Candidate Kerry

[_BiB_]

Last night, in two separate venues, I heard two different Democratic strategists make the comment, to the effect that the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is his Viet Nam service.

 

I don't say this as partisan- I don't care if he won the Medal of Honor saving the Alamo. I see nothing but insanity in handing over the country to anyone based on FOUR MONTHS of anything.

 

What is everyone thinking? Has this country lost it's grip that far?

[erynthered]

Come on, BiB, you know that mega-corporations around the world and their share holders often hire people with only 4 months experience in a field that has nothing to do with their company to be their CEO. Plus, gives them no plan for the future of their company.

 

Its relative, right?

[VABills]

Come on, BiB, you know that mega-corporations around the world and their share holders often hire people with only 4 months experience in a field that has nothing to do with their company to be their CEO. Plus, gives them no plan for the future of their company.

 

Its relative, right?

5543[/snapback]

You forgot. He held a job for 19 years and has nothing to show for it. And he has missed work 500 out of the last 525 days.

[_BiB_]

I posted something yesterday. One theme of many I keep hearing, is that Kerry is going to build alliances, improve our military and be a better leader in the War on Terror, etc ad nauseum...nowhere, absolutely no where is a plan or even a theory laid out on what he's planning to do. I put up our current NMS for review, simply to ask-what's wrong with it? What is Kerry going to improve, strategy wise? You might think the document is pretty vague-but read close. A lot is getting said there if you know where to look.

[billfan63]

Last night, in two separate venues, I heard two different Democratic strategists make the comment, to the effect that the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is his Viet Nam service.

 

I don't say this as partisan- I don't care if he won the Medal of Honor saving the Alamo. I see nothing but insanity in handing over the country to anyone based on FOUR MONTHS of anything.

 

What is everyone thinking? Has this country lost it's grip that far?

 

5532[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Did you have any problems handing over the country to a guy who was

a governor of a state where he basically does nothing but poise for photo-ops

and does ribbon cuttings. Bush had zero experience to be president.

[_BiB_]

Did you have any problems handing over the country to a guy who was

a governor of a state where he basically does nothing but poise for photo-ops

and does ribbon cuttings. Bush had zero experience to be president.

 

5590[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No, and as much as I didn't like it, I didn't have much issue with Clinton from that aspect. Your childish barbs aside, both acted as heads of government and both were re-elected to those positions. I've done some looking up of Kerry's record over the last 19 years. There simply isn't much there.

 

And, your response indicates part of the problem here. You don't even touch the idea of what makes it OK to run for president on nothing more than 1/3 of a tour of Viet Nam, you throw out the Bush Bad thing. Hell, I retired from the Army and except for 7 years or so, worked for the government ever since. Maybe I should be President.

[Arondale]

It is amazing that the Democrats themselves are choosing to basically ignore Kerry's 19 years in the senate. That itself says something to me. Even now, with his Vietnam record under attack, he still is holding on to those credentials. Regardless of whether or not the attacks are true, you think Kerry's side might start emphasizing some of his senate experience, to try to deflect the focus from Vietnam, but I have not heard that at all.

 

I believe the reason is simple - you saw it at the DNC. They know that Kerry is rated the most liberal senator and I believe Edwards is #4. They do not want this ticket to be known as an extreme liberal ticket. They toned down the DNC along those lines. The reason why they are not focusing on Kerry's years as a senator is because they know that will immediately allow Bush and the Republicans to pick up and run with the liberalism stuff (more so than they already are).

 

You'd think someone with 19 years in the senate would have that as the focus of their campaign. That Kerry can't do that is exactly why I am not voting for him. I admire Kerry's willingness to serve in Vietnam, but it is what has happened in his 19 years in the senate that I am focusing on.

 

Everyone knows where Bush stands. He has not tried to disguise his political views. He has been consistent and stood by his principles, something that can't be said about Kerry.

[KRC]

It is amazing that the Democrats themselves are choosing to basically ignore Kerry's 19 years in the senate.  That itself says something to me.  Even now, with his Vietnam record under attack, he still is holding on to those credentials.  Regardless of whether or not the attacks are true, you think Kerry's side might start emphasizing some of his senate experience, to try to deflect the focus from Vietnam, but I have not heard that at all.

 

I believe the reason is simple - you saw it at the DNC.  They know that Kerry is rated the most liberal senator and I believe Edwards is #4.  They do not want this ticket to be known as an extreme liberal ticket.  They toned down the DNC along those lines.  The reason why they are not focusing on Kerry's years as a senator is because they know that will immediately allow Bush and the Republicans to pick up and run with the liberalism stuff (more so than they already are).

 

You'd think someone with 19 years in the senate would have that as the focus of their campaign.  That Kerry can't do that is exactly why I am not voting for him.  I admire Kerry's willingness to serve in Vietnam, but it is what has happened in his 19 years in the senate that I am focusing on.

 

Everyone knows where Bush stands.  He has not tried to disguise his political views.  He has been consistent and stood by his principles, something that can't be said about Kerry.

5632[/snapback]

 

Actually, I think that there is another reason why they are not focusing on his Senate record. If he did, then it would open up the logical question:

 

"So, why did you not propose your plans when you had the opportunity in the Senate?"

 

All these things he is proposing, he could have proposed in the Senate. He did not, but if you elect him President, he will suddenly start working on these things.

[IDBillzFan]

Funny you bring this up because I began thinking this morning that Kerry's campaign is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

 

We're watching the Bush backers slam Kerry's Vietnam record over and over and over, which puts Kerry on the defensive about his record, but puts him in a corner strategically. If you consider what it going on in the world RIGHT NOW, you'd think Kerry would be talking up the Iraqi situation with Al-Sadr, the state of the economy, or even NK's recent blabbering.

 

But he can't because he's too busy defending his four month record, and when the dust clears the only things the voters will know about Kerry is that he spent four questionable months in Vietnam.

 

I'm not pleased with the GOPs attacking (I think even Bob Dole went a bit too far with the 'superficial wound' thing), but it keeps Kerry from doing anything but defending himself.

 

Game, set, match...GOP.

 

And you can only blame Kerry for leaving this door open.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

I believe the reason is simple - you saw it at the DNC.  They know that Kerry is rated the most liberal senator and I believe Edwards is #4.  They do not want this ticket to be known as an extreme liberal ticket.  They toned down the DNC along those lines.  The reason why they are not focusing on Kerry's years as a senator is because they know that will immediately allow Bush and the Republicans to pick up and run with the liberalism stuff (more so than they already are).

 

Everyone knows where Bush stands.  He has not tried to disguise his political views.  He has been consistent and stood by his principles, something that can't be said about Kerry.

 

 

As to BiB's first point, I could care less about Kerry's Vietnam service. All it does is contrast him with Bush 19 years ago.

 

As to one of your other points, the RNC is doing the same smoke and mirros thing the Republicans did, because their candidate is so weak. They'll be trotting out faces of the Republican Party who have been critical of Bush, and disagree with him on many issues. It's a shame that many of the speakers for at the Republican Convention aren't represented by Bush's views- many would be better candidates.

[_BiB_]

Actually, I think that there is another reason why they are not focusing on his Senate record. If he did, then it would open up the logical question:

 

"So, why did you not propose your plans when you had the opportunity in the Senate?"

 

All these things he is proposing, he could have proposed in the Senate. He did not, but if you elect him President, he will suddenly start working on these things.

5638[/snapback]

 

You forgot your tongue in cheek thingy.

[VABills]

You forgot your tongue in cheek thingy.

5653[/snapback]

He's a politician. It wasn't a tongue.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Last night, in two separate venues, I heard two different Democratic strategists make the comment, to the effect that the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is his Viet Nam service.

 

I don't say this as partisan- I don't care if he won the Medal of Honor saving the Alamo. I see nothing but insanity in handing over the country to anyone based on FOUR MONTHS of anything.

 

What is everyone thinking? Has this country lost it's grip that far?

5532[/snapback]

 

Do you think it would be responsible for candidate Kerry, who has no experience planning worldwide troop movements, to set up a specific plan for our trrop allocations? I would hope that any SPECIFIC strategy Kerry would propose would be met with great skepticism. If he's like Bush, he will hire advisors who agree with his general principles (respecting alliances, building alliances, etc. as opposed to the Bush doctrine of "trust in my god" and attack or whatever it is that guides him). Those advisors will come up with the specific plans.

 

You work in defense: you know this is the way every presidential election goes. You never know what the candidate will do unless he's an incumbent. All you know are his guiding principles. Bush barely ran on a defense platform at all, because it was off the radar for the electorate in 2000.

[Mickey]

Last night, in two separate venues, I heard two different Democratic strategists make the comment, to the effect that the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is his Viet Nam service.

 

I don't say this as partisan- I don't care if he won the Medal of Honor saving the Alamo. I see nothing but insanity in handing over the country to anyone based on FOUR MONTHS of anything.

 

What is everyone thinking? Has this country lost it's grip that far?

5532[/snapback]

 

There is a big difference between saying it is the centerpiece and that it is the sole centerpiece. Something has to be at the center and you can only have one centerpiece. No single issue is going to be all instructive as to the good and bad of a given candidate. Besides, we spent that last 12 years or so hearing the incessant refrain from the right that "character matters". Kerry's service shows some character: he volunteered, he served, he served in combat and he served well. Those facts might not be the end all of whether he has "character" but they certainly are positive factors in that regard.

 

What it looks like from over here, and I am just trying to give you another perspective rather than asserting a factual claim, is that character and service mattered plenty when those issues favored the republican candidate (in their own opinion anyway) and now that it favors the democratic candidate (at least in their opinion anyway) we hear frequent complaints from the right that the issue is meaningless, overplayed, overweighted, overemphasized and out of date.

 

Its only natural. Everyone has their biases. They see their guy through rose colored glasses and will admit to no chinks in their armor. People are so strident, so extreme, that you can't afford to.

[KRC]

Do you think it would be responsible for candidate Kerry, who has no experience planning worldwide troop movements, to set up a specific plan for our trrop allocations? I would hope that any SPECIFIC strategy Kerry would propose would be met with great skepticism. If he's like Bush, he will hire advisors who agree with his general principles (respecting alliances, building alliances, etc. as opposed to the Bush doctrine of "trust in my god" and attack or whatever it is that guides him). Those advisors will come up with the specific plans.

 

You work in defense: you know this is the way every presidential election goes. You never know what the candidate will do unless he's an incumbent. All you know are his guiding principles. Bush barely ran on a defense platform at all, because it was off the radar for the electorate in 2000.

5665[/snapback]

Well, I would agree with you, if he did not take two distinctly different positions on troop deployments within one month. These quotes were posted previously, so there is no need to rehash. He seems to be taking the approach "here is my position, but it is subject to change depending on announcement of Bush's position on the issue."

 

I guess he is counting on people not paying attention to his speeches.

[_BiB_]

Do you think it would be responsible for candidate Kerry, who has no experience planning worldwide troop movements, to set up a specific plan for our trrop allocations? I would hope that any SPECIFIC strategy Kerry would propose would be met with great skepticism. If he's like Bush, he will hire advisors who agree with his general principles (respecting alliances, building alliances, etc. as opposed to the Bush doctrine of "trust in my god" and attack or whatever it is that guides him). Those advisors will come up with the specific plans.

 

You work in defense: you know this is the way every presidential election goes. You never know what the candidate will do unless he's an incumbent. All you know are his guiding principles. Bush barely ran on a defense platform at all, because it was off the radar for the electorate in 2000.

5665[/snapback]

 

And therin lies the rub. We already have very strong alliances. We are constantly adding more. Kerry has already stated that he would add 40,000 active troops as two light infantry divisions, without making any changes to the Defense budget. He has stated he would double the size of SOFs. No where is it mentioned why he would do these things, and what they are supposed to do once he has them. He had better have advisors NOW. Not later. In fact, I know he does. I actually know one of them from way back. He's in it as he made Lt General under the Clinton military, and is looking at a future appointment should Kerry pull this off.

 

Since being such a military man is the centerpiece of the Kerry campaign, you might expect more. They realize that most people are going to behave like the people on this board. They will not question what their new messiah has to say about anything. I once again take particular issue with the alliance thing-on several levels. Alliances that don't benefit us are not worth having. And just because a country is not approaching superpower status does not mean their contributions aren't of great importance. And yes, France and Germany are still considered allies, we still work closely with them and one of the best counter-proliferation initiatives anyone has come up with lately was started by Bush, and the last meeting of the coalition members was held in Paris.

 

There seems to be a big problem with the idea of the US not waiting for permission to do thingsit considers in it's best interest. If you feel it that important that we wait for France to give us permission to take out an Iranian enrichment facility, then I guess you have your man.

[_BiB_]

There is a big difference between saying it is the centerpiece and that it is the sole centerpiece.  Something has to be at the center and you can only have one centerpiece.  No single issue is going to be all instructive as to the good and bad of a given candidate.  Besides, we spent that last 12 years or so hearing the incessant refrain from the right that "character matters".  Kerry's service shows some character: he volunteered, he served, he served in combat and he served well.  Those facts might not be the end all of whether he has "character" but they certainly are positive factors in that regard.

 

What it looks like from over here, and I am just trying to give you another perspective rather than asserting a factual claim, is that character and service mattered plenty when those issues favored the republican candidate (in their own opinion anyway) and now that it favors the democratic candidate (at least in their opinion anyway) we hear frequent complaints from the right that the issue is meaningless, overplayed, overweighted, overemphasized and out of date.

 

Its only natural.  Everyone has their biases.  They see their guy through rose colored glasses and will admit to no chinks in their armor.  People are so strident, so extreme, that you can't afford to.

5675[/snapback]

 

And quid pro quo, counsellor. As has been mentioned many times, the same Democrats who say this is so important are the ones who pooh-poohed the relevance when it was Clinton.

[Mickey]

Do you think it would be responsible for candidate Kerry, who has no experience planning worldwide troop movements, to set up a specific plan for our trrop allocations? I would hope that any SPECIFIC strategy Kerry would propose would be met with great skepticism. If he's like Bush, he will hire advisors who agree with his general principles (respecting alliances, building alliances, etc. as opposed to the Bush doctrine of "trust in my god" and attack or whatever it is that guides him). Those advisors will come up with the specific plans.

 

You work in defense: you know this is the way every presidential election goes. You never know what the candidate will do unless he's an incumbent. All you know are his guiding principles. Bush barely ran on a defense platform at all, because it was off the radar for the electorate in 2000.

5665[/snapback]

 

Good points but let me add that the situation now is not the situation that will be there in January of next year. Things change. What I am thinking about is not a plan that might be torn up due to events and changing circumstances. What I am concerned about is decision making skills. Who do I trust more to ask the right questions, vet all the angles and then make a clear decision?

 

On that score, both candidates worry me. I read Woodward's book and he related a meeting they had at the WH where they were trying to once and for all gather everything they had on the WMD issues prior to the war. Bush looked at what they had and basically said: "That's it? That's all we have? That isn't enough." Tenet responded with his now infamous remark that it "...was a slam dunk." That is all Bush needed, he accepted that without so much as a follow up question such as "slam dunk my a$$, slam dunk based on what???" It would be one thing if he was just ignorant and relying on the experts. He wasn't, his own mind told him that the intel they had didn't add up to anything. Whether he was just trying to get the butt cover he needed from Tenet or not we will never know. Fact is, he knew there was an issue and he let it sit without asking the obvious follow up. He blew that decision and I don't care if it was by design or just a mistake.

 

As for Kerry, he either has no political discipline or no political sense. I don't know how many times he has said something that you could tell was going to get him in trouble. Remember Hillary and that cookie thing she said? No discipline. Bill couldn't resist a burger or a hummer but he never said something like that out of frustration or anger that would hand his opponents a hammer with which to beat him over the head. Every so often, Kerry says something like that and I have to question his judgment and his discipline.

[billfan63]

No, and as much as I didn't like it, I didn't have much issue with Clinton from that aspect. Your childish barbs aside, both acted as heads of government and both were re-elected to those positions. I've done some looking up of Kerry's record over the last 19 years. There simply isn't much there.

 

And, your response indicates part of the problem here. You don't even touch the idea of what makes it OK to run for president on nothing more than 1/3 of a tour of Viet Nam, you throw out the Bush Bad thing. Hell, I retired from the Army and except for 7 years or so, worked for the government ever since. Maybe I should be President.

5606[/snapback]

 

I lived in Texas for 25 years, what exactly does the governor do? The lieutenant governor is the power in Austin. I just pointid out your hypocrisy. I guess I should have said does a stint in the Texas National Guard qualify someone to become president? That way we would have apples to apples.You turning to insults indicates the problem here alot more than my response.

[MichFan]

Taking this Commander in Chief discussion a little farther...

 

After Florida 2000, I remember the Democrats threatening that Bush's presidency was going to be invalidated when the media gets access to the ballots and shows Gore actually did win the state (which of course wasn't the case).

 

Kerry is already on shakey ground with many in the miltary and veterans. What happens if Kerry wins this election and then stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs and/or an Iraqi nuke turn up somewhere?