BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Before he could answer, I had already started on a path of complaining. Why is daycare raising prices—again? What's really wrong with trying to get free stuff once in a blue moon? I've flown Turkish Airlines to go to Istanbul once. It was a nice airline! And I would certainly accept a heavily discounted flight, no questions asked! What about them martinis? That stuff is expensive, even in the suburbs where I live.
It's no wonder I've started to order off the kid's menu with impunity!
That's when my husband finally started to engage. "Ya know, I wish you'd stop doing that. Just order an adult burger." Offended, I quickly escalated the conversation into a full-on debate.
Tell me, really: What is wrong with a parent taking a rare, measly opportunity at a discount in this expensive, child-rearing life, by significantly lowering her gastronomical standards—I mean, would you call "buttered noodles" a meal?—and ordering from the kid's menu? Especially when the adult still orders a drink or two, easily covering the difference between an adult meal and a child's meal.
I decided to pose the question to a group of colleagues who are also parents, believing they'd universally be on my side. And many were. But to my dismay, some definitely were not.
"Wait what? No, you can't order off the kid's menu."
Why did so many people try to claim him as their own?
BY TIM MURPHY
MOTHER JONES MEMBERSHIP UPDATE
A HUGE OPPORTUNITY...ENDING SOON
We need newsletter readers like you to help us make the most us a $50,000 digital matching gift, and time is running short. Only until midnight on Monday, every donation you make will bematched dollar-for-dollar.
You know the stakes right now. And with your support going twice as far, Mother Jones can lead the way these next 40 days in showing the corporate media how to cover the unique danger that Trump represents and not make the same mistakes they did in 2016 and 2020.
PRESIDENT OBAMA is Commander in Chief, and it was on his watch we finally got osama bin laden. If Pres Obama hadn't made the decision he did then the repiglicans and tea-baggers would be attacking him over that. So I agree with the vets and say tough shit to anyone who has a problem with Obama using this in his campaign!
WASHINGTON -- For veterans of John Kerry's
2004 presidential campaign, the past week of debate over the fairness
of making political attacks out of national security issues has brought
about a bit of nostalgia and, in many cases, the chance to sit back and
smirk.
The Massachusetts senator was famously submarined by attacks over his
own personal service and his capacity to handle modern terrorist
threats. At the time, aides to Kerry cried foul, arguing that former
President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and allied groups were
playing on people's fears for electoral gains. With the shoe now firmly
on the other foot -- and Republicans griping over an Obama campaign web
ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn't have approved the raid that
killed Osama bin Laden -- the collective response from the Kerry crowd
is something akin to: "tough shit."
"That was then, this is now," said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry's 2004
deputy campaign manager. "This is what people do with challengers. One
of the advantages of incumbency is you get to do the job and make the
tough decisions and you get to make suggestions about whether the
challenger is up to the job."
There is a lengthy history of presidential campaigns using the threat
of terrorism, war or even nuclear annihilation to raise questions about
their opponent. The most infamous remains the Daisy Ad,
run just once by President Lyndon Johnson against Republican Barry
Goldwater in 1964, but forever memorialized as the dawn of airwave
campaigns.
Bush's re-election team brought the practice to a heightened level. The president's advisers produced the infamous Wolves ad, warning voters about the nebulous threats on the horizon. His campaign attacked Kerry as un-appreciative of the troops and unwilling to make tough wartime decisions. Allied groups openly wondered
if Kerry could have shown the leadership needed to respond to 9/11. The
genre turned into outright character assassination when the group Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth began raising doubts about the senator's record
from Vietnam.
It is that latter attack that serves as a line of demarcation for the
Obama campaign, which has argued that it's not engaging in the same
tactics that Democrats once decried.
"The difference here is that we won't be swift boating Mitt Romney,"
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's campaign manager said in an email. "We are
sticking to actual facts, not dishonest attacks and distortions. Romney
said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and then hit one of
his opponents Mike Huckabee when he said that he would. That's important
information to voters, because it shows a lack of judgment and a lack
of strength, particularly if Romney is now saying that he would have
given the same order the President did to get Bin Laden. He had a chance
to get it right, without the enormous pressure of being the Commander
in Chief, and he got it wrong."
Romney, on Tuesday, stressed that his opposition had never been to
going after bin Laden in Pakistan but with announcing that policy
publicly. "We always reserve the right to go anywhere to get bin Laden,"
he said, echoing the clarification he had offered back in 2007 when he first said he wouldn't move "heaven and earth" to find the al Qaeda chief.
As communications director for Kerry's '04 campaign, Cutter was a
direct witness to the damage done when questions about a candidate's
commander-in-chief bonafides go unanswered. The episode was scarring.
And for her and other veterans of that election, as well as the
Democratic Party at large, the result was an implicit pledge to never
get out-macho-ed again. In 2008, that meant pledging renewed attention
and resources to tracking al Qaeda as well as campaigning on a beefed-up
military presence in Afghanistan. Four years later, it means
contrasting successes against the opponent's blank foreign policy slate.
"This year's discussion," said David Wade, a member of the Kerry
campaign press shop and now the senator's chief of staff, "is firmly
rooted in Romney's record and his own words on an issue that's
fundamental to being Commander in Chief. This is a debate about judgment
not a false attack on the most personal and fundamental elements of a
nominee's character ... No one should mistake 2004's low road for the
substantive questions being asked of Mitt Romney eight years later."
Kerry himself was out of the country and unable to comment for this article.
The complaints with Obama's web ad, however, are not strictly that
he's over-bragging about the political braveness in ordering the raid
but, as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) noted at an event
with Romney, that he's using it "as a source of negative campaigning."
Those concerns, of course, didn't surface eight years ago when the
roles were reversed. Wade, for one, noted that Vice President Dick
Cheney suggested a Kerry win would result in a terrorist attack, while
former Georgia governor and Sen. Zell Miller (D) said the troops would
have only spitballs to use as defense with Kerry as Commander in Chief.
"Romney didn't say a peep," Wade added.
But Democrats certainly did, calling Cheney and Miller's comment
beneath acceptable political rhetoric. For some Kerry veterans, it's
impossible to deny the irony in the fault lines developing around the
current web ad uproar. They just don't care. It's nice, after all, to be
the aggressor.
"The hypocrisy goes both ways," acknowledged Matthew Butler, a deputy
campaign manager for Kerry and now a top official at Media Matters.
"They will politicize the hell out of foreign policy and then complain
when we do it. And we will complain about them doing it and then do it
ourselves. But I don't think foreign policy should be out of bounds when
it comes to electing a president. How can you not question the fitness
of a candidate to lead the country in foreign policy crisis?
"Obama would have been killed if something had gone wrong with that
mission," he said. "The fact is it is perfectly fair game to tout its
success." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/kerry-obama-osama-bin-laden-vets_n_1468551.html