According to Eric Alterman, it seems that the "active" military personnel who are delegates at the Republican National Convention are reservists, so they are okay to be delegates:
"Update on my Possible Actual News Alert: According to our man Bateman, whom we should have contacted in the first place, the Republican Party is not in violation of the U.S. military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military, owing to the reserve status of the delegates."
We have to ask, though, if the reserves are being sent into active duty, why is there a distinction for political activity and not being sent to Iraq?
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
Active servicemen serving as delegates?
The following appears today in Eric Alterman's column online on msnbc.com. (For the entire column: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/) Props to Michael Galletly for his vigilance! We at The Thinking Woman hesitate to call this a conspiracy (although the word has been muttered) but it certainly seems to be something the Republican Party itself would be anxious to clear up. The last thing they want is an appearance of inpropriety as they are the party of the sitting president:
Possible Actual News Alert: Is the Republican Party in violation of the US military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military?
It sure looks that way. The RNC convention week is boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention or three percent of the total. That information can be found here.
Meanwhile, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct.
It explicitly says:
"A member on active duty shall not ... Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform)."
But the Republican Party itself is claiming that the active duty personnel are not spectators but delegates. What’s going on here? Why are the Republicans encouraging our soldiers to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its stated rules of political engagement? And why for goodness sakes, aren’t these rules being enforced?
Hey MSNBC.com, can we put a reporter or two on this story please?
(Thanks to Altercation reader Michael Galletly of Norman, OK.)
Possible Actual News Alert: Is the Republican Party in violation of the US military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military?
It sure looks that way. The RNC convention week is boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention or three percent of the total. That information can be found here.
Meanwhile, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct.
It explicitly says:
"A member on active duty shall not ... Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform)."
Hey MSNBC.com, can we put a reporter or two on this story please?
(Thanks to Altercation reader Michael Galletly of Norman, OK.)
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Cheney Earns our Admiration
The thinking women behind The Thinkingwoman are not given to praising Republicans too often, so imagine our surprise when we have good things to say about two of them in a given week. However, in a New York Times article by Robin Toner this morning (Aug. 25) Cheney was quoted about his opinion on gay marriage.
--- In a political season marked by Republican efforts to outlaw gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday offered a defense of the rights of gay Americans, declaring that "freedom means freedom for everyone" to enter "into any kind of relationship they want to."
--- Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage.
The critics immediately started sniping that Cheney was only trying to soften the harsh tone of the Bush administration calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. We believe otherwise. Back in 2000 we were struck by the civil and intelligent content of Cheney’s debate with then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. During their discussion the issue of the place of homosexuals in our society came up and both men agreed that they needed to learn more and remain open-minded about the topic. Since that time, Cheney has admitted that one of his two daughters is gay and has stated that he is as proud of her as her sister.
This doesn’t sound like a man who is playing a game for his administration. This strikes us as a good father who is standing by what he believes in spite of his party’s platform. We’d like to offer our praise and encouragement for this principled stance. We only wish we saw more of this in politics.
--- In a political season marked by Republican efforts to outlaw gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday offered a defense of the rights of gay Americans, declaring that "freedom means freedom for everyone" to enter "into any kind of relationship they want to."
--- Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage.
The critics immediately started sniping that Cheney was only trying to soften the harsh tone of the Bush administration calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. We believe otherwise. Back in 2000 we were struck by the civil and intelligent content of Cheney’s debate with then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. During their discussion the issue of the place of homosexuals in our society came up and both men agreed that they needed to learn more and remain open-minded about the topic. Since that time, Cheney has admitted that one of his two daughters is gay and has stated that he is as proud of her as her sister.
This doesn’t sound like a man who is playing a game for his administration. This strikes us as a good father who is standing by what he believes in spite of his party’s platform. We’d like to offer our praise and encouragement for this principled stance. We only wish we saw more of this in politics.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
John McCain and the 2004 presidential election
We at The Thinking Women are fans of John McCain, the moderate Republican senator from Arizona. We have found ourselves frequently discussing him lately. We liked him as a running mate for John Kerry, and, for that matter, we liked him as the Republican presidential candidate in 2000. (And, for that matter, he'd make a great running mate for George W. Bush!)
Which brings up why he is being discussed by us so much now. It turns out that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are essentially the same group of people who ran a successful negative ad campaign against John McCain in 2000, enabling George W. Bush to gain the Republican nomination. And so, instead of running for re-election as president, Sen. McCain is running for re-election as senator in Arizona. (If being a war veteran were the main criteria for being president, there's no question his experiences and heroism far outstrips anyone else who has run for the office of president in the last twenty years. )
One of us was led to comment today that if John McCain were president, America wouldn't be in the mess we are today. And we asked (as we seem to do almost weekly), how could the GOP nominate George W. Bush over John McCain?
Which brings us back to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The conservative right appears to, right now, have the power (especially the money) in the Republican Party and they, by hook or crook (heh heh) got their candidate into office. John McCain is too moderate for the Republicans right now. Which is sad, because the country is being denied the Republican who has the true potential to unite a polarized nation.
Which brings up why he is being discussed by us so much now. It turns out that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are essentially the same group of people who ran a successful negative ad campaign against John McCain in 2000, enabling George W. Bush to gain the Republican nomination. And so, instead of running for re-election as president, Sen. McCain is running for re-election as senator in Arizona. (If being a war veteran were the main criteria for being president, there's no question his experiences and heroism far outstrips anyone else who has run for the office of president in the last twenty years. )
One of us was led to comment today that if John McCain were president, America wouldn't be in the mess we are today. And we asked (as we seem to do almost weekly), how could the GOP nominate George W. Bush over John McCain?
Which brings us back to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The conservative right appears to, right now, have the power (especially the money) in the Republican Party and they, by hook or crook (heh heh) got their candidate into office. John McCain is too moderate for the Republicans right now. Which is sad, because the country is being denied the Republican who has the true potential to unite a polarized nation.
The Swift Boat "controversy" -- enough already!
This thoughtful commentary on the "Swift Boat controversy was printed today in the New York Times. Following the commentary is my letter I wrote to the editor of the Times, after reading it:
On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record
August 24, 2004
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.
Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but theyhave provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection.
Somehow, on all-cable news stations - CNN as well as Fox News - a story that rises or falls on basic and mostly verifiable facts blurs into just another developing news sensation alongside the latest Utah kidnapping or the Scott Peterson murder trial. (It is particularly confusing on FoxNews, where so many of its blond female anchors look like Amber Frey.)
Fox News, which delivers its news with "Fight Club"ferocity, has relished the controversy the most, seizing hungrily on charges that Mr. Kerry lied to gain his medals. Those accusations, which have not been substantiated, were made in the book "Unfit for Command," co-written by a former Swift boat commander and longtime Kerry critic, John O'Neill. Fox News has pushed the story early, often, and sometimes even late.
Yesterday, President Bush denounced all third-party campaign ads, including the ads by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and called his opponent's war record admirable. Fox anchors made note of that development, then raced back to the disparaging remarks former Senator Bob Dole made to CNN on Sunday about Mr. Kerry's Purple Heart medals. ("Never bled that I know of,"said Mr. Dole, who was badly wounded in World War II.)
Fox News showed, again, a clip of Mr. Dole complaining that it was hypocritical of Kerry, a former opponent of the war, to run now as a proud Vietnam veteran. The Fox anchor Laurie Dhue then turned to her liberal guest, Elaine Kamarck, a former Gore campaign adviser.
"I mean, this does make it sound like he speaks from both sides of his mouth on this," Ms. Dhue said. "Could this hurt the Kerry campaign?"
Ms. Kamarck disagreed.
Fred Barnes, the executive editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular Fox commentator, ardently defended the Swiftboat critics of Mr. Kerry, saying on Fox that a majority of the senator's Vietnam brethren believed that Mr. Kerry"fabricated or exaggerated his record." Mr. Barnes added that "the entire chain of command above Kerry have said the same thing." He did not mention any notable exceptions in that chain of command, including Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, a former secretary of the Navy who said Mr. Kerry fully merited the Silver Star. Mr. Barnes's hyperbole went unchecked.
CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to obtain his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed soldiers to leave the war zone after winning three. "Imean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not receive two Purple Hearts for events of the same day. He received them for the events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13, 1969.)
Finally, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole by telephone and asked him if he regretted any of his statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.
"I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "Iwas just trying to say all these guys on the other side just can't be Republican liars."
That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.
Fox commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are famous for their informal, intemperate manner of speech. But the debate on programs like "Crossfire," on CNN, is often as heated - and as full of hot air. On an Aug. 12 edition about the Swift boat debate, a program regular, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, called Mr. O'Neill and his fellow anti-Kerry veterans "the real patriots to rise to the surface this election year."
James Carville, Mr. Novak's liberal counterpart, challenged Mr. O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi, charging that Mr.Corsi's blog is "scabrous." When Mr. O'Neill tried to change the subject, Mr. Carville shrieked at him.
At best, cable news programs swing into action when a crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but cable has done little to clear the air.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/politics/campaign/24watch.html?ex=1094371553&ei=1&en=4697a6873ed58ccf
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Here is my letter:
I have just finished reading Alessandra Stanley's excellent piece on the media's coverage of the "Swift boat controversy."
I, for one, am sick of the whole thing. John Kerry is not the only person to serve in Vietnam, then come back and protest the war. George W. Bush isn't the only rich kid to avoid active service.
It's as if everything else both men have done in their lives is pointless next to decisions they made when they were kids in their 20s. There is a reason the writers of the Constitution assigned a minimum age of 32 for the person to hold the office of president. We make different decisions at each point in our life.
I am much more interested in what's happening now. Bush's policies have alienated the United States from the rest of the world. There is a huge deficit because of a tax cut that benefits only the top one percent of income earners. Health care is in a state of crisis. The country is even more polarized than it was when Bush went into office. War veterans have the worst support from the government they've had, ever. The current administration policies are decemating the environment, and we're in the middle of a war that is beginning to resemble Vietnam: A war Kerry was lucky enough to escape intact from, as were the majority of his critics, and Bush was lucky enough to avoid fighting in.
Instead of hearing about both candidates' pasts, I want to hear from George W. Bush how our country is better off than it was when he took office. And I want both candidates to give me detailed agendas for their administrations. I, for one, want to select a candidate based on a concrete plan for America, not on emotion and accusations.
On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record
August 24, 2004
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.
Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but theyhave provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection.
Somehow, on all-cable news stations - CNN as well as Fox News - a story that rises or falls on basic and mostly verifiable facts blurs into just another developing news sensation alongside the latest Utah kidnapping or the Scott Peterson murder trial. (It is particularly confusing on FoxNews, where so many of its blond female anchors look like Amber Frey.)
Fox News, which delivers its news with "Fight Club"ferocity, has relished the controversy the most, seizing hungrily on charges that Mr. Kerry lied to gain his medals. Those accusations, which have not been substantiated, were made in the book "Unfit for Command," co-written by a former Swift boat commander and longtime Kerry critic, John O'Neill. Fox News has pushed the story early, often, and sometimes even late.
Yesterday, President Bush denounced all third-party campaign ads, including the ads by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and called his opponent's war record admirable. Fox anchors made note of that development, then raced back to the disparaging remarks former Senator Bob Dole made to CNN on Sunday about Mr. Kerry's Purple Heart medals. ("Never bled that I know of,"said Mr. Dole, who was badly wounded in World War II.)
Fox News showed, again, a clip of Mr. Dole complaining that it was hypocritical of Kerry, a former opponent of the war, to run now as a proud Vietnam veteran. The Fox anchor Laurie Dhue then turned to her liberal guest, Elaine Kamarck, a former Gore campaign adviser.
"I mean, this does make it sound like he speaks from both sides of his mouth on this," Ms. Dhue said. "Could this hurt the Kerry campaign?"
Ms. Kamarck disagreed.
Fred Barnes, the executive editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular Fox commentator, ardently defended the Swiftboat critics of Mr. Kerry, saying on Fox that a majority of the senator's Vietnam brethren believed that Mr. Kerry"fabricated or exaggerated his record." Mr. Barnes added that "the entire chain of command above Kerry have said the same thing." He did not mention any notable exceptions in that chain of command, including Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, a former secretary of the Navy who said Mr. Kerry fully merited the Silver Star. Mr. Barnes's hyperbole went unchecked.
CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to obtain his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed soldiers to leave the war zone after winning three. "Imean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not receive two Purple Hearts for events of the same day. He received them for the events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13, 1969.)
Finally, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole by telephone and asked him if he regretted any of his statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.
"I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "Iwas just trying to say all these guys on the other side just can't be Republican liars."
That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.
Fox commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are famous for their informal, intemperate manner of speech. But the debate on programs like "Crossfire," on CNN, is often as heated - and as full of hot air. On an Aug. 12 edition about the Swift boat debate, a program regular, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, called Mr. O'Neill and his fellow anti-Kerry veterans "the real patriots to rise to the surface this election year."
James Carville, Mr. Novak's liberal counterpart, challenged Mr. O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi, charging that Mr.Corsi's blog is "scabrous." When Mr. O'Neill tried to change the subject, Mr. Carville shrieked at him.
At best, cable news programs swing into action when a crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but cable has done little to clear the air.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/politics/campaign/24watch.html?ex=1094371553&ei=1&en=4697a6873ed58ccf
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Here is my letter:
I have just finished reading Alessandra Stanley's excellent piece on the media's coverage of the "Swift boat controversy."
I, for one, am sick of the whole thing. John Kerry is not the only person to serve in Vietnam, then come back and protest the war. George W. Bush isn't the only rich kid to avoid active service.
It's as if everything else both men have done in their lives is pointless next to decisions they made when they were kids in their 20s. There is a reason the writers of the Constitution assigned a minimum age of 32 for the person to hold the office of president. We make different decisions at each point in our life.
I am much more interested in what's happening now. Bush's policies have alienated the United States from the rest of the world. There is a huge deficit because of a tax cut that benefits only the top one percent of income earners. Health care is in a state of crisis. The country is even more polarized than it was when Bush went into office. War veterans have the worst support from the government they've had, ever. The current administration policies are decemating the environment, and we're in the middle of a war that is beginning to resemble Vietnam: A war Kerry was lucky enough to escape intact from, as were the majority of his critics, and Bush was lucky enough to avoid fighting in.
Instead of hearing about both candidates' pasts, I want to hear from George W. Bush how our country is better off than it was when he took office. And I want both candidates to give me detailed agendas for their administrations. I, for one, want to select a candidate based on a concrete plan for America, not on emotion and accusations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)