0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 07:11 am
What comes to mind, Thomas, is the short story by Kafka, I think it was titled, The Penal Colony.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 12:03 pm
This is what comes to my mind:


read this
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 12:32 pm
I mean, Lola, .... please put the towel away from the webcam's lens when I speak to you ....don't others see all your info here on the board as well?

http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/cool/cowboy.gif
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jun, 2005 12:46 pm
Big Brother sees it......so why not make it totally public? Laughing
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 09:42 am
Quote:
Surprise: Some Democrats Like Scalia

Democratic insiders concede privately that Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may have an easier time winning Senate confirmation as chief justice than their leaders are saying publicly. One thing Scalia has going for him, if Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires, is the record of his overwhelming confirmation by the Senate for the high court seat in 1986. It's possible, one Democratic strategist says, that as few as 20 Dems would oppose Scalia.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050613/13whitehouse.htm


<Gasp>

Laughing
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 10:17 am
He was for signing Form 180 before he was against it. What a guy Smile

Quote:
The caveat emperor

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | May 24, 2005

AT THIS POINT it comes as no surprise. John Kerry is releasing all his military records -- but then again, he isn't.

During an interview yesterday with Globe editorial writers and columnists, the former Democratic presidential nominee was asked if had signed Form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records.

''I have signed it," Kerry said. Then, he added that his staff was ''still going through it" and ''very, very shortly, you will have a chance to see it."

The devil is usually in the details. With Kerry, it's also in the dodges and digressions. After the interview, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, was asked to clarify when Kerry signed SF 180 and when public access would be granted. Kerry drifted over to join the conversation, immediately raising the confusion level. He did not answer the question of when he signed the form or when the entire record will be made public.

Several e-mails later, Wade conveyed the following information: On Friday, May 20, Kerry obtained a copy of Form 180 and signed it. ''The next step is to send it to the Navy, which will happen in the next few days. The Navy will then send out the records," e-mailed Wade. Kerry first said he would sign Form 180 when pressed by Tim Russert during a Jan. 30 appearance on ''Meet the Press."

Six months after Kerry's loss to George W. Bush, it feels somewhat gratuitous to point out how hard it can be to get a clear, straight answer from Kerry on this and other matters. But as long as the Massachusetts senator is thinking about another presidential run, the candor gap remains on the table, because he puts it there.

On one hand, he seems to have concluded that Democrats have a ''branding" problem, much like a company selling razor blades. The Democratic Party, said Kerry, needs ''a new brand. That's the challenge." For 25 years, he said, Democrats did not fight negative branding by their opponents. As a result, he said, Democrats are now labelled as ''tax, spend, weak, things like that."

Later, Kerry said, ''Let me be crystal clear. We do not have to reformulate or redefine the Democratic Party. I'm tired of hearing that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything." The party, he said, stands for healthcare for every single American; public education that works and gets the necessary resources, with strict accountability; foreign policy that demonstrates both strength and respect for multinationalism; a tax structure that is fair; protecting the environment, and energy independence.

However, Republicans successfully directed the 2004 contest to other issues, including the war on terror, gay marriage, and abortion. Kerry now stands as close to Bush as he can on those issues.

On Iraq, Kerry basically endorsed the outcome of the Bush Doctrine, saying: ''I do think we're making a kind of progress, slowly but surely."

Asked about gay marriage, he explained that he and George Bush hold the same position -- for civil unions. And he noted that he is supporting Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey Jr. -- ''what they call a prolife candidate" -- against incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum.

Kerry said that people don't want to ''go back to coat hangers and back alleys," or put ''moms in jail and doctors." Then he pointed out the alternatives that Democrats, following in the footsteps of New York Senator Hillary Clinton, now take pains to embrace -- adoption, prevention, and abstinence.

The twists and turns of the past campaign still elicit bursts of passionate analysis. He continues to attribute Bush's success to a combination of voter indifference to the truth and the Republicans' ability to leverage the ''fear factor."

Asked about the impact of religion, he said that he reread the New Testament since the election to make sure ''I didn't miss anything" and recalled that on the campaign trail ''I gave a very strong speech about values and how you measure these things." He believes he lost the ''soccer moms" and ''security moms" to the Osama bin Laden videotape, released the Friday before Election Day.

The campaign waged against him by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth arouses Kerry's greatest passion. ''What they said was untrue," he said. He considered, but decided against, filing suit against the group, which alleged that he did not deserve his Vietnam military honors.

Kerry insists ''The truth in its entirety will come out . . . the truth will come out."

Signing Form 180 is the first step. Releasing his entire military record to the public is the second.

It doesn't get any plainer than that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/


He's still clueless Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 03:03 pm
So Kerry signed the Form 180 but hasn't made it official? I guess technically he kept his promise as he never promised to make it official. He only promised to sign it Smile

I wasn't aware, however, that you could sign a Form 180 without it becoming immediately official. I thought you had to sign it in front of somebody in authority or something. But maybe not.

I also wonder what somebody who "has already made a full and complete accounting of his military record and posted it on his website" still has to 'go through' before making the Form 180 official?

But like the writer said, so long as Kerry keeps making noises like he will run again in 2008, he's fair game for scrutiny on these things.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 03:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I wasn't aware, however, that you could sign a Form 180 without it becoming immediately official. I thought you had to sign it in front of somebody in authority or something. But maybe not.

I also wonder what somebody who "has already made a full and complete accounting of his military record and posted it on his website" still has to 'go through' before making the Form 180 official?


Military Record Requests (SF-180)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2005 06:02 pm
Okay, my neighbor, Army Colonel Retired, stated there is a Section III of the Form SF 180 that has to be signed to authorize others, such as the media, to access a person's military records. He can't remember if that has to be notarized or signed off by an authorized officer.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2005 02:35 pm
Yesterday was D-Day and the following is appropriate I think in light of what the allied forces risked in that event. I think at least most of those who do not consider the U.S. Military to be a resurrection of barbarianism and a hotbed of sadistic immorality will appreciate it.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005
June 7, 2005
What Will Future Generations Say?
By Thomas Sowell

We may look back on some eras as heroic -- that of the founding fathers or "the greatest generation" that fought World War II -- but some eras we look back on in disbelief at the utter stupidity with which people ruined their economies or blundered into wars in which every country involved ended up worse off than before.

How will people a century from now look back on our era?

Fortunately, most of us will be long gone by then, so we will be spared the embarrassment of seeing ourselves judged.

What will future generations say about how we behaved when confronted by international terrorist organizations that have repeatedly demonstrated their cut-throat ruthlessness and now had the prospect of getting nuclear weapons from rogue nations like Iran and North Korea?

What will future generations think when they see the front pages of our leading newspapers repeatedly preoccupied with whether we are treating captured cut-throats nicely enough? What will they think when they see the Geneva Convention invoked to protect people who are excluded from protection by the Geneva Convention?

During World War II, German soldiers who were captured not wearing the uniform of their own army were simply lined up against a wall and shot dead by American troops.

This was not a scandal. Far from being covered up by the military, movies were taken of the executions and have since been shown on the History Channel. We understood then that the Geneva Convention protected people who obeyed the Geneva Convention, not those who didn't -- as terrorists today certainly do not.

What will those who look back on these times think when they see that the American Civil Liberties Union, and others who have made excuses for all sorts of criminals, were pushing for the prosecution of our own troops for life-and-death decisions they had a split second to make in the heat of combat?

The frivolous demands made on our military -- that they protect museums while fighting for their lives, that they tiptoe around mosques from which people are shooting at them -- betray an irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line to protect us.

It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media.

If American troops kill a hundred terrorists in battle and lose ten of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

Those in the media who have carped at the military for years, and have repeatedly opposed military spending, are now claiming to be "honoring" our military by making a big production out of publishing the names of all those killed in Iraq. Will future generations see through this hypocrisy -- and wonder why we did not?

What will the generations of the future say if we allow Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, which are then turned over to terrorists who can begin to annihilate American cities?

Our descendants will wonder how we could have let this happen, when we had the power to destroy any nation posing such a threat. Knowing that we had the power, they would have to wonder why we did not have the will -- and why it was so obvious that we did not.

Nothing will more painfully reveal the irresponsible frivolity of our times than the many demands in the media and in politics that we act only with the approval of the United Nations and after winning over "world opinion."

How long this will take and what our enemies will be doing in the meantime while we are going through these futile exercises is something that gets very little attention.

Do you remember Osama bin Laden warning us, on the eve of last year's elections, that he would retaliate against those parts of the United States that voted for Bush? The United States is not Spain, so we disregarded his threats.

But what of future generations, after international terrorists get nuclear weapons? And what will our descendants think of us -- will they ever forgive us -- for leaving them in such a desperate situation because we were paralyzed by a desire to placate "world opinion"?

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_7_05_TS.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 11:57 am
I couldn't resist posting this one as ammunition to use the next time the Dems try to paint the Republicans as the 'mean party':

PEGGY NOONAN

Seeing Red
Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean rage against Republicans. It's not a winning approach.

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I don't know that Democrats understand how Republicans experience the attacks Democratic leaders make on them. I'm not sure they know how they sound to us.

In America there is a lot of political integration. Democrats and Republicans are friends. Life forces them to be if they need to be forced, which most don't. They know each other from the office, Little League, school meetings, the neighborhood. Actually America is mostly filled with people who say not "I'm a Democrat" and "I'm a Republican," but "I voted for Bush" and "I like McCain" and "I voted for Kerry." They identify by personal action more than political party, at least in my experience.

Washington is more politically segregated. In Washington, Democrats by and large hang out with Democrats, Republicans with Republicans. This is true in consulting, in think tanks, in journals, in Congress. If you work for a Democratic senator, the office is full of Democrats. The people with whom you share inside jokes and the occasional bitter aside are Democrats. The "neighborhood" in which you go to meetings during your long days is Democratic. The same is true for Republicans.

And it's inevitable. The structure of things decrees it, as does human nature. Like-minded people seek like-minded people for stimulating conversation and more.

So in some key ways in Washington, the most politically engaged individuals in both parties do not understand each other. This expresses itself in certain assumptions. Democrats think Republicans are mean. Republicans know Democrats are the mean party.

Knowing that, let's do a thought experiment. Close your eyes and imagine this.
President Bush is introduced at a great gathering in Topeka, Kan. It is the evening of June 9, 2005. Ruffles and flourishes, "Hail to the Chief," hearty applause from a packed ballroom. Mr. Bush walks to the podium and delivers the following address.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I want to speak this evening about how I see the political landscape. Let me jump right in. The struggle between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is a struggle between good and evil--and we're the good. I hate Democrats. Let's face it, they have never made an honest living in their lives. Who are they, really, but people who are intent on abusing power, destroying the United States Senate and undermining our Constitution? They have no shame.
But why would they? They have never been acquainted with the truth. You ever been to a Democratic fundraiser? They all look the same. They all behave the same. They have a dictatorship, and suffer from zeal so extreme they think they have a direct line to heaven. But what would you expect when you have a far left extremist base? We cannot afford more of their leadership. I call on you to help me defeat them!"

Imagine Mr. Bush saying those things, and the crowd roaring with lusty delight. Imagine John McCain saying them for that matter, or any other likely Republican candidate for president, or Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee.
Can you imagine them talking this way? Me neither. Because they wouldn't.

Messrs. Bush, McCain, et al., would find talk like that to be extreme, damaging, desperate. They would understand it would tend to add a new level of hysteria to political discourse, and that's not good for the country. I think they would know such talk is unworthy in a leader, or potential leader, of a great democracy. I think they would understand that talk like that is destructive to the ties that bind--and to the speaker's political prospects.

Why don't Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean know this? And what does it mean that they do not know it?
For as you know, the color-coded phrases in the "Bush speech" above come from speeches and statements given by Sen. Clinton and Democratic chairman Dean recently. (Mrs. Clinton's comments are in green and Mr. Dean's in purple, and I changed "right" to "left.")

Clinton is likely the next Democratic nominee for president. Mr. Dean is the head of the Democratic Party. They are important and powerful. They may one day run the country. It is disturbing that they speak as they do.

How do people who are not part of the Democratic base react to their statements? I think something like this: What's wrong with these people? Don't they understand they lower things with their name calling and bitter language? If this is how they feel free to present themselves in public, what will they do and say in private if they ever run the country?

If Mr. Bush ever spoke this way, most Republicans would feel embarrassment. I would be among the legions who would denounce his statement. Democrats are half the country; it is offensive to label them as hateful, it's wrong. Even though we're torn by disagreements, there is an old and unspoken tradition that we're all in this together, we're all citizens together. It is destructive to act against this tradition.

One assumes all the media, especially the MSM, would treat the speech as if it were an epochal event in the Bush presidency, and the beginning of the end. They would say he was unleashing the dark forces of division; they would label his statement as manipulative, malevolent, immature.

And they'd be right.

There is a tradition of political generosity that prevails among the normal people of America, a certain live-and-let-live-ness. That is why Little League games don't break out in fistfights, at least over politics. You don't shun people in the neighborhood because they're Democrats, and you don't inform the Republican in the next cubicle that he is evil, lazy and racist. That just doesn't play in America. There are breaches, exceptions, incidents. We are not angels. But by and large even though we disagree with each other, and even if we come to dislike each other, we maintain, for reasons both moral and practical, decorum. Civility. We keep a lid on it. We don't lower it to the level of invective. We don't by nature seek to divide.
When you have been in Washington long enough and have become consumed by your place in the political struggle, you can lose sight of the American arrangement. You can become harsh and shrill. You can become the sort of person who would start the fight at the Little League game. You can become--how might a columnist, as opposed to a political leader, put it?--a jackass. But not a funny one, a destructive one, the type that can knock down the barn it took the farmer years to build.

The comportment of Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean is actually not worthy of America. Their statements suggest they are in no way equal to the country they seek to lead. And something tells me that sooner or later America is going to tell them. But in a generous, mature and fair-minded way.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006794
(edited to fix the link. Thanks for pointing out the error Walter)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 12:17 pm
Hmm, I suppose, most of us can use the reply buttom - nevertheless: thanks for linking to it, Foxyfyre!
(Although a source would have been nice, too)

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 12:28 pm
The angrier Peggy Noonan gets, the better job Howard Dean is doing.

It's about time someone had the balls to tell the corporate donors to piss off and to call out Republicans for the destructive policies and politics they advocate.

His comments are no worse than the various ones made about Democrats over the years....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:22 pm
Howard Dean is doing a great job exciting the already persuaded and committed Democrat voters. He is also reinforcing the notion among undecided voters that the Democrats are angry, radical, and delusional.

OK by me.

I can't recall any Republicans engaging in this kind of scurrilous attack on such a consistent basis - ever. Democrats also get huge megabuck contributions from organized labor - despite the fact that a majority of their members vote Republican. However the labor movement is collapsing so that matter will likely be self-limiting.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:46 pm
Quote:
He is also reinforcing the notion among undecided voters that the Democrats are angry, radical, and delusional.


No he isn't. You have no evidence of this other than your somewhat biased opinion.

The argument could be just as easily made that he is reinforcing the ideas in people's minds that Republicans are not looking out for their best interests, especially those of minorities.

The only reason that this has come up in the news so much is that there really isn't a lot to talk about in terms of elections. By '06, noone will remember Dean's comments, but they will remember how defensive the Republican party got over it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:50 pm
By '06 Dean should be history....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:52 pm
Care to lay a bet on it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 01:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Care to lay a bet on it?

Cycloptichorn


You sure are gambling a lot lately. The first step is to admit you have a problem. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 02:02 pm
Yeah, I have a problem all right, it just has a lot more to do with the scumbags in charge of the country than it does gambling, of all things...

Put your respect where your mouth is. If you truly believe Dean is going to be ousted as party chair, say so, and be prepared to apologize later if you are wrong.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2005 02:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Put your respect where your mouth is. If you truly believe Dean is going to be ousted as party chair, say so, and be prepared to apologize later if you are wrong.

Cycloptichorn


I've no idea, but I hope not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 08:41:23