Kerry wins again

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

And all the polls are dealing with only the democratic message out there. I feel that once Bush starts running his ads, things will come back his way. Especially since he is only at 50/50 or so when he isn't saying anything...

Actually, he's trailing 53-46 to a hypothetical Kerry candidacy according to the recent McPaper, er, USA Today poll. To put that in historical terms, there have only been 2 Presidents trail that miuch in such a poll to a would-be nominee in February...Truman, in 1948, came back and won against Dewey, while the most recent case, Ford, in 1976, lost to Carter.

What makes you think Dubya isn't "saying anything"? Or do you think it is just a coincidence he just happened to schedule what amount to stump speeches at taxpayer expense in New Hampshire and South Carolina two days after the Democratic primaries in those states?

Still, Until we have a Democratic nominee in place, and a VP candidate in place, any such poll has a big red asterisk next to it labeled 'hypothetical.'

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Sorry to be late in responding but I think you would understand. Just a few reactions to some of the posts here:

With Bush vs Kerry likely, I am predicting either a repeat of the Bush vs Dukakis election of 1988 or if something dramatic happens, closer to Bush vs Gore.

One key difference. Kerry, whatever you may think of him, is not the wimp Dukakis was.

Bush vs. Gore? Maybe, though I think Gore ran the stupidest campaign in 2000 since Bush the Elder's in 1992. In fact, Gore's may have been dumber...and he still won the popular vote.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

One key difference. Kerry, whatever you may think of him, is not the wimp Dukakis was.

Kerry's senate record over the last 4 years suggests otherwise. Not even Dukakis could have done a better job of rolling over to the opposition.

[Buccaneer]

Kerry was Dukakis' running mate and Lt Gov., if that means anything.

[Bubba Wheels]

As soon as he becomes the Demo Pick, the GOP Cannons will reduce Mr. Kerry to rubble. Only President Bush can beat President Bush.

[Easy Mac]

That shouldn't be too hard.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

That shouldn't be too hard.

Yes, all dummies can fly jet airplanes, graduated from Yale and Harvard, and become President. Which one of the above do you still have left to do?

[Galaril]

Hey ,Do you really think GW would have earned any of those honors on his on ,without being a rich boy with Daddy hooking him up?Come on wake up and smell the moonshine.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Hey ,Do you really think GW would have earned any of those honors on his on ,without being a rich boy with Daddy hooking him up?Come on wake up and smell the moonshine.

Well, I'd say Dad probably didn't have much to do with his actual learning to fly a plane. Other than that, who knows. But then again, it's not like John Kerry's been a blue collar guy his whole life. Yet I don't see you picking on his wealthy upbringing (and marriages).

[ISiddiqui]

Assuming Kerry wins the primary, which is probable but not certain, Edwards isn't even 50/50 to be the VP. It seems like Richardson and even Gephardt are getting more mention as possible candidates by those who think they know about the Kerry campaign.

So what if Edwards isn't 50/50? If the ticket is Kerry/Edwards I think they win.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, I'd say Dad probably didn't have much to do with his actual learning to fly a plane. Other than that, who knows. But then again, it's not like John Kerry's been a blue collar guy his whole life. Yet I don't see you picking on his wealthy upbringing (and marriages).

Oh I am sorry I should have mentioned I don't like Bush so that would be why I am picking on him not Kerry.Also, I am a Bostonian(from Boston ),Boston Uni/Air Force Academy Grad.,a pilot and an Air Force Captain not that any of that is relevant.So, are you Neo-Conservative/ Fox 's Bill Reilly fans not partisan?BTW my intent is not to piss anyone of but if I do so be it I can live with it.

[ISiddiqui]

So, are you Neo-Conservative/ Fox 's Bill Reilly fans not partisan?

I'm not sure Bill O'Reilly is a Neo-Conservative. I see 'Neocon' be thrown around WAAAY too much willy nilly. Neo-Conservatives are simply hard Wilsonians. They believe in spreading Democracy and human rights, but believe it is not wrong to do so by force. Neo-Conservatism has NO domestic policy whatsoever, though its adherants may (though generally the original NeoCons would be considered on the left of the Republican spectrum).

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not sure Bill O'Reilly is a Neo-Conservative. I see 'Neocon' be thrown around WAAAY too much willy nilly. Neo-Conservatives are simply hard Wilsonians. They believe in spreading Democracy and human rights, but believe it is not wrong to do so by force. Neo-Conservatism has NO domestic policy whatsoever, though its adherants may (though generally the original NeoCons would be considered on the left of the Republican spectrum).

Thanks I stand corrected rected

[ISiddiqui]

Kerry was Dukakis' running mate and Lt Gov., if that means anything.

Maybe in state, but definetly not for the Presidential Election.

[ISiddiqui]

Thanks I stand corrected

Ah, no prob. The more who understand perhaps will be more who don't look at me funny when I say I'm a NeoCon voting for Kerry . Then again, they look at me funny when I say I'm a Republican voting Kerry .

[Peregrine]

ISiddiqui, I used to consider myself a moderate Republican, but with the shift to the right over the last couple of years I think I'm in conservative Democrat territory now! Seems like the old party labels are looking particularly threadbare these days

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed... but I'm still a Republican. I just think Bush is the worst kind of Republican. He cuts taxes AND increases spending! I'm a Dole type of Republican who likes balanced budgets. I also like tax cuts, but they should be accompanied by cuts in spending or they should be done once in a while to get the economy going (like Reagan's). I can't, with good conscious, back Bush's plan. That and I HATE his Attorney General. I thought Republicans were supposed to get the government out of our lives.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

ISiddiqui, I used to consider myself a moderate Republican, but with the shift to the right over the last couple of years I think I'm in conservative Democrat territory now! Seems like the old party labels are looking particularly threadbare these days

Me too. I use too be Republican now I'm conser. Democrat.

[Peregrine]

Yeah I've been arguing with a coworker lately who is a big Bush supporter. He just seems unable to understand my argument that I have no problem with tax cuts, I think they're great, as long as they're matched with equal spending cuts. This whole "cut taxes and spend" breed of Republican doesn't sit right with me, though I know a lot of it is just Congress going nuts with spending like it always does with one party controlling it, and Bush not willing or able to veto some of the more outlandish ones. Thankfully people are coming to their senses in Congress these days, you can't just spend indefinitely, with the vague excuse that spending is needed to support the economy.

Sounds like you and I have some pretty similar views, ISidiqui. I like balanced budgets and personal liberties, which is why I'm not going to be voting for Bush again.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep... and the sad part is just about ANY other viable Republican Presidential candidate type would have been recieving my vote. They wouldn't have done this cut tax and spend policy which is idiotic and they wouldn't have declared war on civil liberties (Hell, Bob Barr works for the ACLU, showing that not all Republicans are against civil liberties).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

G, P, and I:

Glad to have you on board. Fiscally responsible and respect for personal freedom is the way to go. Which is why Clinton rolled on through. IF Bush loses the election, it may end up hurting the Republicans for some years to come because it will still be fresh in people's minds (and constantly referred to by the Democrats) how he has swayed so far from the ideals of the Republican base and has become a worse spender than Democrats. It will not be a good track record for the next Republican trying to win the White House.

Frankly, I have been completely amazed by this administration even in terms of domestic policy. The spending is out of control and everywhere you look the government is trying to get into your personal life. Something I did not expect. The appointment of Ashcroft was a joke. You guys are the perfect example of what I have been hearing anyways which is that Bush is in trouble with a lot of the Republican base.

With all that is going on on the home front, I still can't believe the State of the Union Address discussed STEROIDS and MARS. What the hell were these guys thinking? I think in the end you can sum it up by saying they are simply OUT OF TOUCH with Americans.

You heard it here first (or maybe sixth): Dems win in November provided they pick the right message. I wouldn't hit the war too hard but simply focus where Bush has really screwed up -- at home.

[CamEdwards]

Just a quick question: have you taken a close look at the policies that Kerry's promoting (and what they would cost)?

By the way, Galaril, I don't know if I'd consider myself a neo-conservative. I'm pleased with the way our president has handled national security and foreign policy, and I'm not too keen on some of his domestic policies. I guess it's a case of our priorities lying in different directions.

And thanks for being honest about your hypocrisy.

[Peregrine]

Just a quick question: have you taken a close look at the policies that Kerry's promoting (and what they would cost)?

I trust the Republican Congress to make sure none of the Democratic crazy spending proposals will pass (as opposed to the Republican crazy spending programs which have been flying out the last few years.) If they're grounded in reality enough to get bipartisan support, they might be good enough to pass.

[CamEdwards]

after the last four years, you expect there to be bipartisan support for anything? You're even more idealistic than I am!

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Fiscally responsible and respect for personal freedom is the way to go. Which is why Clinton rolled on through.

One of the greatest statement of revisionist history I have heard recently. His budgets and spending proposals increases about the same percentage as now but just happened to be president when the internet revolution and agressive interest rate reductions took place. Plus he was too self-aborbed to have stuck his neck out and fight a war on terrorism.

To all of those tired of tax cuts and spending increases, don't be stupid enough to vote for a Democratic candidate. Join me in voting Libertarian this year.

Peregrine: Do you think that any threat of a veto or any proposed reductions in spendings would not have caused enormous outrage among Democratic leaders and the media?????

I will challenge anyone to present an example of any Democratic leader saying that too much money is being proposed for any non-military spending programs. That is all we hear (and have heard for a long time) is most Congressperson (either party) wanting more and more and more and more (just some wants more of X instead of Y). Any hint of so-called fiscal responsibility brings out cries of hurting the children, killing the elderly, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

[Buccaneer]

dola

Again, I will bring up an earlier post

I didn't see anyone mention the FY 2005 Federal Budget. There were 20+ general categories. Did anyone pay attention to the pct increase/decrease???? There are those here (like NoMyths) that wants to make something called "fiscal responsibility" as an anti-Bush campaign theme. Okay, I would go along with that. Will you and others join me in declaring instead of a handful of categories going down in pct points, that all of them should (as a way of avoiding any drastic cuts in any one area)? Why propose a budget of $2.4t instead of $1.85t if you are so concerned with the budget deficit??? But I suspect that no way you (or Kerry or anyone else) would do that (regardless if the actual approval of such numbers falls with Congress instead of the president). I firmly believe that one should always submit a budget without a deficit by cutting spending and not raising any more taxes. But no one has the guts to do so and therefore, I don't want to hear anything about "fiscal responsibility" in this year's campaign.

[Peregrine]

That is all we hear (and have heard for a long time) is most Congressperson (either party) wanting more and more and more and more (just some wants more of X instead of Y).

I agree, the history of Congress is unbridled spending checked only when Congress is divided or is held in check by the other party in the White House. Government spending over the last 50-60 years doesn't track nearly as much along party lines (tax and spend Democrats in power, or whatever) as it does to whether both Congress and the White House are held by the same party. If they are, no matter which party, government spending goes up. If they aren't, the parties keep each other in check. I'm all for that. While I certainly have strong libertarian leanings, I think Libertarians as an "organized" force in politics leave much to be desired, and I'm not to the point of subsidizing them with my vote, yet.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

To all of those tired of tax cuts and spending increases, don't be stupid enough to vote for a Democratic candidate. Join me in voting Libertarian this year.

Just like voting Libertarian in 2000 took enough votes away from Gore/Lieberman to elect Bush, who then ushered in an era of tax cuts and spending increases.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Actually, he's trailing 53-46 to a hypothetical Kerry candidacy according to the recent McPaper, er, USA Today poll.

That is within the margin of error of the poll. Essentially it is a dead heat. I also don't believe you can put this in historical terms because the amount of anti-bush media(commercials, websites and such, not the news networks) is much higher than with any candidate before. I also believe that it is now much easier to sway peoples votes with that media because of the lack of people reading about the issues and just following what the onesided commercials say.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Just like voting Libertarian in 2000 took enough votes away from Gore/Lieberman to elect Bush, who then ushered in an era of tax cuts and spending increases.

You're kidding, right? Of what few votes the Lib candidate got, it was mostly from Bush (since Republo-Liberterian is a common stance). I would strongly suggest that you take a look at the votes Nader got and took away from Gore. Come back when you see the obvious.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Just like voting Libertarian in 2000 took enough votes away from Gore/Lieberman to elect Bush, who then ushered in an era of tax cuts and spending increases.

Wow, Bush invented spending increases.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

G, P, and I:

Glad to have you on board. Fiscally responsible and respect for personal freedom is the way to go. Which is why Clinton rolled on through. IF Bush loses the election, it may end up hurting the Republicans for some years to come because it will still be fresh in people's minds (and constantly referred to by the Democrats) how he has swayed so far from the ideals of the Republican base and has become a worse spender than Democrats. It will not be a good track record for the next Republican trying to win the White House.

Frankly, I have been completely amazed by this administration even in terms of domestic policy. The spending is out of control and everywhere you look the government is trying to get into your personal life. Something I did not expect. The appointment of Ashcroft was a joke. You guys are the perfect example of what I have been hearing anyways which is that Bush is in trouble with a lot of the Republican base.

With all that is going on on the home front, I still can't believe the State of the Union Address discussed STEROIDS and MARS. What the hell were these guys thinking? I think in the end you can sum it up by saying they are simply OUT OF TOUCH with Americans.

You heard it here first (or maybe sixth): Dems win in November provided they pick the right message. I wouldn't hit the war too hard but simply focus where Bush has really screwed up -- at home.

I agree one hundred percent on the political topic.BTW I wanted to congratulate you on the PATS superbowl victory from a Titans fan.You guys had a great year and we sure did have a hell of a playoff game with you guys up their in Foxboro.I am from the Boston area born and bred out in the Worcester area.These days I am out here in the "Empire's" hinderland in South Korea in the US Air Force.Anyways sorry to get off topic I was just feeling alittle homesick all of a sudden.I guess it must be the couple of bottles of Korean beer I drank earlier tonight.Later.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Just a quick question: have you taken a close look at the policies that Kerry's promoting (and what they would cost)?

By the way, Galaril, I don't know if I'd consider myself a neo-conservative. I'm pleased with the way our president has handled national security and foreign policy, and I'm not too keen on some of his domestic policies. I guess it's a case of our priorities lying in different directions.

And thanks for being honest about your hypocrisy.

No problem Thanks for coming out on the "Bushism" too

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I just don't believe it is the federal govt's role to create jobs. All it should do is to get out of the way of entrepreneurship. Things will go in cycles (witness of the PC revolution of the 1980s and the Internet/telecom revolution of the 1990s) and the South with its relative lack of educated workforce seems always lag behind in the revolutions. You cannot keep making buggy-whips if it is not profitable to do so and the govt should not force that.

The answer is not why the govt didn't force jobs elsewhere into the South (outside of Atlanta) but why is it so hard for a critical mass of companies (esp. well-paying ones) to want to move there - as oppose to the Bay Area, Puget Sound, Front Range Colorado, Las Vegas, Texas, Northern Virginia and other high growth/high paying areas.

Additionally, I think you missed my argument that Bush's record is much more of a centrist (re: liberal Republican) than it is perceived to be.

Amen brother. It's really too bad Hong Kong got returned to China or I'd have moved there by now.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Actually, he's trailing 53-46 to a hypothetical Kerry candidacy according to the recent McPaper, er, USA Today poll. To put that in historical terms, there have only been 2 Presidents trail that miuch in such a poll to a would-be nominee in February...Truman, in 1948, came back and won against Dewey, while the most recent case, Ford, in 1976, lost to Carter.

What makes you think Dubya isn't "saying anything"? Or do you think it is just a coincidence he just happened to schedule what amount to stump speeches at taxpayer expense in New Hampshire and South Carolina two days after the Democratic primaries in those states?

Still, Until we have a Democratic nominee in place, and a VP candidate in place, any such poll has a big red asterisk next to it labeled 'hypothetical.'

I didn't realize USA Today was running polls in 1948. And, as we all know by now, the popular vote means zip. I think anyone from Masachusetts will run into a big problems outside of the Northeast and Minnesota. He may get 100% in Massachusetts, but I don't see him playing well in the South. Although Atlanta is now New Jersey, Georgia, so that may help.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Just a quick question: have you taken a close look at the policies that Kerry's promoting (and what they would cost)?

By the way, Galaril, I don't know if I'd consider myself a neo-conservative. I'm pleased with the way our president has handled national security and foreign policy...

Pax Americana baby!

North Korea will be next!

[BishopMVP]

I'll avoid quoting people because I'm lazy. I'm a neo-conservative moderate who favors balanced budgets and civil liberties, but Bush is much better on foreign policy and I just don't think Kerry (or Edwards or Clark) would be any better on the other two issues. The spending proposals of every Democratic candidate are much higher than Bush's and I think there is a decent chance he'll restrain his buy everybody off approach once he doesn't have to worry about re-election. And as much as I dislike John Ashcroft, if you don't remember, Janet Reno was even worse.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'll avoid quoting people because I'm lazy. I'm a neo-conservative moderate who favors balanced budgets and civil liberties, but Bush is much better on foreign policy and I just don't think Kerry (or Edwards or Clark) would be any better on the other two issues. The spending proposals of every Democratic candidate are much higher than Bush's and I think there is a decent chance he'll restrain his buy everybody off approach once he doesn't have to worry about re-election. And as much as I dislike John Ashcroft, if you don't remember, Janet Reno was even worse.

No disrespect but this almost had me falling out of my chair"Bush is much better on Foreign policy" are you kidding.I live over seas and if pissing off every country in the world is a good foreign policy approach then I haven't heard of it before.I live in korea and have traveled to a dozen or so countries and unequivocally the same thing comes back to me is that Bush is a authoratarian dictator who wants to take over the world these are not my words.Now I supported/voted for Bush in the last election but other than bombing Afghanistan I think Bush's foreign policy especially foreign relations are a dismal failure. I know many will say that is other countries problem if they don't like us but aren't the ones who have been trying to sell the world on globalization and world cooperation.So, is that it we play both sides depending on the situation.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaril

No disrespect but this almost had me falling out of my chair"Bush is much better on Foreign policy" are you kidding.I live over seas and if pissing off every country in the world is a good foreign policy approach then I haven't heard of it before.I live in korea and have traveled to a dozen or so countries and unequivocally the same thing comes back to me is that Bush is a authoratarian dictator who wants to take over the world these are not my words.Now I supported/voted for Bush in the last election but other than bombing Afghanistan I think Bush's foreign policy especially foreign relations are a dismal failure. I know many will say that is other countries problem if they don't like us but aren't the ones who have been trying to sell the world on globalization and world cooperation.So, is that it we play both sides depending on the situation.

Obviously there are a lot of people that disagree on the foreign policy. Here is what I posted in another thread yesterday:

I believe strongly in the power and sovereignty of the United States over the United Nations, which I view as a corrupt club filled mostly with dictators and countries looking out only for their interests. I believe we have done and are doing great things in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and that we can't afford to stop there and withdraw our forces now. If we adopted an isolationist policy (which is what relying on everyone agreeing with our actions would become) the steady flow of progress would stagnate in much of the world. The US is by no means perfect when it comes to foreign policy, but I believe in helping out those less fortunate to the extent of providing freedom and the base for democracy/capitalism, and if we did not stand up for these beliefs nobody else would, whether because of self-interest (France, Russia, etc.) or the inability to do so (Australia, Great Britain, etc.)

I believe in doing the right thing whether or not it is appreciated by others. And there are many countries that are standing alongside us. At least 34 are fighting/helping alongside us in Iraq.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Galaril

No disrespect but this almost had me falling out of my chair"Bush is much better on Foreign policy" are you kidding.I live over seas and if pissing off every country in the world is a good foreign policy approach then I haven't heard of it before.I live in korea and have traveled to a dozen or so countries and unequivocally the same thing comes back to me is that Bush is a authoratarian dictator who wants to take over the world these are not my words.

I lived overseas in Turkey since just before 9/11 and through to the end of the Gulf War II. The Turks HATE Bush. With a passion. "Worst President ever! Bring back Clinton, he was great!" They would say. Now why would they say that? Well first of all, Clinton was the President of the World and had to please everybody by doing nothing (realistically, there is no foreign policy that allows the President of the World to do anything). President Bush acted, not as President of the World, but President of the USA. He did and is doing what is in the best interest of the people of the USA. Koreans, Turks, French, Germans, and everybody else takes a back seat to Americans.

What do people want? America to be the worlds police or to police those that kill Americans or want to kill Americans. Iraq wanted to kill Americans, not Koreans. We did what we had to do. There is really no logical way to explain not taking care of business the way we have without being or sounding Anti-Bush or partisan.

[Buccaneer]

Apparently the UN didn't mind when they pleaded that the US solely take care of the situation in Liberia, which even the UN had no competence or guts of themselves. Sort of like Iraq where the UN bailed at the very first sign of trouble. The world wants the US to be the World Police but not the consequences of what actions that would entail. Clinton had no policy whatsoever which amounted to appeasement and ignorance, of which their consequences came to bear later. The world wants more for itself but is unwilling to take the risks to do so. They are jealous that the US is able to do (and be stretched too thin in the process) and thus wants it both ways, the US muscle but not its superpower. The whines and cries of most other nations ring very hollow and quite without credibility.

[ISiddiqui]

There is really no logical way to explain not taking care of business the way we have without being or sounding Anti-Bush or partisan.

Are you nuts? Of course there is. Other people have made the very reasonable argument that Iraq was NOT a threat at all. I, personally, don't believe they were a threat, but still should have been overthown on the basis of humanitarianism and democracy in the ME.

I think the way we've taken care of business has been ridiculous. We could have been much better to our allies and still be able to invade Iraq. So which catagory do I fit into?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

We could have been much better to our allies

Why? What good would it have done? A country like France just wanted to preserve its own self-serving interest as the being the major importer of Iraqi oil, not for humanitarian and democracy reasons. Even if they were on board, we will still had to do all the dirty work and opinions would not have changed. They (and the Germans) are very grateful that Saddam is no longer in power in the ME, esp. since they didn't have to get their hands bloodied in the process.

I have never been wild about the methods in "selling" the war but as with a lot of wars throughout history, the end can justify the means, however ugly they were and still are. The American Civil War is the best example of this, esp. when Lincoln and his Administration had to use every tactic known to justify and prolonge the war to a very divisive Union.

[BishopMVP]

There were definitely ways we could have dealt with the Iraq situation a little better. I don't think Bush could have done anything to get the French/Germans/Russians on board. I don't think Iraq posed much of a threat, but wanted to invade for the humanitarian reasons. That was the neo-con position all along. The WMD aspect was only really used to try and justify it to the UN.

But the main reason why I say his foreign policy is better than Kerry's is that if Kerry had been president the last 4 years, I think Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, and that would be a bad thing.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Just as long as it is realized that a preemptive strike is not national defense, nor national security. And yes, President Clinton was guilty also. I just don't like when the spindoctors weave their web. Call a spade a spade.

One of these days, these actions are going to bite the US in the butt. History dictates that those that engage in them will eventually pay for them. We will be no exception.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Obviously there are a lot of people that disagree on the foreign policy. Here is what I posted in another thread yesterday: I believe in doing the right thing whether or not it is appreciated by others. And there are many countries that are standing alongside us. At least 34 are fighting/helping alongside us in Iraq.

Pakistan and East Timor.I know Japan and Korea are reluctantly helping.But that was very recently.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Pakistan and East Timor.I know Japan and Korea are reluctantly helping.But that was very recently.

And you know, like Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Romania, the list goes on. But I guess it doesn't matter unless it's France and Germany. In general, I would rather do the right thing with few alongside me than look the other way because it is not popular.

[ISiddiqui]

Why? What good would it have done? A country like France just wanted to preserve its own self-serving interest as the being the major importer of Iraqi oil, not for humanitarian and democracy reasons.

We didn't need them on board. All we needed was for them to disagree less forcefully. The French, Germans, etc, were adamant and vocal in their opposition because of the way we were going about it. If we worked through diplomatic channels and were symphatic to their ideas and didn't treat them like the red-headed stepchild, they may have disagreed, but not so loudly, and their citizens wouldn't have had mass protests in the street.

Look at Kosovo and the Russians. They disagreed, but weren't going to make a big, huge fuss, as long as we treated them with respect.

It's how you play the diplomatic game. You may disagree, but if you are treated nicely and listened to, you won't try to make it too big a point. Bush has much to learn about diplomacy. HELL, he almost didn't go to the UN to make his case.

And if we had sold it on humanitarian grounds, or the fact that Saddam was paying Palestinian bomber families, we would have gotten more vocal support and much less protests. We focused on the wrong thing to build our case, and it'll KILL us. Next time we'll want to go to war because of something, other countries are going to be much more wary of our intentions.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

One of the greatest statement of revisionist history I have heard recently. His budgets and spending proposals increases about the same percentage as now but just happened to be president when the internet revolution and agressive interest rate reductions took place. Plus he was too self-aborbed to have stuck his neck out and fight a war on terrorism.

To all of those tired of tax cuts and spending increases, don't be stupid enough to vote for a Democratic candidate. Join me in voting Libertarian this year.

Peregrine: Do you think that any threat of a veto or any proposed reductions in spendings would not have caused enormous outrage among Democratic leaders and the media?????

I will challenge anyone to present an example of any Democratic leader saying that too much money is being proposed for any non-military spending programs. That is all we hear (and have heard for a long time) is most Congressperson (either party) wanting more and more and more and more (just some wants more of X instead of Y). Any hint of so-called fiscal responsibility brings out cries of hurting the children, killing the elderly, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

Two things: One is while Clinton spent he also did it when he could. You can't criticize the guy for spending in times of a surplus. Thus, although he spent, he did not run up deficits (I call that fiscal conservatism). Plus, you can't give the guy no credit for the economic times and pass it off as fluke. Did he have some luck -- for sure. But if the country's economic stability and growth has NOTHING to do with the President, then whey do we talk about it at election time?

Second, my point is more the fact that Bush has erased what was a big advantage for the Republicans at election time -- pointing to the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible and big spenders.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I agree one hundred percent on the political topic.BTW I wanted to congratulate you on the PATS superbowl victory from a Titans fan.You guys had a great year and we sure did have a hell of a playoff game with you guys up their in Foxboro.I am from the Boston area born and bred out in the Worcester area.These days I am out here in the "Empire's" hinderland in South Korea in the US Air Force.Anyways sorry to get off topic I was just feeling alittle homesick all of a sudden.I guess it must be the couple of bottles of Korean beer I drank earlier tonight.Later.

Thanks. That game was close. I must admit while at the time I thought the Pats played better than the Titans, I shuddered when I saw what's his name (Bennett?) leaping for the catch in the final minutes, and then collapsed in glee when it fell to the ground. Great game, Titans played well. They will be around for a few more years. It should be interesting to see what they do with George and Kearse.