Kerry's war record Vs Bush's

True Dat, Caprice. I figure that's because The Opposition has no plan, beyond Oust Bush and Regain Power, for the future.

yeah. sez you..

Nimh is quoting from a column in the New Republic
Not to be confused with anything Republican.

The Daily Express part is a cutsey title for a daily column.

Index

http://www.tnr.com/index.mhtml

Joe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democratic primaries aren't done yet, are they? I realize that Kerry has it pretty much sewn up, but until the thing is done, isn't it a little premature to fault a campaign strategy that hasn't, in effect, started yet?

You know what I say? Who gives a rats arse about their war record. You don't have to be military to be a good president.

Caprice, for all practical purposes, The Opposition Campaign begins the moment the General Election results are certified. It just doesn't become an official General Election Campaign untill the Opposition Party's convention adjourns. For over three years now, The Opposition has been campaigning vigorously against The Current Administration, and that is how it always has been. Apart from the vituperation and skullduggery foisted by The Opposition this time around, something not really seen allthat much in 20th Century politics, though common in the 19th Century, things are pretty normal. In effect, the beginning of the contest for the Democratic Party nomination marked the onset of active anti-Bush the Younger electioneering, and as the field has by default now narrowed to Kerry, he has assumed the role of his party's challenger, and placed himself in the focus of the incumbent's re-election machine. Given that Bush the Younger's replacement has been the point of the entire exercize of the Democratic Candidate winnowing process, I think it not at all in the favor of The Opposition that despite over a year's worth of hammering on Bush the Younger, essentially without rebuttal of any substance, their annointed candidate manages no better than a statistical tie with the incumbent among the various polls. When trotted out by the incumbent's re-election machine and detailed for the voters, Kerry's record as a legislator will, IMO, provide more than sufficient cement to fill his boots and hold him firmly in place as the tide of public sentiment rises over him. The Democrats have not siezed a rising star; they've chained themselves to another anchor.

Tis, as Republicans used to say about Bill Clinton,
a question of a man's character.
What stuff is he made of?
What's at his core?
When he says he did his best to serve, did he?
Did he, as Colin Powell once asked, step ahead of the sons of lesser men to serve in safer places?

Can you believe what he says when he says it?

Is he a true man,
a man of truth,
or is he a phoney,
a fake,
a paper man riding on the wind on his family's power?

Oh sorry, I usually always include a link to where the article is at.

In this case, no, it's not from a newspaper called Daily Express (isn't that some British tabloid?). It's from TNR, The New Republic (I, eh, tend to quote it a lot, ehem). The New Republic is an American weekly of long standing, it appears both in print and online at www.tnr.com. (My father already used to read it when he lived in America, 40 years ago! ;-).

TNR is definitely Dem-leaning, though on the New Democrat (read: right-wing) side of the party. Kinda an incrowd journal. I like the way they write very much, they've got a lot of interesting articles with unexpected angles, they do good research, and they are witty about it. Much more pleasant to read than, say, The Nation. Of course, they're way too right-wing for my taste, heh, and as soon as they write about the war in Iraq (pro) and Israel (extremely pro-Sharon), I just kinda tune out.

Timberlandko
.

Oh. yes, I remember it so clearly now. There was nothing that could be construed as vituperation and skullduggery performed against Bill Clinton. That was just patty-cake from the ring wingers, you know, just your average series of lies and accusations (Mena, Whitewater, Troopergate), the unending and baseless investigations,(Filegate, Whitewater again), the concerted and well-financed effort to bring his Presidency down by making slur after slur, while making sure that his legislative agenda, whether it was health care or his economic plan or the end of welfare got little support and less compromise. Oh, yes, they, Newt, Rush, Tom DeLay, Bob Barr, Richard Scaife, David Brock, Ken Starr and rest were very well behaved, perfect gentlemen, yes, in the 19th century sense that you mention, yes.

We both remember it clearly, Joe, we just remember it differently. Then, that's politics, ain't it :wink"

Yeah, one of us remembers it factually.

That's my hand that's up.

Joe

Then why do you make the claim that Bush was off duty when he visited a military dentist when you know better? Are you claiming that when you visited medical personnel in the Army that you were off duty?

Tantor

Tantor
What did he do report in to his commander the dentist. I wouldn't believe that man if he swore on a stack of his bibles.

A lot of troops in the field are going to care a lot about their military records. Serving in the military gives a certain feel for what can be done with the military and an empathy for the troops whose lives you hold in your hand as President. Military experience makes the difference between losing people in Somalia on a peace mission because you refuse to equip them properly and winning a war with small cost in lives in Afghanistan. There's value in respect and morale when you have a president who has served and respects the troops as opposed to one who has not and loathes the military.

Tantor

You are evading the question. Why do you maintain that you are off duty when you report to the military dentist?

Tantor

The cockpit of an F-102 or any fighter aircraft is not a safe place. Even in peacetime, there is a steady dribble of deaths. From my experience, about one in every 150 guys who enter USAF pilot training end up dead within the first few years in aircraft accidents.

Tantor