From washingtonpost.com, a beautifully written remembrance of the Captain:
'Captain Kangaroo' Bob Keeshan Began Our Days With a Smile
By Hank Stuever
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 24, 2004
The passing of Captain Kangaroo is another reminder that we have lost too many of those career performers who, in the early age of television and out of the apparent kindness of their hearts (and contracts), came across the airwaves only to teach, entertain and be silly -- without any trace of irony or larger entrepreneurial scheme.
These were television's uncles, misters, misses, cap'ns and klowns. Captain Kangaroo, who was in real life Bob Keeshan, died yesterday at age 76 after a long illness, according to family members.
Keeshan had many talents, and he had no edge. Having no edge is an admirable quality, but one that almost never flies today. It allowed men (and a few women) like Captain Kangaroo to simply exude an almost suspicious amount of niceness.
Yet there was nothing to suspect. Captain Kangaroo, in his Carnaby-street red blazer with white trim, his bowl-cut bangs (a hairpiece) and those enormous walrus sideburns (also false) snaking around his cheeks, was just a really good man. In a world designed to be noisy, he built a show around calm. (Except when Ping-Pong balls fell from the ceiling. And when Mr. Green Jeans's contraptions fell apart.)
Like his friend Mister Rogers, who died nearly a year ago, Keeshan lived long enough to be regarded with such sentiment and respect that grown-ups turned to him for authoritative advice and the occasional scold when we seemed to go astray with our own kids.
In appearances before early-childhood educators, psychologists and parents' groups, or as a motivational-speaker-for-hire, or with the Coalition for America's Children advocacy group he helped start, Keeshan always cautioned against letting television baby-sit your kids. Though he allowed that the world had changed considerably since "Captain Kangaroo" first appeared on CBS in 1955, and parents were busy and kids were bored.
(His show was canceled in 1984, and survived another six seasons on PBS in a different format. A sacrilegious reinvention, in 1997, with a new guy playing the Captain, was a bomb.)
Keeshan understood that dual-career families of the 1970s and '80s relied on the Captain for years to becalm the manic quality of weekday mornings in the American household, letting the youngest ones sit, already bundled, in a sleepy Cheerio glaze in front of "Captain Kangaroo" while everyone else started the station wagon, put on makeup, barked at one another and otherwise frantically tried to get the day in gear.
My own memories of the Captain center around preschool years in the early 1970s, when on weekday mornings I was delivered to a day-care center in a Presbyterian church building. By then, "Captain Kangaroo" had been on almost two decades; Mr. Green Jeans (played by Hugh "Lumpy" Brannum, who died in 1987) was still with him, but the "Tom Terrific" cartoons enjoyed by the generation before me had by then disappeared.
Captain Kangaroo's boat was no longer a boat but a kind of studio-playroom, "the Captain's Place." Parts of the show were still devoted to animated shorts -- the British export "Simon in the Land of Chalk Drawings," later spoofed by "Saturday Night Live" comedian Mike Meyers -- or segments by Bill Cosby, imploring us to get out our Picture Pages and do busy work with him. (CBS mailed out Picture Pages to millions of children in the 1970s.)
We day-care kids slumped against one another, 20 or 30 of us, on an enormous carpet remnant -- our hair still bed-headed, our coats still on -- in front of a black-and-white television (although the show went color in 1969), watching "Captain Kangaroo." Mr. Green Jeans would arrive with another imperfect mechanical invention, Bunny Rabbit would again try to get those carrots, Mr. Moose would crack wise.
"Captain Kangaroo" was merely an appetizer to our long stretch of educational programming each day: Next we watched "Sesame Street," then "The Electric Company" and finally, as a tranquilizing device in the afternoons, "Mister Rogers." (And, for one brief, glorious period, we had a teacher who wanted to watch reruns of the Gothic soap-opera "Dark Shadows" during our nap time. She didn't last long, but I should like to appreciate her here, in this Appreciation, with apologies to Keeshan.)
The point being, we were indeed baby-sat by television, day in and day out, just as the Captain had warned against.
But it was good for us: From "Sesame Street" I learned ordinal numbers and letters. From "The Electric Company" I learned verbs, syllables, conjunctions. From "Mister Rogers" I learned about feelings and self-worth. From "Dark Shadows" I learned about the eroticism of vampires.
But what did children learn from "Captain Kangaroo"?
Mr. Moose would tell knock-knock jokes, and hundreds of Ping-Pong balls would drop from the ceiling, usually onto Captain Kangaroo. Celebrities big and small (from television, politics, sports, movies) all dropped by, via film clip, to say "Good Morning, Captain," and the Captain always said "Good morning" back to them.
And there you go.
"Good morning" was exactly the point.
Good morning was the Captain's chief life lesson. The day had to begin in order for the day to begin. Keeshan seemed to beckon children to begin the day even when we didn't want to. Captain Kangaroo seemed to understand that even 4-year-olds need a gentle nudge to carry on, to cheer up, to open their minds. Gradually, we smiled.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Great points about those who continue to be comsymps from FrontPage magazine, and Eugene Volokh's outstanding blog:
The Rosenbergs and the Obstinate Left
By Eugene Volokh
A little bit of embarrassment seems to be in order: An article in Sunday's L.A. Times Calendar section (seems to be unavailable unless you're a subscriber) reports on a new documentary about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ("an exceptional documentary, short-listed for this year's Academy Award, a compelling emotional narrative laced with explosive political material"), who were convicted in the 1950s of spying for the Soviets, and executed for it. The documentary was directed by their granddaughter, Ivy Meeropol. The article is not by any means entirely pro-Rosenberg, but I was still struck by the second paragraph below:
But what also drove [Ivy] was the fact that "I was tired of the simplistic version of this story, what history remembers, the way everyone thinks they stole the secret of the atomic bomb. I knew this wasn't true, I knew they were more than that, and I wanted to bring their story to people who don't know it or have closed their minds to it. And I needed to know what was worth standing up for, what they were willing to die for."
What this involved was re-creating the world of left-wing activists from which the Rosenbergs emerged, entering it through interviews with friends like Osheroff who are still alive and remember a time of hunger and privation, when, as one says, "you had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary." People, Ivy says, who were "idealists with good intentions who sincerely believed the Soviet Union was a better way. It's painful that people continue to dismiss that, and I wanted to reclaim it for them."
Now I'm sure that some, perhaps many, American Communists, including those who continued supporting the Soviet Union into the 1950s -- past the Ukrainian famine, past the purges, past the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, past the enslavement of Eastern Europe -- were misguided "idealists with good intentions." True, to remain "misguided idealists," they had to have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of what the Soviets were doing. But human beings have a remarkable capacity to do that sort of thing.
Still, the fact remains that either these "left-wing activists" were evil (i.e., not really misguided idealists, but people who fully supported slaughter and tyranny in the name of Communism) or fools: People who failed to realize that Communism would create more hunger and privation, as well as suppressing freedom and killing people. And at the same time, history shows that many of those who didn't "feel radical change was necessary" (a category that of course includes many New Dealers, conservatives, moderates, and many others) -- who were supposedly "dead from the neck up" -- were smarter, wiser, and more humane.
I don't think I'm asking for much here -- just a bit of embarrassment. "Our friends were dupes of the Soviets, and it turns out many of their opponents were actually smarter and more morally well-grounded than they were, but we should remember that they were just misguided idealists with good intentions" might work. I'm not sure whether it will work for everyone, but it's at least plausible. "You had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary," said when many of the "dead from the neck up" have now been obviously vindicated by history and those who supported pro-Soviet "radical change" have been proven to be fools or worse, is not a strong argument.
Unless, of course, after all that has been discovered about the awful history of the 20th century, you still think that your pro-Soviet buddies were actually right. In which case, I wish you had spent 1937 in the "better way" of the Soviet Union, rather than in the "hunger and privation" of the United States. Or that part of 1937 before you really did become "dead from the neck up."
The Rosenbergs and the Obstinate Left
By Eugene Volokh
A little bit of embarrassment seems to be in order: An article in Sunday's L.A. Times Calendar section (seems to be unavailable unless you're a subscriber) reports on a new documentary about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ("an exceptional documentary, short-listed for this year's Academy Award, a compelling emotional narrative laced with explosive political material"), who were convicted in the 1950s of spying for the Soviets, and executed for it. The documentary was directed by their granddaughter, Ivy Meeropol. The article is not by any means entirely pro-Rosenberg, but I was still struck by the second paragraph below:
But what also drove [Ivy] was the fact that "I was tired of the simplistic version of this story, what history remembers, the way everyone thinks they stole the secret of the atomic bomb. I knew this wasn't true, I knew they were more than that, and I wanted to bring their story to people who don't know it or have closed their minds to it. And I needed to know what was worth standing up for, what they were willing to die for."
What this involved was re-creating the world of left-wing activists from which the Rosenbergs emerged, entering it through interviews with friends like Osheroff who are still alive and remember a time of hunger and privation, when, as one says, "you had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary." People, Ivy says, who were "idealists with good intentions who sincerely believed the Soviet Union was a better way. It's painful that people continue to dismiss that, and I wanted to reclaim it for them."
Now I'm sure that some, perhaps many, American Communists, including those who continued supporting the Soviet Union into the 1950s -- past the Ukrainian famine, past the purges, past the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, past the enslavement of Eastern Europe -- were misguided "idealists with good intentions." True, to remain "misguided idealists," they had to have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of what the Soviets were doing. But human beings have a remarkable capacity to do that sort of thing.
Still, the fact remains that either these "left-wing activists" were evil (i.e., not really misguided idealists, but people who fully supported slaughter and tyranny in the name of Communism) or fools: People who failed to realize that Communism would create more hunger and privation, as well as suppressing freedom and killing people. And at the same time, history shows that many of those who didn't "feel radical change was necessary" (a category that of course includes many New Dealers, conservatives, moderates, and many others) -- who were supposedly "dead from the neck up" -- were smarter, wiser, and more humane.
I don't think I'm asking for much here -- just a bit of embarrassment. "Our friends were dupes of the Soviets, and it turns out many of their opponents were actually smarter and more morally well-grounded than they were, but we should remember that they were just misguided idealists with good intentions" might work. I'm not sure whether it will work for everyone, but it's at least plausible. "You had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary," said when many of the "dead from the neck up" have now been obviously vindicated by history and those who supported pro-Soviet "radical change" have been proven to be fools or worse, is not a strong argument.
Unless, of course, after all that has been discovered about the awful history of the 20th century, you still think that your pro-Soviet buddies were actually right. In which case, I wish you had spent 1937 in the "better way" of the Soviet Union, rather than in the "hunger and privation" of the United States. Or that part of 1937 before you really did become "dead from the neck up."
Another refutation of congenital liar Michael Moore:
Bush A Military “Deserter?” Calm Down, Michael
Clark backer Michael Moore calls President Bush a “deserter” for missing Air National Guard drills 31 years ago. Puh-lease!
January 23, 2004
This one has been around since Bush’s campaign against Al Gore, when a Boston Globe story appeared saying the newspaper could find no record of Bush attending required Air National Guard drills for a full year in 1972-73. Bush says he missed some weekend drills during the period in question, but attended others and later attended extra drills to make up for those he missed. Several news organizations looked into the matter and reached mixed conclusions.
Websites devoted to criticizing Bush have kept the matter under discussion on the Internet ever since. It surfaced again when Michael Moore, the populist author and movie and TV producer, called Bush a “deserter” at a rally supporting retired Gen. Wesley Clark in New Hampshire. Clark then said during a debate that “I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.”
The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave.
Analysis
"The Top 5%"
After graduating from Yale in 1968, Bush escaped conscription and possible combat duty in the then-raging Vietnam War by getting into the Texas Air National Guard. During the next four years Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, according to the Globe account, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.”
The Globe also said:
Those who trained and flew with Bush . . . said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called "weekend warriors."
"Began to Disappear"
But the Globe said Bush “began to disappear from the Guard’s radar screen” with two years still to run on his six-year commitment, giving up flying for good in 1972. Bush moved from Houston to Alabama in May of 1972 to take part in the unsuccessful Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. Bush was supposed to report for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery Alabama. But the unit’s commander at the time, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, was quoted by several news organizations as saying he had no recollection of Bush showing up. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered," the Globe quoted him saying.
The Globe quoted Bush as saying through his spokesman Dan Bartlett that he did recall reporting for non-flying duty in Alabama, performing “odds and ends” under supervisors whose names he could not recall.
"I Fulfilled My Obligations"
Bush himself later was quoted directly by the Dallas Morning News as admitting he missed some weekend drills while in Alabama, but saying he made them up afterward:
"I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends."
"I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations."
Records are lacking for that period. However, The Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama. Joe Holcombe, described as a former Republican county chairman in Alabama, was quoted as saying, "It was pretty well-known that he was in the Guard while we worked on the campaign." And Emily Martin, who said she had dated Bush during the campaign, was quoted saying, "He told us that he was having to do his Guard duty in Alabama while he worked on the campaign."
Bush returned to Houston after the campaign, but never resumed flying. He spent 36 days on duty back in Houston in May, June and July of 1973, the Globe reported. Spokesman Bartlett told FactCheck.org that Bush made up for weekend drills he was too busy to attend in Alabama. "The bottom line is he met his minimum requirments for that year," Bartlett said.
Bush requested and was granted special permission to end his six-year hitch eight months early. He was released in October 1973 to to allow him to attend Harvard Business School.
Reporters Dig In
After the Globe story, partisan websites denounced Bush as “AWOL” and worse. One is even named AwolBush.com . But other news organizations dug in and came to much milder conclusions.
George Magazine reported in October of 2000:
It's time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:
But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.
The Washington Post also reviewed records and concluded:
It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.
Some Democratic partisans have taken a much harsher view.
Democrats.com , a website that sells “Impeach Bush Now” bumper stickers, posted a rebuttal to the George Magazine piece saying “There is no credible evidence that Bush ever reported for duty for the last two years of his military obligation” and suggested “substance abuse as the most likely explanation.”
Michael Moore: "General vs. Deserter"
Michael Moore, in his bestselling book Stupid White Men, included an open letter to President Bush calling him "a possible felon, an unconvicted deserter, and a crybaby."
Moore took it even further during a New Hampshire rally for Clark Jan. 17, predicting Clark would face Bush in the general election. “I want to see that debate, the general versus the deserter,” Moore said with Clark looking on.
Moore ’s "deserter" remark prompted ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings to confront Clark at a Democratic candidates debate Jan. 22:
Jennings: Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him . . .
Clark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material . . .
Jennings: Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?
Clark: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.
Clark ’s reluctance to contradict Moore was criticized the next day by the newspaper that started it all, the Boston Globe, which said in an editorial:
News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark.
Sources
Walter V. Robinson “One-year gap in Bush’s Guard duty : No records of airman at drills in 1972-73,” Boston Globe 23 May 2000: A1.
Wayne Slater "Records of Bush's Ala. Military Service Can't Be Found," Dallas Morning News 26 June 2000: A6.
The Associated Press "Friends from Alabama days back Bush's military claims," Houston Chronicle 5 July 2000: A17.
Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan “The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either ,” George Magazine October 2000.
Jo Thomas “The 2000 Campaign: Military Service; Bush’s Guard attendance is Questioned and Defended,” New York Times 3 Nov. 2000: A27.
Bob Fertik “George Magazine is Wrong,” Democrats.com website, no date given.
George Lardner Jr.; Howard Kurtz “2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down; Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military Service,” The Washington Post 3 Nov. 2000 : A22.
Eric Slater, “Clark Showcases Mixed Bag of Backers in New Hampshire ;Filmmakers, former Clinton advisors and others stump for the Democratic hopeful” Los Angeles Times 18 Jan. 2004: A23.
“Answers Beat Questions,” Boston Globe editorial 23 Jan. 2004.
Bush A Military “Deserter?” Calm Down, Michael
Clark backer Michael Moore calls President Bush a “deserter” for missing Air National Guard drills 31 years ago. Puh-lease!
January 23, 2004
This one has been around since Bush’s campaign against Al Gore, when a Boston Globe story appeared saying the newspaper could find no record of Bush attending required Air National Guard drills for a full year in 1972-73. Bush says he missed some weekend drills during the period in question, but attended others and later attended extra drills to make up for those he missed. Several news organizations looked into the matter and reached mixed conclusions.
Websites devoted to criticizing Bush have kept the matter under discussion on the Internet ever since. It surfaced again when Michael Moore, the populist author and movie and TV producer, called Bush a “deserter” at a rally supporting retired Gen. Wesley Clark in New Hampshire. Clark then said during a debate that “I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.”
The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave.
Analysis
"The Top 5%"
After graduating from Yale in 1968, Bush escaped conscription and possible combat duty in the then-raging Vietnam War by getting into the Texas Air National Guard. During the next four years Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, according to the Globe account, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.”
The Globe also said:
Those who trained and flew with Bush . . . said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called "weekend warriors."
"Began to Disappear"
But the Globe said Bush “began to disappear from the Guard’s radar screen” with two years still to run on his six-year commitment, giving up flying for good in 1972. Bush moved from Houston to Alabama in May of 1972 to take part in the unsuccessful Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. Bush was supposed to report for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery Alabama. But the unit’s commander at the time, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, was quoted by several news organizations as saying he had no recollection of Bush showing up. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered," the Globe quoted him saying.
The Globe quoted Bush as saying through his spokesman Dan Bartlett that he did recall reporting for non-flying duty in Alabama, performing “odds and ends” under supervisors whose names he could not recall.
"I Fulfilled My Obligations"
Bush himself later was quoted directly by the Dallas Morning News as admitting he missed some weekend drills while in Alabama, but saying he made them up afterward:
"I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends."
"I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations."
Records are lacking for that period. However, The Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama. Joe Holcombe, described as a former Republican county chairman in Alabama, was quoted as saying, "It was pretty well-known that he was in the Guard while we worked on the campaign." And Emily Martin, who said she had dated Bush during the campaign, was quoted saying, "He told us that he was having to do his Guard duty in Alabama while he worked on the campaign."
Bush returned to Houston after the campaign, but never resumed flying. He spent 36 days on duty back in Houston in May, June and July of 1973, the Globe reported. Spokesman Bartlett told FactCheck.org that Bush made up for weekend drills he was too busy to attend in Alabama. "The bottom line is he met his minimum requirments for that year," Bartlett said.
Bush requested and was granted special permission to end his six-year hitch eight months early. He was released in October 1973 to to allow him to attend Harvard Business School.
Reporters Dig In
After the Globe story, partisan websites denounced Bush as “AWOL” and worse. One is even named AwolBush.com . But other news organizations dug in and came to much milder conclusions.
George Magazine reported in October of 2000:
It's time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:
But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.
The Washington Post also reviewed records and concluded:
It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.
Some Democratic partisans have taken a much harsher view.
Democrats.com , a website that sells “Impeach Bush Now” bumper stickers, posted a rebuttal to the George Magazine piece saying “There is no credible evidence that Bush ever reported for duty for the last two years of his military obligation” and suggested “substance abuse as the most likely explanation.”
Michael Moore: "General vs. Deserter"
Michael Moore, in his bestselling book Stupid White Men, included an open letter to President Bush calling him "a possible felon, an unconvicted deserter, and a crybaby."
Moore took it even further during a New Hampshire rally for Clark Jan. 17, predicting Clark would face Bush in the general election. “I want to see that debate, the general versus the deserter,” Moore said with Clark looking on.
Moore ’s "deserter" remark prompted ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings to confront Clark at a Democratic candidates debate Jan. 22:
Jennings: Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him . . .
Clark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn't material . . .
Jennings: Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?
Clark: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.
Clark ’s reluctance to contradict Moore was criticized the next day by the newspaper that started it all, the Boston Globe, which said in an editorial:
News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark.
Sources
Walter V. Robinson “One-year gap in Bush’s Guard duty : No records of airman at drills in 1972-73,” Boston Globe 23 May 2000: A1.
Wayne Slater "Records of Bush's Ala. Military Service Can't Be Found," Dallas Morning News 26 June 2000: A6.
The Associated Press "Friends from Alabama days back Bush's military claims," Houston Chronicle 5 July 2000: A17.
Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan “The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either ,” George Magazine October 2000.
Jo Thomas “The 2000 Campaign: Military Service; Bush’s Guard attendance is Questioned and Defended,” New York Times 3 Nov. 2000: A27.
Bob Fertik “George Magazine is Wrong,” Democrats.com website, no date given.
George Lardner Jr.; Howard Kurtz “2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down; Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military Service,” The Washington Post 3 Nov. 2000 : A22.
Eric Slater, “Clark Showcases Mixed Bag of Backers in New Hampshire ;Filmmakers, former Clinton advisors and others stump for the Democratic hopeful” Los Angeles Times 18 Jan. 2004: A23.
“Answers Beat Questions,” Boston Globe editorial 23 Jan. 2004.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Real Message of The Bush Amnesty
by Pat Buchanan
If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.
Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.
Not long ago, this would have produced calls for impeachment and cries that, “If Bush won’t enforce our laws, let’s elect a president who will.”
By offering amnesty and residency to millions who broke in line, broke our laws and broke into our country, Bush is not only rewarding wholesale criminality, he proposes to legalize it.
His amnesty will send this message to the world: the candy store is open, and the Americans cannot protect it. Now is the time to bust in.
As there must be billions of people willing to come and work for a fraction of our minimum wage—and exploit our social safety net—the number who could come under the Bush guest-worker program is almost infinite.
Imagine a car wash that employs 40 African-American, Latino, and white working-class folks at $8 an hour each. A new car wash down the street opens up, offering 40 new jobs at $5.15 an hour. No Americans apply. Under Bush’s proposal, that employer would be free to go to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, round up workers, and bring them in.
The new car wash with its foreign workers then drives the old car wash with its American workers out of business. Taxpayers are then forced to subsidize the newly unemployed—and pay for the medical care, food stamps, rent supplements, welfare, and schooling of all the new immigrants and their families, provide legal services when they get in trouble and pay for more cops to police their neighborhoods.
And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment, become an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Meanwhile, Bush’s amnesty will do nothing to halt the illegal invasion that continues to this hour. If you would know what America’s social, cultural, and fiscal future will look like, take a ride through Los Angeles, capital of Mexifornia.
But why did President Bush pick now to propose as explosive an idea as amnesty, when it seemed he was holding a winning hand on the issues of taxes, national security, the economy, and gay marriages?
One sees here the cynical ploy of “Boy Genius” Karl Rove. With the filing deadlines for the Republican primaries having passed and no GOP opponent, with no Third Party challenger from the Right, and with Dean the likely Democratic nominee, Rove knows conservatives are boxed in. In the old cliché, “The conservatives have nowhere else to go.”
So Rove is executing an “apertura a sinistra,” an opening to the Left, pandering to Hispanics and Mexican President Vicente Fox, to whom Bush is to pay a visit.
But Rove may be too clever for the president’s good. For there is no hard evidence that Hispanics, other than those militants who detest Republicans, are demanding amnesty. And with Bush’s spending on foreign aid soaring, his deficits rising, and the White House refusing to veto a single spending bill, Rove & Co. may have stretched conservative loyalty to the breaking point.
For some conservatives, this amnesty will snap it. They may just get on their hind legs and fight, for huge majorities have repeatedly registered opposition to any amnesty for illegal aliens. How is the president helped by a bloody battle with his political base in an election year?
Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”
Ike was a strong president. But in George W. Bush, we have a leader unwilling to pay the political price of doing his duty and enforcing the immigration laws of his country because he fears the reaction from the media elite and Mexican-Americans.
When it comes to standing up to truly powerful ethnic lobbies—the Hispanic Lobby, the Cuban-American Lobby, the Israeli Lobby—Bush wilts and folds every time. Nor is it a healthy sign for the future of our republic when its president offers an amnesty to law-breakers, rather than doing his painful duty to protect his country from what has now become an unstoppable foreign invasion.
The real threats to America’s survival do not come from the Sunni Triangle. They come from within, and unfortunately we have a president who either does not understand them or will not look them in the face.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
by Pat Buchanan
If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.
Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.
Not long ago, this would have produced calls for impeachment and cries that, “If Bush won’t enforce our laws, let’s elect a president who will.”
By offering amnesty and residency to millions who broke in line, broke our laws and broke into our country, Bush is not only rewarding wholesale criminality, he proposes to legalize it.
His amnesty will send this message to the world: the candy store is open, and the Americans cannot protect it. Now is the time to bust in.
As there must be billions of people willing to come and work for a fraction of our minimum wage—and exploit our social safety net—the number who could come under the Bush guest-worker program is almost infinite.
Imagine a car wash that employs 40 African-American, Latino, and white working-class folks at $8 an hour each. A new car wash down the street opens up, offering 40 new jobs at $5.15 an hour. No Americans apply. Under Bush’s proposal, that employer would be free to go to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, round up workers, and bring them in.
The new car wash with its foreign workers then drives the old car wash with its American workers out of business. Taxpayers are then forced to subsidize the newly unemployed—and pay for the medical care, food stamps, rent supplements, welfare, and schooling of all the new immigrants and their families, provide legal services when they get in trouble and pay for more cops to police their neighborhoods.
And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment, become an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Meanwhile, Bush’s amnesty will do nothing to halt the illegal invasion that continues to this hour. If you would know what America’s social, cultural, and fiscal future will look like, take a ride through Los Angeles, capital of Mexifornia.
But why did President Bush pick now to propose as explosive an idea as amnesty, when it seemed he was holding a winning hand on the issues of taxes, national security, the economy, and gay marriages?
One sees here the cynical ploy of “Boy Genius” Karl Rove. With the filing deadlines for the Republican primaries having passed and no GOP opponent, with no Third Party challenger from the Right, and with Dean the likely Democratic nominee, Rove knows conservatives are boxed in. In the old cliché, “The conservatives have nowhere else to go.”
So Rove is executing an “apertura a sinistra,” an opening to the Left, pandering to Hispanics and Mexican President Vicente Fox, to whom Bush is to pay a visit.
But Rove may be too clever for the president’s good. For there is no hard evidence that Hispanics, other than those militants who detest Republicans, are demanding amnesty. And with Bush’s spending on foreign aid soaring, his deficits rising, and the White House refusing to veto a single spending bill, Rove & Co. may have stretched conservative loyalty to the breaking point.
For some conservatives, this amnesty will snap it. They may just get on their hind legs and fight, for huge majorities have repeatedly registered opposition to any amnesty for illegal aliens. How is the president helped by a bloody battle with his political base in an election year?
Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”
Ike was a strong president. But in George W. Bush, we have a leader unwilling to pay the political price of doing his duty and enforcing the immigration laws of his country because he fears the reaction from the media elite and Mexican-Americans.
When it comes to standing up to truly powerful ethnic lobbies—the Hispanic Lobby, the Cuban-American Lobby, the Israeli Lobby—Bush wilts and folds every time. Nor is it a healthy sign for the future of our republic when its president offers an amnesty to law-breakers, rather than doing his painful duty to protect his country from what has now become an unstoppable foreign invasion.
The real threats to America’s survival do not come from the Sunni Triangle. They come from within, and unfortunately we have a president who either does not understand them or will not look them in the face.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Simply brilliant evisceration of Wesley Clark in Steyn's column today.
Dems don't want this general in command
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Where are we going to find the un-Dean? That was the cry of Democratic power brokers as Howard Dean rose unstoppably through last year, and the wise old birds fretted that he was unelectable. Judging from the polls, New Hampshire Democrats seem to have found their un-Dean. It's Wesley Clark.
So now the Dem big shots can all start looking for the un-Clark.
If they aren't already, they ought to be. Dean might be bad for the health of the party, but that's no reason to go from bad to Wes. If the rap against Dean is that he's gaffe-prone, shoots from the hip, says loopy stuff, that goes tenfold for Clark. Let me say, by the way, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that I don't believe Howard Dean is nuts. From my perch in New Hampshire, I watched him across the river governing Vermont for a decade, and although he was certainly mean and arrogant, the chief characteristic of his political persona was its blandness. But this is no time for a Democratic candidate who feels your pain. Democratic activists want someone who feels their anger, and Mad How the mad cow was pretty much invented by the somnolent Governor Dean to fit that bill.
So I'd say Howard Dean is a sane man pretending to be crazy. Whereas General Clark gives every indication of a crazy man pretending to be sane.
Now I'm not talking about things like this screwy response to a question from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The general had indicated he wished Osama bin Laden to be tried at the Hague and sentenced to life in prison. "But," asked Matthews, "doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?"
"Not in a Dutch prison, Chris," said Clark. "They're under water, they're damp, they're cold. They're really miserable."
Dutch prisons are under water? Good thing Clark's not as dumb as Bush or Quayle, eh?
Nor am I talking about his flip-flops on Iraq. That's just an extreme version of standard-issue political opportunism: If you're a CNN military analyst who gets schmoozed into running as the standard bearer of the anti-war movement, there's bound to be a few not entirely convincing lurches in continuity.
Nor do I mean his creepy statements on abortion, in which he's taking "pro-choice" to levels undreamt of even in NARAL's wildest dreams. Clark's position is no restrictions on nuthin'. Third trimester? Partial-birth abortion? Bring it on, baby. "Life begins with the mother's decision," says Clark. You got a 9-month-old healthy fetus, you're in tip-top shape, you've started contractions and the little feller's about to emerge, and you suddenly change your mind and decide you want a last-minute partial-birth abortion. Hey, life begins with the mother's decision and if you say, ''Let there not be life,'' then there won't be. That's not crazy so much as a sign of the general's general laziness on this and most other domestic issues. He simply appears to have given no thought to the question.
But what shifts him from unprincipled and thoughtless to the out-of-his-tree category is stuff like this:
''If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time.''
And:
''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents. I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen.''
Normal presidential candidates just don't say things like this. By ''normal,'' I mean candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Let's not set the bar too high. Granted, George W. Bush was not the most articulate candidate in the world. But what matters is what a candidate reveals when he stumbles. Take this allegedly disastrous ''Bushism'':
''I know how hard it is to put food on your family.''
The anti-Bush types who buy all those lame-o filler books of the ''Bush Dyslexicon'' love that one. I'm amazed how often I get it quoted back at me as evidence of what a moron Bush is. Well, I guess there's two possibilities:
a. He meant to say ''food on your table.''
b. He was referring to an amusing game he and Jeb like to play at Kennebunkport cookouts when Dad and Mom aren't looking.
Either way, what's the difference? Bush's goofs never hurt him because they don't contradict his public persona; indeed, they reinforce it. What do Clark's goofs reveal? For example, the bizarre claim he made after 9/11 that ''people around the White House'' had called him on the day to tell him to go on TV and connect the attack to Saddam Hussein. As the weeks went by, he modified the story, until it emerged that it wasn't ''people,'' just one fellow; and he didn't call on 9/11, but afterward, and he wasn't from the White House at all but from some think tank in Montreal, which from the look of the map isn't even in the District of Columbia. And the fellow from Montreal said true -- he had called General Clark -- but they hadn't talked about Saddam at all.
Clark was sold to the Democratic Party as a military man of peaceful manner: Generals are from Mars, but this one's from Venus. But there's a common theme to every glimpse of the real Clark, whether it's his own private fantasies about the White House calling him on 9/11 or memories of those who served with him, like the British general who refused an order by Clark to launch an insane attack on Russian forces in Kosovo: At best, he's a thin-skinned, vain, insecure man with a need to insert himself at the center of every story; at worst, he's a paranoid megalomaniac narcissist.
The defense is that he got in the game late and he's not a blow-dried pol with all the life focus-grouped out of him. Very true. He's so new a New Democrat he barely knew any Democrats. But I'm with the Clinton administration on this one: If he didn't have the temperament to be NATO commander in the dozy '90s, he certainly doesn't have the temperament to be president at a time of war. ''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents.'' He is the incident, waiting to happen. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
Dems don't want this general in command
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Where are we going to find the un-Dean? That was the cry of Democratic power brokers as Howard Dean rose unstoppably through last year, and the wise old birds fretted that he was unelectable. Judging from the polls, New Hampshire Democrats seem to have found their un-Dean. It's Wesley Clark.
So now the Dem big shots can all start looking for the un-Clark.
If they aren't already, they ought to be. Dean might be bad for the health of the party, but that's no reason to go from bad to Wes. If the rap against Dean is that he's gaffe-prone, shoots from the hip, says loopy stuff, that goes tenfold for Clark. Let me say, by the way, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that I don't believe Howard Dean is nuts. From my perch in New Hampshire, I watched him across the river governing Vermont for a decade, and although he was certainly mean and arrogant, the chief characteristic of his political persona was its blandness. But this is no time for a Democratic candidate who feels your pain. Democratic activists want someone who feels their anger, and Mad How the mad cow was pretty much invented by the somnolent Governor Dean to fit that bill.
So I'd say Howard Dean is a sane man pretending to be crazy. Whereas General Clark gives every indication of a crazy man pretending to be sane.
Now I'm not talking about things like this screwy response to a question from MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The general had indicated he wished Osama bin Laden to be tried at the Hague and sentenced to life in prison. "But," asked Matthews, "doesn't life in Holland beat life in a cave?"
"Not in a Dutch prison, Chris," said Clark. "They're under water, they're damp, they're cold. They're really miserable."
Dutch prisons are under water? Good thing Clark's not as dumb as Bush or Quayle, eh?
Nor am I talking about his flip-flops on Iraq. That's just an extreme version of standard-issue political opportunism: If you're a CNN military analyst who gets schmoozed into running as the standard bearer of the anti-war movement, there's bound to be a few not entirely convincing lurches in continuity.
Nor do I mean his creepy statements on abortion, in which he's taking "pro-choice" to levels undreamt of even in NARAL's wildest dreams. Clark's position is no restrictions on nuthin'. Third trimester? Partial-birth abortion? Bring it on, baby. "Life begins with the mother's decision," says Clark. You got a 9-month-old healthy fetus, you're in tip-top shape, you've started contractions and the little feller's about to emerge, and you suddenly change your mind and decide you want a last-minute partial-birth abortion. Hey, life begins with the mother's decision and if you say, ''Let there not be life,'' then there won't be. That's not crazy so much as a sign of the general's general laziness on this and most other domestic issues. He simply appears to have given no thought to the question.
But what shifts him from unprincipled and thoughtless to the out-of-his-tree category is stuff like this:
''If I'd been president, I would have had Osama bin Laden by this time.''
And:
''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents. I think the two greatest lies that have been told in the last three years are: You couldn't have prevented 9/11 and there's another one that's bound to happen.''
Normal presidential candidates just don't say things like this. By ''normal,'' I mean candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Let's not set the bar too high. Granted, George W. Bush was not the most articulate candidate in the world. But what matters is what a candidate reveals when he stumbles. Take this allegedly disastrous ''Bushism'':
''I know how hard it is to put food on your family.''
The anti-Bush types who buy all those lame-o filler books of the ''Bush Dyslexicon'' love that one. I'm amazed how often I get it quoted back at me as evidence of what a moron Bush is. Well, I guess there's two possibilities:
a. He meant to say ''food on your table.''
b. He was referring to an amusing game he and Jeb like to play at Kennebunkport cookouts when Dad and Mom aren't looking.
Either way, what's the difference? Bush's goofs never hurt him because they don't contradict his public persona; indeed, they reinforce it. What do Clark's goofs reveal? For example, the bizarre claim he made after 9/11 that ''people around the White House'' had called him on the day to tell him to go on TV and connect the attack to Saddam Hussein. As the weeks went by, he modified the story, until it emerged that it wasn't ''people,'' just one fellow; and he didn't call on 9/11, but afterward, and he wasn't from the White House at all but from some think tank in Montreal, which from the look of the map isn't even in the District of Columbia. And the fellow from Montreal said true -- he had called General Clark -- but they hadn't talked about Saddam at all.
Clark was sold to the Democratic Party as a military man of peaceful manner: Generals are from Mars, but this one's from Venus. But there's a common theme to every glimpse of the real Clark, whether it's his own private fantasies about the White House calling him on 9/11 or memories of those who served with him, like the British general who refused an order by Clark to launch an insane attack on Russian forces in Kosovo: At best, he's a thin-skinned, vain, insecure man with a need to insert himself at the center of every story; at worst, he's a paranoid megalomaniac narcissist.
The defense is that he got in the game late and he's not a blow-dried pol with all the life focus-grouped out of him. Very true. He's so new a New Democrat he barely knew any Democrats. But I'm with the Clinton administration on this one: If he didn't have the temperament to be NATO commander in the dozy '90s, he certainly doesn't have the temperament to be president at a time of war. ''I'm going to take care of the American people. We are not going to have one of these incidents.'' He is the incident, waiting to happen. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
