kennedy is so sad.

    Even as a far left liberal he is one of the few senators who actually has

    the ability to work with both sides of the aisles and he has been a champion of health-care. Although I may not agree with him on many issues, his ability to compromise in Congress would be sorely missed.

    My thoughts and prayers are with the family at this difficult time.  

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    I hate to see ANYONE go through what he has to go through or have a horrible dx like he does.  I wouldn't wish ill health on even my worst enemies.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    McCain's health care has been making the rounds, and a form of it is stuck in a committee now.  He wants to offer $5000 tax credit to purchase health care or help pay the monthly premiums.  I don't know how something like that would work to get everyone into a plan.   I haven't read the plan, maybe he has something about it on his web site. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    I think McCain is just not republican enough ....  Why can't we get a person who believes in State's Rights, less taxes, eliminate the AMT, no increase of social program benefits.  Keep our borders strong. I need more money here! In my pocketbook!  I need gas for my car!

    Everything is supply and demand:  even when it comes to the labor force.  If we had our own gas supply, OPEC would lower their price. If we had less illegal immigrants, we'd have more jobs for our tradesmen with a prevailing wage.  If we Californians, Arizonians, Texans and Floridians didn't have to pay for the education of the illegal immigrant's children ... well maybe our schools wouldn't be so overcrowded and our food budget would go further.  If we weren't paying for their medical bills maybe our states wouldn't have to be in a deficit!

    Here's McCain's view:

    For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want -- protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking -- The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics.

    Instead of emphasizing the need for local and state cooperation with federal immigration authorities to prevent the release of illegal alien criminals or discussing 100 percent preventable crimes by illegal alien thugs who should never have been on American soil in the first place, McCain harps on open-borders sob stories. Several times over the past year, in response to citizen questioners who have expressed frustration with the lack of accountability for immigration law-breakers, McCain has responded: "I am not going to call up a soldier and tell him I am deporting his mother. ... I'm not going to do it. You can do it."

    But what if that mother had stolen an American citizen's Social Security number to work here illegally? What if she had been previously deported, re-entered illegally, and had been convicted of previous crimes? What if she were part of a human smuggling ring? What if she had been working in a sensitive area -- airport security, a military base, a port? Would he still refuse to abide by his constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty for law-abiding Americans?

    If McCain refuses to enforce immigration law against illegal alien parents of soldiers, what about illegal alien soldiers who used stolen or fake identification to get into the military? And why only illegal alien parents of soldiers? Why not illegal alien parents of police officers, teachers, doctors and store owners? McCain's selective enforcement policy is the exact recipe for immigration anarchy that we have today.

    The hothead has succeeded in intimidating voters and eluding tough questions from the press by playing his rhetorical violin. There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic Party want John McCain to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives.

    In Michigan, the illegal alien parent-of-a-soldier story was met with boos. McCain's cheerleaders at The New York Times and other press outlets attempted to depict the detractors as insensitive and racist boors -- just as they did during last year's ill-fated shamnesty campaign.

    McCain has learned nothing. What about us?

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    I think that the Republican's have themselves the makings of a  commercial----

    War is not easy to get out of but I have a heck of allot more confidence that McCain will get us out judiciously.

    I found this video "breathtaking in its naivete" to borrow a phrase from the McCain campaign---just chilling.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/52_seconds_of_obama_unilateral.html

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    McCain to Meet 3 Possible Running Mates

    Senator John McCain is planning to meet this weekend with at least three potential Republican running mates at a gathering at his ranch in Arizona, suggesting that he is stepping up his search for a vice president now that the Democratic contest appears basically decided, according to Republicans familiar with Mr. McCain’s plans.

    Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a one-time rival for the Republican nomination, have all accepted invitations to visit with Mr. McCain at his ranch in Sedona, these Republicans said.

    After a week of campaigning, Mr. McCain is heading home on Friday for three days without a public schedule. His campaign described this as a social weekend that would include a number of couples, and — as has been its policy it declined to discuss any aspect of the vice presidential search.

    “We don’t talk about the V.P. selection process,” said Steve Schmidt a senior adviser.

    In addition to Mr. Crist, Mr. Jindal and Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain’s guest list includes some of top his political counselors, among them Charlie Black, a senior strategist, and Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, his frequent traveling companion and probably his closest colleague in the Senate.

    If the gathering does not involve actual interviews, as some of Mr. McCain’s associates said Wednesday, it will provide Mr. McCain with a chance to know some potential running mates in a social context. Mr. McCain is known as a social and gregarious candidate and senator, and his associates said personal chemistry would be a key consideration in his choice.

    The gathering is taking place on a weekend when Mr. McCain is releasing his health care records, itself a high-profile event that could — by design or not — draw attention away from the event at the Arizona ranch.

    The identities of the potential running mates who have been invited to Sedona is not a surprise: Mr. Romney, Mr. Crist and Mr. Jindal have been on most lists of potential running mates, and they have made no secret of their interest. And even the perception that they are under consideration could be more a matter of appearance than reality: the mere impression that Mr. McCain is considering Mr. Crist of Florida, for example, could by itself help him in a critical state where Mr. McCain campaigned Wednesday

    Still, Mr. Cain’s gathering comes as Senator Barack Obama appears to have all but nailed down the Democratic nomination in his competition with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and its timing suggests an acceleration in reaching a decision that several Republicans said could prove critical to Mr. McCain’s success in a tough political environment for their party. Mr. McCain, arguably more than most presidential candidates, has a lot riding on choosing a running mate who could make up for any weaknesses in his own résumé and give him a boost in his public standing.

    Mr. McCain himself has said his choice of a running mate would draw particular scrutiny from voters, given his age; he is now 71 year old, or “as old as dirt,” as he likes to joke, while quickly adding that he is in good health.

    More than that, with Mr. Obama’s selection now almost assured, Mr. McCain is contemplating a contest involving an energized electorate that has put a focus on race and gender.

    Earlier this month, Mr. McCain said he had assembled a list of about 20 potential running mates. He said he had not decided when he would make a decision; his aides made clear that he would keep the process as closely held as possible..

    Among the other potential running mates are Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Rob Portman, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    Mr. Crist, a fairly popular first-term governor, has been included on various lists of potential running mates for Mr. McCain, who he endorsed shortly before Florida’s primary in January, effectively helping Mr. McCain secure the nomination. He said Wednesday that he and Mr. McCain had not discussed the prospect of his being on the ticket, and the two attended a fund-raiser in Miami on Tuesday night.

    The McCain campaign, Mr. Crist said, has not solicited the kind of personal information typically requested to vet possible running mates.

    As governor of Florida, Mr. Crist, 51, would bring a number of obvious assets to a Republican ticket, beginning with his popularity in a state that is almost always an electoral battleground — and where Mr. Obama appears to be struggling. His relative youth could also be an asset for Mr. McCain.

    In Florida, Mr. Crist has long been known for his affability and a campaign skills. Instantly recognizable because of his perpetual tan and striking white hair, Mr. Crist, who served as Florida’s attorney general before being elected governor in 2006, has also acquired a reputation as something of a hard-liner on law and order issues.

    He supports the death penalty, largely opposes restrictions on the rights of gun owners, early on earned the nickname "Chain Gang Charlie" because he favored allowing convicts to be used in road work, and has described himself as a "pro-life and pro-family" candidate.

    Mr. Romney, a former chief executive who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination this year, has made no secret of his desire to join Mr. McCain’s presidential ticket. As a vice president, Mr. Romney’s business background — including running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics — could address concerns about Mr. McCain’s ability to manage the struggling economy.

    Mr. Romney has also proven himself to be a prolific fund-raiser, although he spent enormous sums of money during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and still could not beat Mr. McCain. And geographically, he brings little to the ticket, since he is unlikely to put Massachusetts in play for the Republicans.

    Mr. Jindal, who was born in Baton Rouge, La., to a family that had just arrived there from the Punjab area of India, took office as Louisiana’s governor in January after serving three years in the House of Representatives. Mr. Jindal, who was born a Hindu but became a Roman Catholic as a teenager, campaigned for governor as a social conservative, opposing human embryonic stem cell research and abortion in any form and favoring teaching “intelligent design” in schools as an alternative to evolution.

    But Mr. Jindal also has a reputation as a policy wonk, like the Clintons, with a specialty in health care issues. After graduating in 1991 from Brown University, where he majored in biology and public policy, and attending Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, Mr. Jindal worked for the management consulting firm McKinsey and Company and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. He later served as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and in the Bush administration as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for planning and evaluation.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    That was from NYT today.

    Bobby J gets my vote!-----Heaven knows he should be Conservative enough for all of you Conservatives

    For me--He's a wonk on health-care and certainly has a realistic view of Radical Islam from Pakistan.  And I figure Stem cell research will get the nod with McCain

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    I hope Mitt Romney accepts.  Maybe his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration will take hold!

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    But conservatives haven't been voting for Romney which I think is why he dropped out in the first place---when he lost their vote to Huckabee.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    I watched the entire video that was posted here..I think you, Susie, or Rosemary posted it.  He (Jindal) sounds very good.  He's young and articulate.

    I'm really upset with McCain because he doesn't want to drill in ANWR.  Being an environmentalist is fine, but when it's effecting our whole economy somethings got to give. 

    I've seen some of the video by Obama.  Getting rid of nuclear weapons?  What's he been drinking?  When I heard that the first time, I thought, You are such an idiot.  I haven't read the link you posted.  Do you think they'll use this for a campaign ad.  I certainly hope so.  Something's really wrong with him.  He should start charging admission.  He could get really rich in a heartbeat.  I believe it was reported that in Oregon there were 65 - 75 thousand people there.  Could I have that wrong?  It looked like New Years Eve in New York!

    Shirley

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2008

    Especially, since the Alaskans want it, it's their state (see that's why State's rights should be higher) the research is done ... it won't ruin the environment, just Bush's friends pocketbooks!  Oh and upset Gore.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    He's going to take our missiles off of hair trigger alert.  So what does it take to get a missle ready to fire?  Hours?  Could we all be dead in the time it will take to get them out of the ground and on target?  Our detractors have to be jumping with joy to see this guy getting so close to the White House.

  • Paulette531
    Paulette531 Member Posts: 738
    edited May 2008

    Rosemary...how much of this stuff can he do on his own? Doesn't he have to have approval? Can this guy really be this foolish? Well, that was probably a stupid question considering he visited 57 states!

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    Paulette,

    Well he would need approval I think from congress to get spending money for updating our arsenal, but I don't think he'll need approval for laying down our arms.  Can you imagine?  Don't you feel silly for even having to talk like this?  After this election we're all going to need sedatives.

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    I just found out why it's so important to put polar bears on the endangered species list.  It's so they can't go any further with drilling or expanding drilling in that region.  Is drilling killing polar bears?  Does drilling add to global warming?  Refining does, but what about drilling?

    I watched a democratic Senator in the well of the Senate just railing against the price of oil.  Fire him!  I'd like to go tap on his shoulder and tell him to do something about it.  Like talk with his friends and get some legislation out of committees to start off shore drilling.  They're trying to get on record being against this increase in gas prices but do nothing towards that end. 

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    I noticed that one of the people invited to McCain's barbecue is Meg Whitman.  I'm wondering if its because she was a big supporter of Romney who was also invited or would McCain be guttsy enough to have her under consideration for VP?  It certainly would throw a curve into the VP sweepstakes.

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    Feisty lady--this Governor Sarah Palin.  I wonder why she isn't at the barbecue?

    ---------------

    From the associated press

    Governor says Alaska will challenge polar bear listing
    May 21 08:12 PM US/Eastern
    By DAN JOLING
    Associated Press Writer
    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

    She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

    Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

    Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican.

    The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

    "She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

    Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

    "Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

    As marine mammals, polar bears are regulated by the federal government, not the state. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne last week made the listing decision and said it was based on three findings.

    "First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future," he said.

    Summer sea ice last year shrank to a record low, about 1.65 million square miles, nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.

    Polar bears rely on sea ice for hunting ringed seals. In recent years, summer sea ice has receded far beyond the relatively shallow, biologically rich waters of the outer continental shelf, giving polar bears less time in prime feeding areas.

    The bear's numbers rebounded after the 1970s, but conservation groups contend that was in response to measures taken to stop over-hunting.

    Polar bear researchers fear recent effects of the loss of sea ice on Alaska polar bear populations. A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that far fewer polar bear cubs in the Beaufort Sea were surviving and that adult males weighed less and had smaller skulls than those captured and measured two decades previously—trends similar to observations in Canada's western Hudson Bay before a population drop.

    A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

    Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them.

    However, he sought to limit the economic effect of the decision with the inclusion of "administrative guidance" that said the listing would not be used to create back-door climate policy outside the normal system of political accountability. He also said that the threat to polar bears did not come from the petroleum industry.

    In response, conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are seeking to overturn Kempthorne's administrative actions and seek limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

    Palin and other state officials called arbitrary a decision to list a healthy species judging by what they deem uncertain modeling of future climate change and unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species.

    State Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin said it could have wide economic effects.

    "Inappropriate implementation of this listing decision could result in widespread social and economic impacts, including increased power costs and further increases in fuel prices, without providing any more protection for the species," he said.

    Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska and an advocate in the state for global warming response, said Palin's lawsuit was not a prudent use of state money.

    "Clearly Secretary Kempthorne put a tremendous amount of thought into the listing decision and concluded correctly that listing was required," she said.

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    A little more from Politico.com about McCain feelings regarding this GI bill

    which I am sure you won't hear on MSNBC or CNN

    -------------------

    Obama criticizes absent McCain on Senate floor, McCain hits back hard

    Jim Webb's GI Bill passed the Senate today with a bipartisan majority, 75-22. Clinton and Obama were both there, but McCain is in California today on the fundraising trail.

    Obama used the opportunity to once again tie his rival to the president.

    "I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country," Obama said on the Senate floor this morning. "He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."

    The McCain campaign responded by issuing a sharply worded and lengthy statement in the senator's name. McCain notes his support for an alternative to the Webb measure, but points out his own military service and points out Obama's lack thereof.

    "It is typical, but no less offensive that Sen. Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in the statement.  "Let me say first in response to Sen. Obama, running for president is different than serving as president. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Sen. Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."


    "When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well.

    "But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

    "Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

    "I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

    "The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

    "Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

    "Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    Get the feeling he has a personal distain for Obama????

  • Paulette531
    Paulette531 Member Posts: 738
    edited May 2008

    Distain for good reason, and I agree with what he said, Obama is a snake.

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    I've been more and more disappointed in the bias of the NYT lately but to my amazement they hit this right out of the ball park today.

    ------------------------------------

    The New York Times


    May 22, 2008
    Op-Ed Contributors

    Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

    By NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS

    IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.

    They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

    But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

    Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

    But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

    Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

    Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

    A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

    If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

    Nathan Thrall is a journalist. Jesse James Wilkins is a doctoral candidate in political science at Columbia.


  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    It's nice to see that McCain is not mincing any words.  So the Webb bill passed, and will Bush veto it and then they'll have to sit together to get one that is more to McCain's liking? 

    Obama is being saddled with the onus of being a weakling so he has to pick fights and sound like a tough guy or he's doomed.  We are going to see a more feisty Obama as we go along.

    The Obama and Clinton kiss fest is over.  I knew it couldn't last.  Something about a remark Clinton said about the June assassination of RFK, and the Obama people jumped all over her.  We'll probably hear all about it for the next month. 

    They had to do something because the call for Clinton to be Veep was getting stronger.  So jump Clinton and that ends that. 

  • Paulette531
    Paulette531 Member Posts: 738
    edited May 2008

    The thing about Obama getting fiesty is that when he gets that way he sounds dumber and dumber...so hopefully he will get real fiesty!

  • saluki
    saluki Member Posts: 2,287
    edited May 2008

    Is there no unbiased media publication remaining?????  I'm pretty much down to political.com..... Lets just leave off the most objectionable part of the speech so that the response sounds out of proportion!!!!!

    Then we as an "unbiased media"  can hype loosing his bearings and hothead and that gullible American public will swallow it.  Especially, if we

    make the accusations subtle enough.

    I am so sick of it.  They released thousands of pages of McCain's health records and the man was found more fit than a fifty year old.  I should

    have expected that to be the end of it----but noooooooo.  But then, I shouldn't have expected anything better of CNN.  I did expect better of Sanjay Gupta who was looking for any bit of sensationalism he could find and was disappointed he didn't find mental issues.-------Poor Sanjay---nothing to run with.

    Here is the part of Obama's speech that was so conveniently omitted by the press and reported in Commentary

    --------------------

    Obama’s Real McCain Smear

    Max Boot - 05.24.2008 - 10:57 AM

    Talk about missing the point. Robert Pear of the New York Times writes:

    Senator John McCain takes pride in his unwavering support for members of the armed forces. So when Senator Barack Obama criticized him on Thursday on the Senate floor, his response was scathing.

    True enough, but while quoting McCain’s “scathing” response, Pear does not tell readers what prompted it. He writes that it was touched off by the following statement:

    I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. . . But I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this G.I. Bill.

    That seems innocuous. Why would it prompt a “scathing” reply? Might this perhaps be evidence of the candidate’s supposedly volatile temperament? Readers of the Times might think so because Pear conveniently left off the rest of Obama’s statement. Here is what Obama actually said:

     I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. . .but I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can’t believe he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

    The truly objectionable part of Obama’s statement is the last sentence, which the Times didn’t quote — the sentence in which he accuses McCain of “partisan posturing” at the expense of veterans. That’s a pretty rich accusation for someone who has never served in uniform to make against one of our greatest military heroes. No wonder McCain was steamed. He had every right to be. And given the Times’s distortion of this dispute, McCain should be even more aggrieved today. But then he wouldn’t expect anything different from the Newspaper of Record, which seems to have morphed into an unregistered lobbyist for the Obama campaign. (Full disclosure: I’m a foreign policy adviser to the McCain campaign.)

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited May 2008

    When they say there will be some soul searching in the media after all this is said and done, who is going to lead the charge?  They're all guilty, some more than others, so I suspect this outrage will just get swept under the carpet:

     http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

  • arnica
    arnica Member Posts: 33
    edited May 2008
  • Paulette531
    Paulette531 Member Posts: 738
    edited May 2008

    Arnica, this board here is MOVING BOYOND and nobody is forcing you to read it or participate in this thread and if MY OPINION is "he is a snake" then I am entitled to it and if yours isn't then you are entitled to yours as well. Get real. If you want cancer support then participate in a thread that offers that to you but don't knock  a discussion because you personally disagree.

  • arnica
    arnica Member Posts: 33
    edited May 2008

Categories