Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Collegeboy]

Just look at the date of the incident. Nuclear Tension?

[845]

I dont like Bush. He does not seem very competent to me, but i guess you should not judge a man by his public speaking skills.

[aaron_mag]

The guy who has good public speaking skills is Powell.

And also the whole "draft dodging/cocaine snorting" thing is so lame. It has nothing to do with the issues. Next you will be saying the fact that Clinton didn't inhale should have disqualified him. Also if the cocaine rumors are true I think it is great that a guy can turn his life around. What is wrong with that?

I dislike the Bush administration due to poor (imho) foriegn policy. Not based on these "skeletons in the closet."

[Konigballer]

One of the biggest reasons I cant stand Bush and our current military situations IS his past "service" record. If your going to be sending men in uniform to fight and die to accomplish the goals of your administration in the name of the United States, you should at least exude the values you are praising in your own war rhetoric. Duty to country, honor, bravery, patriotism, good over evil,etc...both Bush and Clinton used these words as a form of currency when selling or justifying all of their armed conflicts but neither one knew the real meaning of them. Clinton dodged the draft and Bush did the rich boy's version of that, he joined the Air National Guard. Of course, he didnt even show up for the last two years and never volunteered to fly in Vietnam when he had the chance. He cant even account for those two years and wont allow the release of his military service files like Macain, Kerry, and Gore will. As the son of a family who had three family members do multiple tours in 'Nam in the airborne, as a gunship pilot, and as a "LRRP" ,I think its pretty pathetic how easily Bush tosses around these patriotic jingos when sending service men and women into harms way. At least least his dad knew what duty to your country during war meant from experience, he wasnt just talking outa' his azz.

[Albinonewt]

I frankly do not mind a president without a military background. All I want out of a President militarly is for him to have a profound respect for the men and women in uniform, a willingness to listen to career military folks, and the will to use force when needed.

Although prior service would put a President more in touch with the sacrifice that the men and women in uniform make, I think that is a double edged sword. So I am just as happy that he simply respect and listen when it comes to military matters.

[Albinonewt]

I don't think Wesley Clark would have a chance against Bush. His military background is his only asset and that's splotchy at best. He cannot point to anything he has ever done in a non military context to show why he would be good for the economy so he's got an uphill fight against Bush domestically.

And when it comes to foreign poltics and military matters the simple fact is that the American people associate that with Republicans. They naturally trust Republicans more then they trust Democrats to handle foreign affairs. So no matter what you say about Clark's military and NATO careers he still has the mighty burden of talking about defense as a Democrat.

Now, the reverse is true on the domestic agenda. For whaever reason the American public tend to trust Democrats more on that front. I don't understand why, but they do. So Clark has that as his advantage right, but he has nothing at all to point to in addition to that. And if the economy is doing ok then that's going to be an uphill battle too.

[nastymag]

i am enjoying this discussion alot .. thanks Albinonewt, 1st deadeye, Arron mag , Lohman446... you guys are talking pretty well about everything ... and it hasnt turned into a flame fest ( i dont think it has ).( dispite Roosters best attempts)

after all arent we all americans.



Rooster come on ... people are trying to keep it civil here , no need to call people morons

[-Carnifex-]

Bush's approval rating is down seven to 52%.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Bush's approval rating is down seven to 52%.

That's still pretty high, especially considering that nothing major has happened on either major front in some weeks. Coming off of the summer recess there's nothing wrong that.

Remember that with rare exceptions Clinton's almost always hovered around 45% and he was still re-elected.

[Collegeboy]

I think his military background will be all he needs to push to get the job done.

He is a typical Democratic candidate in the field of education. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He holds the typical views of Democrats.

But he has something that most democratic candidates don't have; he has a distinguished military background. A 4 star general, west point grad., supreme commander of NATO. He will pull in the democratic votes, plus pull a lot of the military support away from Bush.

I don't see how the General can lose.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I think his military background will be all he needs to push to get the job done.

He is a typical Democratic candidate in the field of education. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He holds the typical views of Democrats.

But he has something that most democratic candidates don't have; he has a distinguished military background. A 4 star general, west point grad., supreme commander of NATO. He will pull in the democratic votes, plus pull a lot of the military support away from Bush.

I don't see how the General can lose.

Pretty easy. A lot in the military can't stand how arrogant Clark is. Clark was forced out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the president. When Clark starts his self rightous act, he'll doom himself. Clark is a vice-presidential candidate at best.

I still think the Dems best chance is Lieberman, but he is not liberal enough to win the primary. That is why Bush will be reelected. The Dems are making a mad dash for the left to get the nod. Clinton published a road map on how to win the presidency nowadays. Bush followed it and won. The Dems are doing the opposite. If the Dems really want to win, they should be running for the center, not the left!

[Rooster]

"Rooster come on ... people are trying to keep it civil here , no need to call people morons"

I'm not going to avoid speaking the truth becuase someone's feelings might be hurt.

[than205]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
I frankly do not mind a president without a military background. All I want out of a President militaryly is for him to have a prfound respect for the men and women in uniform, a willingness to listen to career military folks, and the will to use force when needed.

Although prior service would put a President more in touch with the sacrifice that the men and women in uniform make, I think that is a double edged sword. So I am just as happy that he simply respect and listen when it comes to military matters.

I appreciate a lot of what you have to say as pretty well thought out. I'm not saying I'm in line, but I can tell you think.

I do however have issue with Mr. Bush's willingness to send our troops into harms way and then (as I understand this) support legislation to reduce benefits for our service men and women. I would find that (at the least) insulting as a member of the armed services.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I think his military background will be all he needs to push to get the job done.

See, I think his military background is all he needs to have ZERO chance with the nominating electorate. I frankly don't think the party faithful of the Democratic party don't nominate a guy who's sole qualifying characteristic is that he was a military commander. The far left (which let's face it, they're the people that vote in the Democratic primary just like guys like me are the ones that vote in Republican primaries) distrusts the military too much to vote for Clark. If he really wanted to be President he would run as an independent, at least then he would be part of the race, and not just one of the nearly a dozen Democrats to lose in the primaries

He is a typical Democratic candidate in the field of education. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He holds the typical views of Democrats.

Is that good or bad?

Seriously though, this is another thing that hurts him more then it helps. If the hard left has a choice between two candidates with the same view they choose the New England Governor over the ex Military Commander. Just like hard line conservatives choose the other way.

But he has something that most democratic candidates don't have; he has a distinguished military background. A 4 star general, west point grad., supreme commander of NATO. He will pull in the democratic votes, plus pull a lot of the military support away from Bush.

As I've mentioned he will not pull the party faithful from the Democratic side in the primary. However, assuming he did win the party's nomination I don't think he's rally going to be taking away military enthusiast votes from Bush. In the world of center to center-right people who know anything about the military there are only two kinds of people. People who don't know who Clark is, and people that want to run him over with Freight trains. There really isn't a lot of middle ground with him. He basically has the name recognition of the understudy to Micharl Flaherty in Riverdance. Those of us who know who Clark is really remember him for his stunning failures and getting forced out of the service. He'll not win too many votes based on that record. His only chance is to convince people that don't already know who he is that he did a good job as commander. And honestly, that's going to be difficult, and not because of anything Clark did right or wrong. It'll be hard because people already trust Bush with the military, and now Clark has to convince people that not only is the man they trust the wrong man for the job, but he (a complete stranger to them) is the right man.

That's not going to be easy.

I don't see how the General can lose.

Frankly CB, I'd vote for you before I voted for him

Um, yeah, I think I would.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by than205
I do however have issue with Mr. Bush's willingness to send our troops into harms way and then (as I understand this) support legislation to reduce benefits for our service men and women. I would find that (at the least) insulting as a member of the armed services.

Fair enough, but I do not know of any such support for any legislation like that. Honestly, any legislation of that kind is impossible to pass in this kind of political envirnment. The men and women of our armed services are praised daily (and rightly so) for their bravery in Iraq and in Afghanistan over the last two years. Even the Democratic nomiees, who typically harp on the military to curry favor with left wings of the party, have stayed all attacks on the military for fear of serious reprisal in the voting ranks. I can't imagine President Bush supporting any kind of legislation that would so immediatly and stupidly errode his base. Even if he wanted to(which I have all the confidence in the world he doesn't) his advisors and his own desire to not commit political suicide should prevent him from doing any such thing.

I found this article on military benefits legislation.

Benefits