?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...


January 17th, 2007

(no subject) @ 12:06 pm

Tags:

Boxer's hit on personal price. A fantastic article by Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle which I will link to, knowing full and well most of you won't bother to read it.
 
Share  |  |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:halfmoon_mollie
Date:January 17th, 2007 05:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I read it. John, I try not to comment on your political stuff because you and I are at WAY opposite ends of the spectrum.

[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:January 17th, 2007 05:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for reading it, anyway.
[User Picture Icon]
From:wingguy
Date:January 17th, 2007 06:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I read it. Thanks for posting it here.

The premise that only people who have sons or daughters at risk have a legitimate right to commit troops is just asinine. Surely liberals and conservatives can agree on that. (Think Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Harry Truman, George Washington). Boxer must surely regret making these statements; to undercut Dr. Rice's legitimacy because she is a single woman sounds quite politically incorrect to me.
[User Picture Icon]
From:john_holton
Date:January 17th, 2007 07:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
to undercut Dr. Rice's legitimacy because she is a single woman sounds quite politically incorrect to me.

This was what prompted Brit Hume to say that Boxer had set feminism back by twenty years (not sure about the number, but certainly about the sentiment). The other thing is that liberals don't seem to have a problem committing troops to police actions undertaken by the UN, where we supply the manpower and the rest of the Old World supplies the generals and strategists....
[User Picture Icon]
From:halfmoon_mollie
Date:January 17th, 2007 07:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Okay, I'm calm enough to comment on this. I was angry at you, at first, for what you said about this last week. But, when I was home on Monday I saw a rebroadcast of the event.

I'm more than certain Senator Boxer would like to have those words back in her mouth. She should have thought more about the way she said it. BUT, please remember that she also said that SHE didn't have anyone who would be affected either. That hasn't been mentioned in very many cases.

I am a staunch opponent of the war, and I did not vote for the President. Ms. Rice is doing what she's supposed to do, in defending his stance. And not having anyone in her 'immediate family' affected if/when troops are sent has nothing, I'm sure, to do with her decision.

It was an unfortunate choice of words. VERY unfortunate.

Chief Jack's Galley

There's a place for people who laugh at nothing...