Is Dean Too Liberal? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

42nd-delay

11-09-2003, 07:34 AM

Everytime I see an article about Dean being the Democratic frontrunner these days, it mentions how some people feel he's "too liberal" to appeal to the greater population, and how he'll get crushed in the general election. But I don't see what's so liberal about him. It seems like this perception has come from two things:

1. He opposed the war in Iraq - but plenty of moderate people opposed it as well, along with conservatives. Our approach to the war in Iraq was actually the most radical component of the whole episode - ignoring and at times insulting our allies when we weren't bullying them, launching a pre-emptive war for the first time in the country's history. In any case, the rest of the Democratic field besides Liberman is now against it anyway, so Dean turns out to just be more perceptive.

2. The Civil Unions bill in Vermont - sure, it's about gays and lesbians, but in the end it's really about equal rights, and that's why he signed it. And clearly the country is moving towards a more accepting relationship with gays and lesbians, and I don't doubt we'll have more laws of this kind within the next 20 years.

So, it seems like Dean is liberal because: he opposed us going into a war with shaky evidence, little to no direct threat and against American traditions; and, he believes in equal rights. I don't feel like these are things more than half the country disagrees with.

Anyone disagree?

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

TooCute

11-09-2003, 07:44 AM

HE WANTS TO ERODE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE!!!

HE WANTS THE TERRORISTS TO WIN!!!!!

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!! THAT UNAMERICAN BASTARD!!!

I pledge allegiance to the flag...

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

Tenbatsuzen

11-09-2003, 07:59 AM

"I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country."

Everyone loves to oppose Iraq. It's the chic thing to do. What people don't understand is that an American stronghold right smackdab in the Middle East is probably the best damn thing for world peace and the erasure of terrorism, and the media is COMPLETELY overblowing the losses in Iraq.

If people want to say that Iraq is this generation's Vietnam, they really need a nice warm cup of STFU. We really had no reason to be involved in Vietnam. We DO have reason to be involved in Iraq.

I think all this talk about gay/lesbian unions is a bunch of hullabaloo and poppycock anyway. 42nd is right in that in 20 years, most of the "old school" who opposes stuff like this will be cleared out, and it will be a lot easier for people who are gay and lesbian to be married. But there's too much opposition and static in Congress right now for anything to be approved of.

I'm a Republican, so my very nature I don't dig Democrats. However, if you just want to go by personal opinions, I ran into a bunch of Dean supporters last week. They were some of the most obnoxious fools I've ever met.

<center><img src="http://tenbatsuzen.homestead.com/files/psychosig03.jpg"></center>

billyio

11-09-2003, 08:16 AM

"I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes

I agree with this statement but then again, I think the Democrats are campaigning like a party that know its beaten in the upcoming election. I think there is still a lot of domestic resentment over the CLinton administration's mishandling of foreign policy. Therefore, even though I feel that the Republicans are mishandling their own foreign policy issues, I think that the Republicans represent strength to many Americans while the Democrats are bumbling all over themselves like the Republicans of the 90s. Thins have become so incumbent in American politics.

Everyone loves to oppose Iraq. It's the chic thing to do. What people don't understand is that an American stronghold right smackdab in the Middle East is probably the best damn thing for world peace and the erasure of terrorism, and the media is COMPLETELY overblowing the losses in Iraq

Sounds like the domino theory to me. Or imperialism. PEace will only be attained in the Middle East when Israel's sovereignty is accepted by the Muslim world,and when Palestinian rights are recognized. I don't think the media is overblowing American losses in the Middle East. You can't declare victory until the war is over. We made a horrible mistake in jumping the gun and the media has the right to criticize that.

I'm a Democrat, or rather, a free-thinking,free-voting American,and at this point, the Democrats and Republicans have not shown me anything. It reminds me of the 2000 election again where options are at a stalemate. This frightens the shit out of me!

See Ya!

TheMojoPin

11-09-2003, 09:36 AM

Saying Dean is "too liberal" is like saying Bush is "too conservative"...it means nothing and it only serves to scare people into voting for "the other guy."

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Teenweek

11-09-2003, 09:43 AM

He wants to repeal the tax cut for not only the rich, but the middle class as well. I will only vote for him if he makes Al Sharpton his butler and the white house gardener since he is for the people who like slavery. Make that bitch the maid too.

shamus mcfitzy

11-09-2003, 04:43 PM

Well as Mojo said, "too liberal" is a stupid statement that "smart" people tell people who are lesser educated about the Dems. If Dean gets the Democrat nomination, the Greens might not run a candidate or at the very least Dean will get some votes that Nader took from Gore. And I think that a Dean-Clark ticket would do pretty well. I don't think that Dean would be the best candidate for the Dems to run if they want to win (which they obviously do) but I don't think that he would definitely lose. Bush isn't the juggernaut that Reagan was and that Nixon was to a much lesser extent. The Dems certainly should concentrate more on improving things and not pointing out how Bush may not have.

Se7en

11-09-2003, 05:11 PM

Well as Mojo said, "too liberal" is a stupid statement that "smart" people tell people who are lesser educated about the Dems.

No.

Dean is "too liberal", at least for the general populace.

Dean seems probable to get the election, which is a shame, since he's NOT the Dems best bet to win against Bush. If anything, he'll help Bush get reelected (which is perhaps why you've heard comments that the Bush camp WANTS Dean to be the 2004 candidate).

I must note, however, that if Dean does win the presidency, it will be a historic event - the first metrosexual president!

[C'mon, you didn't expect me to forget that particular little Dean 'witticism', did you?]

And I think that a Dean-Clark ticket would do pretty well.

If Clark has proven anything since jumping into the race, it's that he clearly has no business being in the race.

Al Sharpton, believe it or not, is a better candidate.

Everyone loves to oppose Iraq. It's the chic thing to do. What people don't understand is that an American stronghold right smackdab in the Middle East is probably the best damn thing for world peace and the erasure of terrorism, and the media is COMPLETELY overblowing the losses in Iraq.

If people want to say that Iraq is this generation's Vietnam, they really need a nice warm cup of STFU. We really had no reason to be involved in Vietnam. We DO have reason to be involved in Iraq.

I've said it numerous times here, and I'll say it yet again - those comparing Iraq to Vietnam really just don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Here. I got this from a liberal friend of mine, who liked this cartoon and emailed it to me. It's quite apropos:

http://www.raspberryheaven.net/~mch/candidate.gif

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

TheMojoPin

11-09-2003, 05:36 PM

Dean is "too liberal", at least for the general populace.

How so?

I've heard a similar charge levelled quite often at Bush as a conservative, and I find both to be ludicrous.

Are we ACTUALLY talking "too liberal/conservative" or just how one side tries to paint the other as?

And no, Clark shouldn't be president.

But I'd sure as hell like to see him as vice president.

I keep an open mind about the current administration, but Cheney creeps me out, straight up.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Death Metal Moe

11-09-2003, 05:38 PM

I don't care if he's the messiah. I'm voting for Bush.

Squak squak squak.

<IMG SRC=http://unhallowed.com/sigs/dmkh.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
WITH A BODY OF STONE, AND A MIND LIKE... GENIUSNESS!

furie

11-09-2003, 05:43 PM

i've never heard anyone call Bush too conservative. he's usually attacked from the right for not being conservative enough.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/tjfurie.jpg" height=100 width=300>

shamus mcfitzy

11-09-2003, 06:01 PM

well i consider Bush "too conservative". And although i'm a crazy left wing psychopath, it technically counts just as much as each person saying Dean is "too liberal". It's all relative. Yes I understand that Americans are a moderate people, but i think that a lot of the "too liberal" comments are coming from those who would gain from Americans disqualifying him as a candidate. Dean could run this country just as well as Bush. Or at least I hope so

Tenbatsuzen

11-10-2003, 08:31 AM

Giuliani/Schwarzenegger 2008.

<center><img src="http://tenbatsuzen.homestead.com/files/psychosig03.jpg"></center>

pennington

11-10-2003, 12:44 PM

Is Dean Too Liberal?

Dean's laid back. Jerry is the liberal one.

Se7en

11-10-2003, 01:03 PM

Yes I understand that Americans are a moderate people, but i think that a lot of the "too liberal" comments are coming from those who would gain from Americans disqualifying him as a candidate.

Most Americans *are* moderate.

Which is why they won't elect Dean to the White House - hell, his stance on gay marriage alone will alienate him and he's done wonders these past two weeks to turn most of the South against him.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

TooCute

11-10-2003, 01:10 PM

42nd-delay

11-10-2003, 04:53 PM

What people don't understand is that an American stronghold right smackdab in the Middle East is probably the best damn thing for world peace and the erasure of terrorism

Well, it's debatable whether having an American puppet state in the Middle East will turn the region's opinion to our side, but accepting that premise, how about we just stick with one stronghold in Afghanistan first?

hell, his stance on gay marriage alone will alienate him

What stance? He's never said he supports gay marriage.

Obviously I'm a Dean supporter. It just seems to me that he's generally just left of center, and actually a little conservative in some areas (guns). Moreover, I think he'd be a true fiscal conservative, unlike Bush. But in any case, I don't think he's the losing cause people say he is. Look at the grass root support he's getting. The average donation to his campaign is something like $75, and he just chose to not take public financing cause they're doing so well. None of the other candidates inspire me.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

shamus mcfitzy

11-10-2003, 10:57 PM

Uhm, isn't that simply true by definition? Otherwise if most Americans were extreme, that would be considered moderate.

Right?

well i'm saying based on the left-right scale in this country. Americans are basically right in the middle of the Democrats and Republicans (which of course makes them right wing on a world scale). That's what I mean.

and Dean is pretty liberal. As far as I know he does support gay marriage and is basically for more freedom on many issues. Kinda Libertarian but not really

sr71blackbird

11-11-2003, 04:06 AM

You cant be for freedom if your for taking away liberties. Its a 2 sided coin.

<center>
http://www.osirusonline.com/sr71.gif </center>

<center>My Thanks to Reefdwella for the sig-pic!</center>

<center><strike>Folgers and Lava</strike></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate>( o Y o )</marquee>

shamus mcfitzy

11-11-2003, 04:15 AM

i don't think i understand what you mean. Explain please

Se7en

11-11-2003, 07:44 AM

Well, it's debatable whether having an American puppet state in the Middle East will turn the region's opinion to our side, but accepting that premise, how about we just stick with one stronghold in Afghanistan first?

Afghanistan is a shit-hole.

Really, there's virtually nothing of value in that country. Hell, people still live in caves there. Afghanistan, logistically, provides none of the benefits Iraq does and it has an even more frightening lack of infrastructure than Iraq.

What stance? He's never said he supports gay marriage.

He's been somewhat vague about the issue these past few months, realizing the particular political climate of the issue these days, but he supported Vermont's Civil Union bill which sufficiently frightened the federal government into passing the Defense of Marriage Act.

But in any case, I don't think he's the losing cause people say he is. Look at the grass root support he's getting.

McGovern had a great deal of grass root support as well.

We all know how that one turned out.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

furie

11-11-2003, 10:31 AM

Most Americans *are* moderate.

Uhm, isn't that simply true by definition? Otherwise if most Americans were extreme, that would be considered moderate.

Right?

<img src="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/bans/toocute2.gif">

take that logical statment, put it in a sack full of kittens and toss it into a river, this is the politics forum.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer.jpg" height=100 width=300>

high fly

11-11-2003, 03:29 PM

Or is that the "mean"?

Average or mean, I always get them backwards.

Is Dean Too Liberal

No, he's too northern.

No matter who runs, the way it'll shake out is the Democrats will carry the left coast, New England and the Rust Belt. To win, they must crack the South.
Down south, they ain't gonna vote for no New Englander, nor a Jew.
Also, to take Bush out, voters must have confidence that whoever else they vote for can be depended on to continue the war on terror properly.
We've seen what a mess the Chickenhawks in power now can make of things.
I say the only Democrat running who can whup Bush is (drumroll please):
General Wesley Clark.
Imagine Clark in the debates, looking over at Bush, and saying: "While I was getting shot up in Viet Nam, where were you?"
And then hecklers at all the campaign stops chant at Bush: "Where were you?"

(of course the answer is, when he wasn't deserting, he was busy keeping the North Vietnamese Air Force out of the skies over some of the South's finer golf courses)

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

11-11-2003, 04:20 PM

So that somehow makes Clark a better choice for President?

Look, Clark seems like a good guy, and I think he'd make a great Vice President or a cabinet role, but as the weeks go on, he seems less and less like the Presidential-type, and more like someone like Bush or Arnold who is passable, but would need to rely too much on the people around him.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

11-11-2003, 04:44 PM

No matter who wins the nomination, I think Bob Graham would be the perfect vice presidential candidate. A Edwards/Graham ticket would be the best shot the Democrats have of really breaking into the South.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

high fly

11-11-2003, 04:51 PM

Clark can crack the south and inspire confidence that he'll do the right things against the terrorists.

He has yet to find his groove on the campaign trail, I'll give you that, but right now, he's the best hope that the Dems have.

" and they ask me why I drink"

Doomstone

11-11-2003, 05:36 PM

Imagine Clark in the debates, looking over at Bush, and saying: "While I was getting shot up in Viet Nam, where were you?"
And then hecklers at all the campaign stops chant at Bush: "Where were you?"
Nah, any would-be hecklers will be rounded up and herded into Orwellian "Free Speech Zones" by the president's security goons.

Cybersoldier

11-11-2003, 05:45 PM

You might be able to say the same thing about any of the other democratic candidates. Each is more liberal on certain issues.

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cybersoldier.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">

"I get the feeling when lesbians are looking at me they're thinking, THAT's why I'm not hetrosexual."

shamus mcfitzy

11-12-2003, 02:41 AM

I think that if Clark were to be the vice-presidential candidate, the presidential candidate would have to stress how important the VP is in today's America. I think if America can be convinced that Clark would have just as large a role in the country then the Dems might be able to steal some Southern states.

of course Clark automatically has NH. For the last 2 years (that's right, before Clark was even running) radio ads saying "Clark in '04" have been running (it was on Meet the Press a while ago. It was in a link from someone on the board). And with NH, the Dems would've won the last election. If they can get NH this time around they need to just maintain the same states as last time (they don't even need Florida).

42nd-delay

11-12-2003, 07:19 AM

If they can get NH this time around they need to just maintain the same states as last time (they don't even need Florida).

Frankly, I can't imagine that anyone who voted for Gore in the last election will vote for Bush this time. Additionally, I'd imagine some people who voted Green last time won't make the same mistake. The Dem's should have enough votes.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

shamus mcfitzy

11-12-2003, 10:48 AM

well there are some people who don't vote out of party loyalty (like me). Moderate Democrats certainly might not vote for Dean. Maybe they wouldn't vote for Bush, but they might not vote for Dean.

I know that I don't intend to vote for Gephardt if he gets the nomination and doesn't pick Clark (or Dean, which he wouldn't do) as his running mate and have gone as far as vowing to vote for Bush if Lieberman gets the nomination.

I actually think that the Dems have a large chance to win, but i think that it's at least a 55-45 chance Bush wins.

Se7en

11-12-2003, 01:36 PM

So that somehow makes Clark a better choice for President?

Look, Clark seems like a good guy, and I think he'd make a great Vice President or a cabinet role, but as the weeks go on, he seems less and less like the Presidential-type, and more like someone like Bush or Arnold who is passable, but would need to rely too much on the people around him.

Yes, I agree completely. It's kind of disappointing, isn't it?

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

TheMojoPin

11-12-2003, 03:21 PM

Additionally, I'd imagine some people who voted Green last time won't make the same mistake.

Fuck you and fuck your fucking candidate right in his fucking clown shoes.

It's kind of disappointing, isn't it?

VERY.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Se7en

11-12-2003, 05:56 PM

Indeed.

I mean, you know where ultimately my allegiances will likely lie.

But assuming a Democrat would get elected, Clark seemed like a not so bad choice.

*sigh* But then he had to open his mouth, and ruin the illusion.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

high fly

11-14-2003, 12:11 PM

Clark is a gen-you-wine war hero, a fact which makes many in the GOP tremble.

Besides my points above, I'd like to point out that Clark would cut into a key constituency that Bush will be relying on-- the military.

Can anybody out there post Clark's Silver Star commendation?

Don't write him off just yet. He's just getting started.
Remember the man has been a big success at whatever he's done.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

11-14-2003, 01:28 PM

Nobody's arguing his milltiary credentials.

But how do those automatically translate to him being a good president?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Se7en

11-14-2003, 07:26 PM

Clark is a gen-you-wine war hero, a fact which makes many in the GOP tremble.

If the last two elections have told us anything, it's that military record doesn't mean near as much as it once did in terms of national politics.

John Kerry (Vietnam vet, didn't you know) is a good example of this. He's getting SLAUGHTERED by Dean. And Kerry's a far better politician than Clark is (which is not entirely Clark's fault, inexperienced candidate that he is, but still).

Besides my points above, I'd like to point out that Clark would cut into a key constituency that Bush will be relying on-- the military.

Not necessarily.

Clark has a mercurial reputation from his military days. Several of those who worked with him there don't exactly have glowing things to say about the man.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
 
 
Resistance is FLAMMABLE.</center>

A.J.

11-17-2003, 07:13 AM

Clark has a mercurial reputation from his military days. Several of those who worked with him there don't exactly have glowing things to say about the man.

Why Can't Generals Just Get Along?

When at a forum in September, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Which was bad enough, but on November 6, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, hosted by Gloria Borger and Alan Murray, who asked him what he thought of Clark. "I think the greatest condemnation against him . . . came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he was a NATO commander. I mean, he was fired as a NATO commander," Schwarzkopf replied, "and when Hugh Shelton said he was fired because of matters of character and integrity, that is a very, very damning statement, which says, `If that's the case, he's not the right man for president,' as far as I'm concerned."

Shelton has refused to expand on his remarks, and Schwarzkopf isn't providing details, either. So Clark was understandably miffed when he responded on the campaign trail the next day: "I haven't talked to General Schwarzkopf since 1991, when I interviewed him in his headquarters about what he liked and didn't like about the Army. He left the Army shortly after that; haven't seen him in 12 years. He didn't ask me anything about it. So he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think America should hold people to a high standard."

Why Can't Generals Just Get Along? (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031124/usnews/24notes_2.htm)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

Recyclerz

11-17-2003, 08:43 AM

Clark was right about Kosovo. And that's why the Army hates him. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/)

From Fred Kaplan on Slate. The gist of this article is that Clark shone a little too brightly in the military hierarchy and, perhaps more importantly, was a little too willing to go over his bosses' heads when he was convinced he was right about Kosovo, and that is why he's getting sniped at by his erstwhile comrades in arms. A good read if you're interested in this stuff - as all right thinking Americans should be. ;)

[b]Sig-less in Gaza[b]

high fly

11-19-2003, 09:59 AM

But how do those automatically translate to him being a good president?

We are locked into a war with terrorists and the current administration doesn't know what the hell they are doing. Their inexperience has gotten hundreds of our finest young people killed for nothing and they are burning out our military. A lot of that is because it is chock full of chickenhawks who've never been any closer to a battlefield than watching Saving Private Ryan in a movie theater.
Clark has an understanding of strategy and tactics that the current bunch of amateurs lack.

Clark would cut into a key constituency that Bush will be relying on-- the military.

Not necessarily

Yes necessarily. There is growing resentment in the military for the way Bush has lied to them about their deployments in Iraq- first it was going to be a coupla months, then 6 months, now many are being told they'll be there till next year.
Bush has done just what he accused Clinton of -- overstretching the military on it's deployments.
Rumsfeld is hated in the Pentagon the way he has run roughshod over them.
It is also evident that needed troops were held back in Iraq due to political considerations, and the same is true now and we'll see more of the same in the near future.
Clark has a very good shot at taking away much of Bush's support in the military.

Clark has a mercurial reputation from his military days

So do just about any good general in history. So what if Clark stepped on some toes with his "tell it like it is" manner?
A lot of people got pissed that Clark was promoted over them when they had more seniority and now they're trying to get him back. I say this reflects more on them than Clark.

I'm waiting for someone to point out how any of the other Democratic candidates have a shot at cracking the South, which I believe will be key if the Dems are going to win.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 11-19-03 @ 2:44 PM

TheMojoPin

11-19-2003, 11:19 AM

We are locked into a war with terrorists and the current administration doesn't know what the hell they are doing. Their inexperience has gotten hundreds of our finest young people killed for nothing and they are burning out our military. A lot of that is because it is chock full of chickenhawks who've never been any closer to a battlefield than watching Saving Private Ryan in a movie theater.

Despite what the media would have you believe, you DO realize that active combat millitary issues are literally THIS much of the president's overall job, right?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

11-19-2003, 11:24 AM

THIS much...

Uhhhhh, how much? I can't see how far apart you're holding your hands.

I don't expect him to plan out missions at the platoon level, but I WOULD feel more comfortable having a commander in chief who has been there, for whom combat is more than just pretty blue and red arrows on a map.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 11-19-03 @ 3:29 PM

TheMojoPin

11-19-2003, 12:06 PM

I need a LOT more to convince me has any inkling of how to run our country's domestic policy.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

A.J.

11-19-2003, 12:10 PM

I don't expect him to plan out missions at the platoon level, but I WOULD feel more comfortable having a commander in chief who has been there, for whom combat is more than just pretty blue and red arrows on a map.

True. Because you don't need that kind of experience when you deploy troops for peacekeeping missions or order air-, ship-, or sub-based Tomahawk launches.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

high fly

11-19-2003, 01:07 PM

That's my point, I think you DO need that kind of experience.

Then you have a better idea of what the youngsters you're sending off to get wounded, killed, maimed, taken prisoner and tortured, etc will be going through.
It's not unreasonable to think that if Bush had Clark's experience, he could have taken better decisions.
Come to think of it, not just Bush, but Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks too.
Besides having been there and performed heroicly at the tactical level, Clark also has performed well at the operational and strategic level.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 11-19-03 @ 5:12 PM

A.J.

11-20-2003, 03:37 AM

Of course, military experience is "more gooder" in a candidate. But NOT having any shouldn't preclude him or her from being an effective Commander in Chief. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt (who was also an Assistant Secretary of the Navy), to name a few, did pretty well.

Come to think of it, not just Bush, but Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks too.

Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and Rumsfeld served as a Naval Aviator. You can nitpick about when and where they served but it still counts as service.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

high fly

11-20-2003, 08:48 AM

Yeah, we could go into their "service", such as it was, and you know they come out looking like shit compared to Clark.
I'm talking about EXPERIENCE-- actual combat experience.
Not only has Clark been in combat, but he was cited for "...gallantry in action...unquestionable valor in close combat...heroism..."

When a man is shot something like 9 times in the shoulder, hand, hip and leg, and still leads his men forward in a successful attack on the enemy, that says a lot to me about what he's made of. It's a damned shame that America doesn't honor her heroes more.

We just lost another great one, who, to our shame, is too widely unknown. I ask you, WHO on the board knows who Mitchell Paige was? It's a damned disgrace, I tell you.

And sure, we've elected men who were not vets who did well, but Bush ain't one of them. He'd be a hell of a lot better president if he had Clark's experience, and not just on the battlefield, either. If you look at his carreer, you'll see that he performed extremely well at every level.
This is a man of extraordinary intelligence and ability.

" and they ask me why I drink"