It does not matter if Iraq has or had WOMD's or not at this point

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
chegitz, what do you as a Bush basher say about the situation of the working class?

We're 3 million jobs down, and there are some indications that growth this year will not be as robust as we had hoped. Christmas sales weren't that great, and new manufacturing and housing starts are down. I'm winging his from memory, so I fully expect JohnT to come in here and flatten my ass with statistics, as he is want to do.

[GePap]

Well, if you want evidence, just read Krugmans stuff- people can fault him for being partisan, but not for lying about what economic reports have been, and he does have some legitimcay in then annalyzing these reports.

[SpencerH]

To be honest, I dont know much about the particular platforms of the various dem candidates. Every time I try to listen to one of their debates, their little weasily politician faces and glib comments put me to sleep (and I regularly watch C-SPAN, I've even listened to Sen Byrd).

Dean is gonna be the dem candidate with Gerphardt or Clark, and it'll be a lot closer than I would like but I cant see Dean beating Bush on the day. National security is the main issue and many many polls have shown the same thing. Americans trust dems less about national security issues than they do repubs. Well no kidding!

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Dean is gonna be the dem candidate with Gerphardt or Clark, and it'll be a lot closer than I would like but I cant see Dean beating Bush on the day. National security is the main issue and many many polls have shown the same thing. Americans trust dems less about national security issues than they do repubs. Well no kidding!

And what exactly makes republican better in national defense? that they put more money into fancy military procurement programs? Too bad they cut benefits to troops and veterans while doing it. That they are more eager to send people into war? IN the last 100 years it has been Dems using the military the most.

Republicans have brilliantlybuilt the notion that they are the party of national defense, even though now, after Dole left, almost none of their party leaders (McCain isn't a party leader) ever had any military experience, which is a difference with the Dems. As I said, the republicans get away with murder, like questioning the patriotism of a man who lost 3 limbs serving this country.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

And what exactly makes republican better in national defense? that they put more money into fancy military procurement programs? Too bad they cut benefits to troops and veterans while doing it. That they are more eager to send people into war? IN the last 100 years it has been Dems using the military the most.

Republicans have brilliantlybuilt the notion that they are the party of national defense, even though now, after Dole left, almost none of their party leaders (McCain isn't a party leader) ever had any military experience, which is a difference with the Dems. As I said, the republicans get away with murder, like questioning the patriotism of a man who lost 3 limbs serving this country.

Whether someone served in the military or not is not really a qualifier for commander in chief. It may help, but its not vital.

Voters dont care about the last hundred years. Its a question of perception, dems are seen as the wishy-washy peacenik crowd (Clinton, Carter) and repubs (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon) as the hawks.

What does losing limbs in war have to do with patriotism?

[MrFun]

Yeah -- Franklin D. Roosevelt sure was a wuss once we went to war against Japan and Germany, huh???


Not to mention that Lyndon Johnson continued the Vietnam War -- which worsened the crisis, but this was not an action of a wuss.

[The Andy-Man]

the fact that it is probably one of the greatest ironies in post war USA that it should have been democrats who started both vietnam and korea dosn't make any difference to what was said - it is about PERCEPTION.

[rah]

Hmmm, some might say that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but let it happen so he could take political advantage to push his own agenda.
Hmmm, never mind, since some might say the same about GB. and I wouldn't want that to happen.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether someone served in the military or not is not really a qualifier for commander in chief. It may help, but its not vital.

I agree..so why do so many conservatives question the ability of non military types to make certain decisions?

Voters dont care about the last hundred years. Its a question of perception, dems are seen as the wishy-washy peacenik crowd (Clinton, Carter) and repubs (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon) as the hawks.

What about Johnson? he was more of a hawk than any of those guys. Add to this the fact that being a hawk does not mean you are better when it comes to international affairs or promoting our security? After all, it was Nixon that got out of Vietnam..why didn;t he stay till victory?

What does losing limbs in war have to do with patriotism?

He was also decorated for his actions- i guess, what does dying for your contry have to do with service? And how do you measure patriotism? By what you say, or what you do?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its a question of perception, dems are seen as the wishy-washy peacenik crowd (Clinton, Carter) and repubs (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon) as the hawks.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that the Dem's won't even defend themselves from Republican partisanship or attack them back. If you won't defend yourself, why would I trust you to defend me?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You forget that the republicans hammered Max Cleland, a guy who lost three limbs fighting for ther US as weak on defense

I'm still trying to figure out how losing three limbs fighting in Vietnam automatically shields you from criticism on defense issue.

I saw nothing wrong with the ad campaign, and unlike you, I was in the middle of it.

[Patroklos]

How can you possibly not equate military experiance to the Commander and Chief function. It isn't a guarantee but pior experiance in any job is what employers always look for

Not that Commander and Chief is the only job function, so being in the military does not equal good presidency if you can only function in that area, but look at it as one of the desireable traits.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm still trying to figure out how losing three limbs fighting in Vietnam automatically shields you from criticism on defense issue.

I saw nothing wrong with the ad campaign, and unlike you, I was in the middle of it.

But you were such an non-interested party...

The man's patriotism was questioned, which is different from one's stands on specific defense issues, which they also questioned. I am outraged at number 1.

But then, of course, the questioning of his policies were based on some false claims being made by the WH about the threat from Iraq to the US..so we come back full circle- men like Cleland could be called weak on defense for not kowtowing to the Bushies and their claims of imminent danger form Iraq, which at least till right now are utterly unsubstantiated.

[Patroklos]

GePap

"That they are more eager to send people into war?"

"IN the last 100 years it has been Dems using the military the most."

Which one is it?

[GePap]

The wonders of the double post abound!