From: Gene McAloon 

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:26:50 -0500, "Mark Hessey"
 wrote:

>
>"Steve Ewing"  wrote: I was
disappointed.  The only new
>thing to come out of it, AFAICS, is the President's willingness to open his
>whole military record to review, in order to support his contention that he
>met his commitment.  Let's see how well that willingness stands up
>
> He's been honorably discharged 30 years prior, the issue
came up and
>went away in 2000 and in previous campaigns, it's old and dead on the vine
>already.

It may be old, but obviously not dead on the vine in that he had to deal with it
again this morning. His vague promise to produce records concerning that missing
year sounded so tentative, that he has only insured that it will be an
election campaign issue once again. Unless of course he produces the
records, which of course he will not.

>> ... As for the performance as a whole, there may be a fine line here
>between
>> ingenious and disingenuous.
>
>No need to intersperse Alterman and Krugman references, it'd have been
>cleaner just to say: "A&K disagree with everything he said,
here are their
>home pages :-)
>
>If Krugman continues on his current agenda, I think he may become farther
>left than Ann Coulter is right between now and election day:
>http://www.lyinginponds.com/ though she's gonna be tough to surpass :-)

But Krugman is anything but a liberal. As a typical economist, he is very
pro-business, free trade, globalization and "flexible" labor
markets. What got him going on Bush was Bush's economic and fiscal
policies, which he thought not only disastrous but based on constant lying.

You can't call Krugman a liberal just because he lambasts Bush. Kevin
Phillips is also a conservative, in fact a former Republican strategist
who, like Krugman, is appalled at what he sees in Bush -- as are so many
others both left and right.

>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5