Candidate Kerry

[DC Tom]

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?

5731[/snapback]

 

 

What happens? Kerry is still President, and has to deal with it.

 

Unless I'm not getting the gist of your question...

[_BiB_]

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.

5727[/snapback]

 

Insults? Hypocrisy?

[MichFan]

What I mean is, and maybe Bib can help with this one, could Kerry still be an effective Commander in Chief if this happened? The morale of the military would already take a hit by him just winning. But if his strongest accustaion against the Bush administration turns out to be false, what impact would that have on our troops? On the ability to wage an aggressive war on terror? It seems to me there would be such an enormous invalidation of Kerry and the Dems that it would have to do some damage.

[VABills]

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.

5727[/snapback]

 

So in Texas the Governor reports to the Lieutenant Gov? I have never heard that before. Something doesn't seem right with that statement. So you're telling me Anne Richards and GWB sat around doing nothing but the Lt Gov's were doing all the work, setting forth their agenda, and signing bills into laws?

[_BiB_]

What I mean is, and maybe Bib can help with this one, could Kerry still be an effective Commander in Chief if this happened?  The morale of the military would already take a hit by him just winning.  But if his strongest accustaion against the Bush administration turns out to be false, what impact would that have on our troops?  On the ability to wage an aggressive war on terror?  It seems to me there would be such an enormous invalidation of Kerry and the Dems that it would have to do some damage.

5765[/snapback]

 

I couldn't begin to guess. It's been a while since I played in the sandbox, but it's generally my perception that the troops just go at whatever job is at hand as best they can.

 

and, 63- to me, "ribbon cutting" and "photo op" kind of rank up there with flight suit and Herman Munster. It adds little of substance to the conversation.

 

Seems like the left side just wants change, no matter what that change causes. The right side wants status quo, because they feel change for the sake of change is not always good. We don't have two real good choices this year. From where I stand, I haven't seen anything come out of the Kerry camp that leads me to believe he's going to be any kind of improvement over what we have now. Just talking defense, as the country IS at war, and stem cells, job creation, etc mean very little if LA and NYC are smoking craters-I'll ride this horse. My choice.

 

I still deep down inside feel that this has nothing to do with Kerry, the libs are still voting for Al Gore. It's a protest vote. Sad thing to use to set the direction of the nation.

[erynthered]

So in Texas the Governor reports to the Lieutenant Gov?  I have never heard that before.  Something doesn't seem right with that statement.  So you're telling me Anne Richards and GWB sat around doing nothing but the Lt Gov's were doing all the work, setting forth their agenda, and signing bills into laws?

5769[/snapback]

 

 

 

Damn, and all those execution orders.

[VABills]

Damn, and all those execution orders.

5776[/snapback]

Forgot about those, since they don't happen that much in Texas.

 

But didn't you know the lawyers are on the phone with the Lt Gov, until the last moment.

[BRH]

What happens?  Kerry is still President, and has to deal with it.

 

Unless I'm not getting the gist of your question...

5749[/snapback]

Yep... just like Bush is president now and has to deal with the fact that, after I had the exterminator come by the other day to help get rid of some mice, I now have more WMDs in my basement and garage than he's found in Iraq.

[Arondale]

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.

5650[/snapback]

 

Do you have proof or examples? I know for a fact that the Republicans may not have some of the more right-wing conservatives speaking, but the contrast is no where near what the DNC did.

 

A DNC organizer was quoted as saying, before the convention started, that we want to be more conservative, more like the RNC. I doubt there is a single person organizing the RNC that wants to be more like the democrats.

 

At the DNC, you had guys like Gore, Kennedy, Dean and others that were harshly critical and outspoken against Bush. Their speaches were strictly monitored to keep that type of language out. Sharpton was the only one who got away with attacking Bush, and that was without permission.

[billfan63]

So in Texas the Governor reports to the Lieutenant Gov?  I have never heard that before.  Something doesn't seem right with that statement.  So you're telling me Anne Richards and GWB sat around doing nothing but the Lt Gov's were doing all the work, setting forth their agenda, and signing bills into laws?

5769[/snapback]

Fact, In Texas, the consitutional definition of the governor's office is undeniably weaker

than in almost all other states. The governor occupies a weak office whose success really depends on others, such as the lieutenant governor. But you have me with the death sentences the gov does that. This aint VA

[DC Tom]

Yep... just like Bush is president now and has to deal with the fact that, after I had the exterminator come by the other day to help get rid of some mice, I now have more WMDs in my basement and garage than he's found in Iraq.

5801[/snapback]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Not because of your stance on Bush or Iraqi WMDs. Because you seem to believe that your post constitutes a reasonable response.

[BRH]

You're an idiot.

 

Not because of your stance on Bush or Iraqi WMDs.  Because you seem to believe that your post constitutes a reasonable response.

5821[/snapback]

Most people who know me would disagree with you, and I don't really give a stevestojan what you think of me. But I'm starting to understand the whole "pedantic, supercilious, and anal" thing.

[DC Tom]

Most people who know me would disagree with you, and I don't really give a stevestojan what you think of me.  But I'm starting to understand the whole "pedantic, supercilious, and anal" thing.

5839[/snapback]

 

Most people who know you are probably idiots too.

 

But seriously...how in the HELL does the concentration of roach spray in your basement have anything to do with President Kerry's postulated handling of a hypothetical Iraqi WMD discovery? It was a stupid !@#$ing response, plain and simple.

[VABills]

Most people who know me would disagree with you, and I don't really give a stevestojan what you think of me.  But I'm starting to understand the whole "pedantic, supercilious, and anal" thing.

5839[/snapback]

I have to agree with Tom on this one. Only problem is, being a mod, he gets a little evil at times. He should be a little more diplomatic calling you an idiot. It's a fact, but as a mod, I would expect him to put a little nicer.

 

Try again Tom, but a little nicer and gentler. After all you are supposed to be sympathetic.

[John F. Kerry]

Yep... just like Bush is president now and has to deal with the fact that, after I had the exterminator come by the other day to help get rid of some mice, I now have more WMDs in my basement and garage than he's found in Iraq.

5801[/snapback]

 

Look, I appreciate your efforts in helping me to get elected, but you really need to work on the "intelligent" part of intelligent debate. You are coming up a little short in this area.

 

Like I said before, I appreciate your efforts and keep up the good work.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Yep... just like Bush is president now and has to deal with the fact that, after I had the exterminator come by the other day to help get rid of some mice, I now have more WMDs in my basement and garage than he's found in Iraq.

5801[/snapback]

 

 

 

The Right has several people who disagree with Bush on key issues. ARnold, PAtaki, McCain, and Guiliani have all been critical of Bush, or disagree with him on major issues. Do you really need citations for this?

 

Also, the parties are pretty similar as it is.

 

BTW, the Democrats had some pretty left-wing people there (Teddy Kennedy!). I saw the DNC as a liberal parade. The class warfare rhetoric was at a peak.

[RCow]

If it wasn't such a big deal then the GOP would ignore it.

 

Kerry's only trails Bush on the question of national security. This is not surprisingly since those same people you seem to question their intelligence when it comes to Kerry Vietnam = strong commander in chief are the same people who have a knee jerk reaction to say that Bush is stronger because he's a Republican.

 

The Bush folks know this election can only be won if they can make Kerry an unacceptable CinC. They know they can't win on the economy or any other issue: healthcare, environment, education, etc. Kerry doesn't need to talk about his record in the Senate - accept about the POW/MIA stuff, because he's crushing Bush on domestic issues. If Bush wants to go there then I'm sure the Kerry folks would gladly accomodate him.

 

However, that's not going to win it for Bush especially since he doesn't have a big enough lead on national security that will re-election.

 

Most soft Rs, Is and Soft Ds still don't like Bush very much, don't think he's doing such a great job but haven't yet committed to Kerry or haven't reached a decision either way. It's a small group but critical in many swing states. Their vote essentially hinges on whether or not they view Kerry as a CinC -- someone who will protect the nation, make the tough choices and do the right thing. Believe it or not the Vietnam service, the three purple hearts and the medals DO make a difference. He's NOT Mike Dukakis.

 

Contrast his service and pictures in uniform to Bush and you have a much more level playing field; one that can win the election for Kerry. It is a perception thing, but more important, the Bush/GOP strategy to discredit Kerry's service also is extremely telling.

 

I've read dozens of posts here saying that it would be a disaster if Kerry was elected. Morale drop, borders unprotected, loss of strength, he'd destroy the military, won't fight terrorists, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Oh, really? If that's true then Bush wins easily, all the GOP has to do is demonstrate how Kerry is so weak on National Security and show the American people his plan to destroy the military, weak our borders and let terrorists off the hook. This strategy would be particularly powerful if they dared contrast Bush's national security plan next to what they say Kerry would do.

 

But wouldn't you know, they haven't done that.

 

Problem is the Bush folk have the same weak conjucture and speculation that posters have -- no concrete evidence that Kerry will do any of the things they publicly accuse him of planning. This scares the hell out of Bush and the GOP.

 

So if that doesn't work you must destroy the one thing that gives Kerry intitial credibility: his service record. Destory his service record and you destroy his ability to compete on national security. It's a very risky strategy especially since the GOP once believed that service to country was sacred and was an important character issue -- see 1988, 1992 & 1996 -- but it looks like a risk they think is worth taking.

[IDBillzFan]

Problem is the Bush folk have the same weak conjucture and speculation that posters have

 

The problem is, the Bush folk don't NEED to do ANYTHING to win this election except continue playing rope-a-dope while Kerry stands in the corner defending his one and only stance; Vietnam.

 

The Hot Pckets crowd doesn't see anything else.

 

This election is NOT about who would be a better president. It's not about how Kerry would react to given scenarios or even about how Bush DID react to given scenarios.

 

It's about who is going to be a better sales strategist, and in putting all of his eggs in a swift boat, Kerry screwed up and will spend the next eight weeks doing anything but getting out a message on his own terms.

[RCow]

The problem is, the Bush folk don't NEED to do ANYTHING to win this election except continue playing rope-a-dope while Kerry stands in the corner defending his one and only stance; Vietnam.

 

The Hot Pckets crowd doesn't see anything else.

 

This election is NOT about who would be a better president. It's not about how Kerry would react to given scenarios or even about how Bush DID react to given scenarios.

 

It's about who is going to be a better sales strategist, and in putting all of his eggs in a swift boat, Kerry screwed up and will spend the next eight weeks doing anything but getting out a message on his own terms.

6020[/snapback]

 

Well, I guess you and Bush have nothing to worry about.

[IDBillzFan]

Well, I guess you and Bush have nothing to worry about.

6022[/snapback]

Or more to the point...you and Kerry have a lot to worry about if you want him to win the election because he's put himself in a hole and does not have the mental acumen to find his way out. He and his handlers have completely messed up.

 

He should have never gone with the "reporting for duty" and "help is on the way" bit. It's gonna kill him.

 

There's still time, I think. If he just stops talking about Vietnam and begins pushing the public on his service in the Senate, he can still pull it off. He needs to find a catch phrase..."When I was in Senate for 19 years, I did this..." or "After 19 years in the Senate, I can tell you this much..."

 

Yes, the GOP will counter that, but it gets them off the Vietnam thing...and even an honest Democrat has to admit; the Vietnam thing ain't working real well.

 

I don't say this in a combative way. It's just the truth. Its time for the Kerry camp to shift gears and get away from the Vietnam bit. If the Kerry camp shuts up, the GOP will ultimately follow suit.

 

If they don't shift focus...well...you know the old saying: If you keep doing what you're doing you're going to keep getting what you're getting.