Unfortunately, Steve, I don't think the Beltway Dems get it. They and the lapdog news media somehow still believe that Bush is a "popular wartime president" whom you oppose at your own risk. Look at recent statements by Dean and Hillary Clinton -- they can't bring themselves to criticize the war. And the way Biden went after Dean the other day. Who cares what Dean said? Dems shouldn't make him the issue. Go after Bush -- he's the enemy isn't he?
Despite one disaster after another -- and let's face it, has Bush succeeded at anything since he's been in office? -- the Democratic Party continues to act like the weakling at the beach who's afraid that the big bad bully is going to throw sand on him.
Even I wouldn't have thought Bush could have sunk this low in less than five months into his new term. Bush and the Republicans in Congress who are cowered by him have given the Democrats a big gift, but I think the Democrats have no fucking idea what to do with it -- other than to keep collecting the corporate money and continue being nothing more than the moderate wing of the Repubican Party.
Posted by Phil from New York at June 7, 2005 04:51 PMWASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.
But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.
The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record. During the campaign the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file. Late last month, Kerry gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Globe.
Kerry appeared to be responding to critics who suspected that there might be damaging information in the file about his activities in Vietnam. The military and medical records, however, appear identical to what Kerry has already released. This marks the first time Kerry's grades have been publicly reported.
The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class.
Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In addition to Kerry's four D's in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year. He did not fail any courses.
''I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said yesterday in a written response to questions, noting that he has previously acknowledged that he spent a lot of time learning to fly instead of focusing on his studies.
Kerry's weak grades came despite years of education at some of the world's most elite prep schools, ranging from Fessenden School in Massachusetts to St. Paul's School in New Hampshire.
It is noteworthy, however, that Kerry received a high honor at Yale despite his mediocre grades: He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker. He delivered a speech questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam War, in which he would soon see combat.
Kerry gradually improved his grades, averaging 81 in his senior year. His highest single grade was an 89, for a political science class in his senior year. Despite his slow start, he went on to be a top student at Naval Candidate School, command a patrol boat in Vietnam, graduate from law school, and become a prosecutor, lieutenant governor, US senator, and presidential candidate.
In his Navy application, Kerry made clear that he spent much of his college time on extracurricular activities, including the Yale Political Union, the Debating Association, soccer, hockey, fencing, and membership in the elite Skull and Bones Society. Asked to describe nonschool training that qualified him for the Navy, Kerry wrote: ''A great deal of sailing -- ocean and otherwise, including some navigation. Scuba diving. Rifle. Beginning of life saving." He said his special interests were ''filming," writing, and politics, noting that the latter subject occupied 15 hours per week.
Gaddis Smith, a retired Yale history professor who taught both Kerry and Bush, said in a telephone interview that he vividly remembers Kerry as a student during the 1964-1965 school year, when Kerry would have been a junior. However, Smith said he doesn't have a specific memory about Bush.
Based on what Smith recalls teaching that year, Kerry scored a 71 and 79 in two of Smith's courses. When Smith was told those scores, he responded: ''Uh, oh. I thought he was good student. Those aren't very good grades." To put the grades in perspective, Smith said that he had a well-earned reputation for being tough, and noted that such grades would probably be about 10 points higher in a similar class today because of the impact of what he called ''grade inflation."
Bush went to Yale from 1964 to 1968; his highest grades were 88s in anthropology, history, and philosophy, according to The New Yorker article. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy. Bush has said he was a C student.
Like Kerry, Bush reportedly suffered through a difficult freshman year and then pulled his grades up.
Michael Kranish can be reached at kranish@globe.com.
Good for you Phil from New York, well said and well, well said!
Posted by Mal Feasance at June 7, 2005 05:36 PMSo,what does this tell us in the context of the late 1960's? Absolutely nothing. What does it mean today? Absolutely nothing. Bush has never shown himself to be an intellectual giant and I have always been suspect of Kerry, but that should not be the point. Their Yale transcripts seem to be similar but where do we go from there? Kerry became a naval officer and served with distinction (if you doubt this then you have not done any research into the public record) while G.W. Bush did some slack time in the Texas National Guard and then disappeared without checking in!
I'm getting off topic here, which I am wont to easily do! I supported Kerry because he was the Democratic nominee, but I always considered him to be a flawed candidate, not because of his past, but because of how he presented his past. I was always disappointed in his response to the Swift Boat liars, and I feel this is somehting he will never be able to live down.
Too long here, but go Howard Dean and keep the head above water and tell us how you feel!
Posted by taggedimage at June 7, 2005 06:02 PMUnfortunately, Steve, I don't think the Beltway Dems get it. My thoughts exactly Phil. The Republicans are up against the ropes but I don't have any faith that the Dems in Washington can deliver a punch.
Posted by Ron In Portland at June 7, 2005 06:10 PMThere is a lot of opportunity and danger in these times politically. As some noted yesterday, the public often gets ahead of the wind testing politicans. Everything we speak of such as the war, tax reform, pot laws, pension reform, and immigration reform has progressive alternitaves to what is currently offered to the public. If good analysis is performed, an innerconnecting program with features that strenghten each other, as the new deal progeams did, could with power be enacted.
America wants somrthing greater than this race to the bottom called market based globalization.In the long run, our world will have to change its current direction.
Right now the Democrats dont appear ready to offer America a paradigm worth re-allinging for, nor the world a future worth co-operating for, but who in '32 knew the 'featherduster' would become the unforgetable FDR?
Good typo in this story about African aid;
The United States and Britain are working to provide the world's richest nations with a plan to eliminate debt relief for African countries "on the path to reform," President Bush said Tuesday.
Freudian slip perhaps?
Posted by muckcat at June 7, 2005 07:09 PMBush's war of choice has led to decreased recruiting numbers for the armed services. Parents are telling their children not to enlist because it's a one-way ticket to Iraq and the parents have finally realized that Iraq was a political folly. If Bush is making this country safer, I'd like to know how.
Posted by ann at June 7, 2005 07:26 PMKerry should have release those paper last year. It is too little too late! I am an independent that always choose who “was the least evil”. The Reagan’s era was terrible times; I remember the high unemployment rate of 13%! (On the Washington journal, someone mention that the government has changed the numbers to hide the truth, instead of 4% the one how can not find work are forgotten. Tell that to them). All policies under him hurt all of us. He was probably sick at the time and let his cabinet the run on policies. Let see, who was there!
Denying cannabis to sick people is enough to hope that king george, silver spoon fed, experience the agony of pain. I believe that he scream for the drugs, because he is a chicken.
America is looked by Europe as religious controlled sick states. I guess we are so religious, that only a few burn at the stakes would return this country to sanity. They learned the hard way through history that Politics and religion does not mix.
No let-up in Bolivia's unrest. The president resigned yesterday as the manifestation has not stopped for 2 weeks. The people want to take back their right of oil and gas from corporation from??? Guess who! Will Cheney cry!
The beltway dems may not be getting it, Ron (Oregon, I trust), but some unlikely folks are - my politically non-participant because of her quiet christianity wife is... outraged. She's asking questions quicker than I can formulate concise answers - if concise answers are even possible against the five years of watching this shaking my head asking why isn't anyone getting this? With true christians stepping up to the plate, the game is getting exciting.
Posted by Thomas Ware at June 7, 2005 08:31 PMI don't put too much stock in one's college grades: post-graduate accomplishments are much more telling. Bush has yet to grow up; Kerry did so quickly.
Posted by Brian Boru at June 7, 2005 09:11 PMWe've got a denial of the memo from Bush. Keep screaming about the memo. Attack. Attack. Attack. The more they deny the worse it gets for them.
Posted by patience at June 7, 2005 11:49 PMphil is right. If it's not poll tested, beltways Dems are nervous about taking a position.
We need to hear "Bush deceived us. The Iraq war should not have happened. Mr. President, it's time for you to tell us your exit strategy."
Posted by weinerdog43 at June 8, 2005 06:09 AMWell, it looks like the most spectacular reelection collapse in recent history.
Posted by ga6thdem at June 8, 2005 06:19 AMBush's second term comes down to one word
O HI O. The DEms and the Media Capitulated in OHIO and Bush steels his 1st and 2nd terms.
Posted by greg at June 8, 2005 07:23 AM"Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable" - but what exactly IS that number?? It does not include any GI's who have died of Iraq injuries in hospitals around the world. This massive lie and coverup, aided as usual by a timid or complicit Press and Media, would add many more to the casualty list if revealed. The dishonor shown to these Americans who died in Bush's War, by hiding their deaths, is dastardly. Doesn't anyone wish to report this??
Posted by T2 at June 8, 2005 07:23 AMT2, I've seen and heard the same allegations about the troop casualty counts, and have found no credible links to support it. If you have them, please share it.
Thanks.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 8, 2005 07:36 AMI don't have links - which is why I continually ask for someone else (with the journalistic connections needed) to find them. However, I do find it beyond belief that not one single GI has died as a result of wounds suffered in Iraq. We certainly can't count on the Bush Admin to offer any insight into this. Either we are seeing a modern miracle of battlefield Red Cross work and subsequent surgery in Germany/Bethesda, or there are additional casualties going unreported.
Posted by T2 at June 8, 2005 08:14 AMI recall occasionally seeing reports on icasualties.org of deaths that occur at various state-side medical facilities as a result of wounds received in Iraq. Is there some evidence that there is under reporting of such deaths?
Posted by muckcat at June 8, 2005 08:19 AMAgree, The present leadership of the Dems won't lead the charge.
One note on the poll: note that 60% of Americans didn't believe the abuse allegations. Couldn't be our boys! They love our troops. There is still a huge disconnect between the reality and US perceptions.
Posted by Samuel Knight at June 8, 2005 09:30 AMIf those were really Bush's grades, I would be very surprised. We all learned along time ago to trust nothing that involves Bush. I say those grades were doctored.
Posted by Judith at June 8, 2005 12:40 PM