Why democrats hardly ever win

[DEAD ZONE]

here we ar about 2 yrs after 9-11 and what do the democrats say it top priority:

Pollsters asked voters the following question: "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?" Voters were given six choices: taxes, education, health care/Medicare, the war in Iraq, national security/terrorism, and the economy/jobs.

In four of the five states for which exit polls are available--Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--Democratic voters placed national security/terrorism at the bottom of the list. Only in tiny Delaware, on the east coast and not far from Ground Zero, did Democrats place more emphasis on the issue--and even then, it was in next-to-last place.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402040915.asp

In the world of james Taranto:
"Not to take anything away from Kerry and Clark, for whose service to the country we should all be grateful, but it strikes us that President Bush's experience as a commander in chief who's led the military in two victories is a more relevant qualification than service in combat a third of a century ago."

[Ateo]

Bush wasn't even able to carry out his duty in the National Guard. Too busy hangin' out with his buddies Jack Daniels and Jim Beam in Alabama. Lucky for him he was Poppy's boy, so he avoided the brig.

At least Kerry and Clark fulfilled their oaths and served like they were supposed to--and served honorably.

:)

[nickdv]

:lol :clap :wave

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Bush wasn't even able to carry out his duty in the National Guard. Too busy hangin' out with his buddies Jack Daniels and Jim Beam in Alabama. Lucky for him he was Poppy's boy, so he avoided the brig.

At least Kerry and Clark fulfilled their oaths and served like they were supposed to--and served honorably.

:)

I'm continually amazed at the wannabe "military experts" here... parroting some line they read on some screeching, sparkly-eyed lib's blog somewhere.

Tig-- If GWB got an Honorable Discharge, he served "honorably."

GWB went through pilot training for jet aircraft. That ain't like getting your learner's permit to drive a car, folks. Please believe me when I tell you, Tig, that you know little... and understand even less of how the ANG operated in the 1970's. They were pretty disorganized in the 1960's, and I have no reason to believe they collated their feces by the 1970's... if anything it was likely worse!

I was among those of us who were staring at our Draft notice PRIOR to the lottery system... when every kid had to register at age 18 and sweat it out, waiting for the letter in the mailbox.... no marriage/educational/or any other deferrments, you reported and then they decided if you were physically fit. We Regulars looked down on the Guardsmen and Reservists. But we held 99% of our righteous disdain for the draft-dogers and the cut-and-run-to-Canada types.

I got my letter and took it [unopened] right away to the Air Force recruiter's office. I signed-up for the USAF and only THEN we [together] opened the letter telling me to report to the induction center. The recruiter and I then swore affidavits that I had no knowledge of my being drafted until AFTER I had already signed-up for the USAF.

I chose 4 years active USAF/2 years inactive Reserve ["active" ended-up being a little longer :wink: ] instead of 2 years active in the US Army/ with 4 years reserve.

I was halfway through my third semester of college when I got tapped to go play soldier, and my life plans were all out-the-window.

You whiners don't know how easy you have it these days...:mad:rolleyes:

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Bush wasn't even able to carry out his duty in the National Guard. Too busy hangin' out with his buddies Jack Daniels and Jim Beam in Alabama. Lucky for him he was Poppy's boy, so he avoided the brig.

At least Kerry and Clark fulfilled their oaths and served like they were supposed to--and served honorably.

:) Bush completed his duty fellow and got a discharge.

Kerry served the communist well.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Bush completed his duty fellow and got a discharge.
Technically. We all know these things can be fixed for those with connections.

Your naivety is selective. You're super-cynical/-critical about any Dem's shortcomings, yet oh-so naive about Bush's, and oh-so willing to give him a pass on Iraq. = completely biased. Your token anti-Bush threads do nothing to erase that.

PS

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Btw, do a Google search for "veterans for Kerry". You'll get over 800 results. Do one for "veterans against Kerry". You'll get about 40.

[Ateo]

Sin: as someone who has never served in a military capacity, I just want to thank you for doing what you did re: serving the country, especially in a time of war. I feel indebted to you and people like you. I know it probably sounds odd coming from me, but I really mean it.

However: the Alabama National Guard had no flight facilities at that time (early 70's). Being as how Bush was a pilot, what was he doing there? Holding his arms out and running around making airplane noises, out of sight of his commanding officer who never saw him?

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Technically. We all know these things can be fixed for those with connections.

Your naivety is selective. You're super-cynical/-critical about any Dem's shortcomings, yet oh-so naive about Bush's, and oh-so willing to give him a pass on Iraq. = completely biased. Your token anti-Bush threads do nothing to erase that.

PS

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Btw, do a Google search for "veterans for Kerry". You'll get over 800 results. Do one for "veterans against Kerry". You'll get about 40. ah, the old, FIX!! bit. Prove it please.Medal awards can be fixed tig.anything can be fixed. Was it however?

Dont worry hack, your bias rant is noted for what it is.:clap

[aclu14]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
here we ar about 2 yrs after 9-11 and what do the democrats say it top priority:

Pollsters asked voters the following question: "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?" Voters were given six choices: taxes, education, health care/Medicare, the war in Iraq, national security/terrorism, and the economy/jobs.

In four of the five states for which exit polls are available--Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina--Democratic voters placed national security/terrorism at the bottom of the list. Only in tiny Delaware, on the east coast and not far from Ground Zero, did Democrats place more emphasis on the issue--and even then, it was in next-to-last place.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402040915.asp

In the world of james Taranto:
"Not to take anything away from Kerry and Clark, for whose service to the country we should all be grateful, but it strikes us that President Bush's experience as a commander in chief who's led the military in two victories is a more relevant qualification than service in combat a third of a century ago."


VICTORIES??!!!

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14



VICTORIES??!!!

yeah... "victories"... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[AWPrime]

The enemy simply didn't show up.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The enemy simply didn't show up. Tell that to the boys and galls at arlington. Yell loud because its a long way from you buster.:mad

[aclu14]

Show me a victory.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by aclu14
Show me a victory.

Sorry, ff you have to demand that, you're simply too ignorant to understand what is being discussed.

Fortunately, "ignorance" can be cured... :clap

You might start with the definition of "victory" and go from there.

[Ateo]

Neocons just love to dance around an issue, don't they

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Neocons just love to dance around an issue, don't they

What issue? Is it even necessary for the president to be a war hero?

I think not. I just ask that he/she received and Honorable discharge if they served.

You sure have changed your priorities since Clinton! :lol

Tig - you are so transparent... :rolleyes:

Clark was a general. You do not rise to that rank by being un-American. He has my respect as a Military leader. Still, this alone does not make him suitable to lead the United States as president. If this was the case Audie Murphy would have been appointed by default!

McCain underwent imprisonment and torture. Should he be the man?

As an independent thinking citizen, I have learned to look past the media's "flavor of the day" attacks on Bush.

1. We are now more secure.
2. We have someone in office that has character and deserves respect.
3. The economy is recovering from the Clinton dot-com fiasco.
4. Our allies know we will be there if needed.
5. We have curtailed the mass leaks of US technology to the opposition
6. We have finally received a tax cut that was long overdue.

Military service is such a small part of what it takes to lead the US.
The only requirement is that if you served - you did it honorably.

It's called character... :)

[Ateo]

DB, I was just referring to no one answering aclu's question. You kind of gave some answers but not really related to "military victories" for Bush.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms

1. We are now more secure.
2. We have someone in office that has character and deserves respect.
3. The economy is recovering from the Clinton dot-com fiasco.
4. Our allies know we will be there if needed.
5. We have curtailed the mass leaks of US technology to the opposition
6. We have finally received a tax cut that was long overdue.


1. Your not
2. Only from the right in his country.
3. You have a long way to go and to fall.
4. Your allies are making plans to stand on thier own, just in case.
5. Not that anyone will know untill it's to late.
6. You don't pay a lot of tax in the first place.

[DEAD ZONE]

Does military experience stand out as a prerequisite for success as a wartime president?Apparently not.
Confederate president Jefferson Davis would have easily outshone Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War if that were the case. Davis was a West Point graduate, A war hero from the Mexican American Warr, Franklin Pierce's secretary of war , as well as a U.S. senator who served with distinction on the Senate Military Affairs Committee. Lincoln's military experience consists of being a militia officer during the Black Hawk War. Compard to davis Lincoln is a drop in the bucket and has no place as President IF you believe military service is important. he made fun of this lack when he was a congressman.This was to counter the democrats atempt during the presidential race of 1848 to make Lewis Cass a war hero comparable to the Whig candidate,
Zachary Taylor:

By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes sir; in the days of the Black Hawk war, I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking of General Cass' career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stillman's defeat, but I was about as near it, as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and like him, I saw the place very soon afterwards....If Gen. Cass went in advance of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in charges upon the wild onions. If he saw any live fighting Indians, it was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes;and although I never fainted from loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry.


I love it when people try to paint politicians who never served (or who served in "safe" places during time of war) as somehow illegitimate when they are later put in positions of power to decide military measures.

But the founders would have found it incredibly odd to do so. Because they were all deeply afraid of the military. They had seen powerful military machines topple civil government in their day and throughout history.

The founders WANTED to be SURE that civilians led the military through the power of the presidency and congress. They did NOT want military men to run government. Why do you think the military budget must be approved each year (today a perfunctory effort, of course) and they did NOT make it an automatic part of government expenses without approval on that yearly basis.

When you get right down to it, most of our presidents, vice presidents and Senators did not serve the country in the military. A good portion did, of course, and there is nothing wrong with that service, but there is similarly nothing wrong with NOT having military service. And the founders often pronounced that preferable.

I find the argument of who did and who did not serve foolish. A man who served is just as able to be a bad leader in the political circle (Grant, Clark, Kerry) as one who never served could be. A man who served can be just as prone to turning against his country ad its principles as one who never did.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
I find the argument of who did and who did not serve foolish. Agreed. But the argument about whether or not someone lied about their service is relevent.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Agreed. But the argument about whether or not someone lied about their service is relevent. So is the treasonous acts and betrayal of someone .

[aclu14]

Two victories, you said. Show us two victories.

[sinecure]

Since you apparently went into hibernation in your Bat-Cave after the last election, here's two--

Floriduh and the Supreme Court...


[THAT ought to get a response!] :wink :eek: :clap

[dave404]

I had to laugh at this:

"President Bush's experience as a commander in chief who's led the military in two victories "

I think this comes under the category of (i) legally true, in the sense that if you tried to sue, you'd lose, and (ii) utter nonsense. "Commander in chief" is the funniest part. Yeah right. GW as the chief architect of US military strategy... can you imagine? ROFL.

PS Yes, I know that's the Prez's official title. No, it doesn't constitute military experience - quite the opposite.

[AWPrime]

It's a pure EGO title.

[sinecure]

Wasn't it just a few short months ago that everybody was all lathered-up over GWB "going to war all on his own"??

Seems to me that somebody with a phony title couldn't actually DO that [could your Queen??:rolleyes: ]

No, my ignorant foreigner friend, "Commander In Chief" IS his functioning title.

You should make up your mind and stick with it--one side or another-- is GWB the stumbling, ignorant buffoon, or is he an extremely shrewd manipulator of the ENTIRE PLANET, who is among the scant handful of world leaders who are actually DOING SOMETHING about the bad people in the world?

[dave404]

Sin, you need to make it plainer who you're responding to. I don't think AWPrime has a Queen (though I could be wrong), and the views you're attributing don't seem to fit me too well.

For the record though, I would choose 'c) none of the above', in answer to your last question.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by dave404
Sin, you need to make it plainer who you're responding to. I don't think AWPrime has a Queen (though I could be wrong), and the views you're attributing don't seem to fit me too well.

For the record though, I would choose 'c) none of the above', in answer to your last question.

AW [who may even be a queen... I don't know] is the one-and-only resident of my "ignore" list... I don't see any of his/her posts. And I'm a happy guy.:wink "Some people have way with words. Some not have way."

And MY response was not to anything from AW, but to your posting of:

I think this comes under the category of (i) legally true, in the sense that if you tried to sue, you'd lose, and (ii) utter nonsense. "Commander in chief" is the funniest part. Yeah right. GW as the chief architect of US military strategy... can you imagine? ROFL.

He is, in fact, commander-in-chief... it's not some awarded honorific title, like "knight", "OBE", "Lord", etc. He actually IS CIC of the US military. Really. He outranks 'em all... he can fire 'em too [remember Truman and McArthur?]

While I fully realize that much British "humor" is quite incomprehensible to we colonists, if you find humor in the Prez also being CIC... well, I guess that's just another example...:wink :wave :lol :lol

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
AW [who may even be a queen... I don't know] is the one-and-only resident of my "ignore" list...

:wave :wave :clap :clap :clap

I am so glad, that I don't get any more of his dumb responces.:)

Run Sin run.:)

[dave404]

Sin, if you have people on your "ignore" list, so that you can't tell they've posted, that's all the more reason to say who you're replying to. I'll say no more about it.

I'm not disputing that the Prez is the CiC of the US military. Like I said, it's legally true.

There's no need to impute views to me that "everyone" was espousing, unless you think that's literally true, in which case it includes you, and doesn't make any sense.

I never mentioned any terms like "honorific", you did that. I just disputed that this constituted military experience, unless having generals trying to stop you from interfering with their work is military experience (I don't think so, but some might disagree. Fair enough.). And I was amused at the idea of GWB formulating a military strategy. Doesn't seem to me like that would be one of his strengths.

Of course, if you wanna make ol' George out to be some kind of mastermind, who can turn his hand to anything, and feel convinced that he *was* the ultimate architect of military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're entitled to your opinions. Just don't blame me when people point at you and laugh, 'cos I tried to warn you, OK?

[w1che]

The prez can have as much to do with day to day operations of the military as he wants to take. Johnson tried to run the Vietnam war from Washington. One of the reasons we lost that war.. JFK had to hold the Generals back on Cuba because they wanted to bomb the hell out of the place. FDR is the reason the Russians got all of Eastern Europe after WW2 by telling our Armies where they had to stop. It goes on & on... Look at any war & you will see the hand of the Prez some where in the running of that war.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by dave404
Sin, if you have people on your "ignore" list, so that you can't tell they've posted, that's all the more reason to say who you're replying to. I'll say no more about it.

Try to see it this way.,.. If I use you name in a reply, then I'm replying specifically to YOU... I see this forum-posting stuff as essentially a free-for-all... damn few formalities. If something I write doesn't apply to you, just pass it up, or insert a commentary of your own. I have but only one troll-clone on my "ignore" list.

There's no need to impute views to me that "everyone" was espousing, unless you think that's literally true, in which case it includes you, and doesn't make any sense.

See my response above...

I never mentioned any terms like "honorific", you did that. I just disputed that this constituted military experience, unless having generals trying to stop you from interfering with their work is military experience (I don't think so, but some might disagree. Fair enough.). And I was amused at the idea of GWB formulating a military strategy. Doesn't seem to me like that would be one of his strengths.

While W1che is correct in saying that LBJ was personally involved in the targetting in VietNam, I'm told by those over there that GWB is letting the commanders-in-the-field do most of the decision making. GWB tells them what result he wants, and lets them decide how it's done. [Just one of the several hard lessons we learned from VN.]

Of course, if you wanna make ol' George out to be some kind of mastermind, who can turn his hand to anything, and feel convinced that he *was* the ultimate architect of military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're entitled to your opinions. Just don't blame me when people point at you and laugh, 'cos I tried to warn you, OK?

If you've kept up with the forum we seem to have a "camp" that sees GWB as several notches below "dull normal"... yet at the same time they insist that he is manipulating the entire WORLD into doing his bidding. That's what I was referring to.

I guess the basic problem here is that you seem to see this as a public exchange of personal emails... I don't.

I've forgotten who said it first-- "The U.S. and Britain... two countries separated by a common language." :lol :lol :wave :wink

[dave404]

Sin, if you're not responding to me, it's rather odd that you're quoting my words. But I suppose you will say that *now* you are responding to me, whereas you weren't then. Very good. Well, I have no interest in responding to vague ideas on your part about what "everyone" seems to think. We might just as usefully discuss the voices in your head. Or indeed, mine. Enough. Let us move on...

[sinecure]

OK... originally I was trying to understand how/why you found the [functioning] Commander In Chief title amusing, when your country seems to have so many honorific nonsensical titles that are bestowed upon various subjects by the Queen and who-knows-who-or-why.

I guess we're long past that, so I'll agree to move on. :)

Sorry to get so far off-topic. I seem to do it more and more these days but I just can't keep the voices from speaking through me... :wink