The Real Bush National Guard Scandal

[hgc]

Personally, I don't give a hairy hoot whether or not W didn't show up for all his guard duty.

What bothers me is that this was a guy that favored the U.S. govt policy to prosecute the war in Vietnam, yet used his father's political connections to jump to the top of a 500 person waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard so that someone else could go to Vietnam in his place.

The Guard and Reserves at the time were not like today. They went into active duty overseas in very low percentages as compared to units deployed in Afganistan and Iraq today. There's a reason there was such a long waiting list: because it was a sure way to avoid service in Vietnam. Period.

This was used to great advantage by people with powerful friends, such as W and Dan Quayle.

[Bonzo]

I think a great majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, use their personal connections to their advantage, to get ahead at the expense of other people. Look how many of them have ivy league educations. You can't tell me they all got in on merit or intelligence.

I understand your point regarding Bush. However, what Bush did was certainly better than what Clinton did. Clinton's total avoidance of the war was not an issue with the Democrats in 92; suddenly now what people did during Vietnam is important? I think this whole issue is making the Democrats look silly; is this the best they can come up with? Of course, in time equally silly accusations about Kerry will come up also. Personally I think his anti-war stance after Vietnam was disgraceful, regardless of whether he is a "war hero" or not.

One could argue that the only real difference between the two parties is how they target their pandering rhetoric.

[BTox]

This whole issue is what the dems do best - the politics of personal destruction. It'll backfire come the fall.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Bonzo
I think a great majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, use their personal connections to their advantage, to get ahead at the expense of other people. Look how many of them have ivy league educations. You can't tell me they all got in on merit or intelligence.

I understand your point regarding Bush. However, what Bush did was certainly better than what Clinton did. Clinton's total avoidance of the war was not an issue with the Democrats in 92; suddenly now what people did during Vietnam is important? I think this whole issue is making the Democrats look silly; is this the best they can come up with? Of course, in time equally silly accusations about Kerry will come up also. Personally I think his anti-war stance after Vietnam was disgraceful, regardless of whether he is a "war hero" or not.

Respectfully disagreed. I don't care if a politician served or not; there's a reason that the President is considered a civilian even though he's the CINC.

However, in this instance, President Bush used his family connections to get into the Natioanl Guard, which as we all know was way safer thirty years ago than it is today; additionally, there is no evidence he served honorably - and yes, I know he was "honorably discharged," but let's not get into circular arguments here. So the reason I care about this instance is that President Bush says: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

This is one thing if war is thrust upon us, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war upon the U.S. by Nazi Germany. But in this instance, this President, who has never been in a war zone, who has never been shot at, decides to start not a pre-emptive but a preventive war.

What's most horrifying to me is that President G.H.W. Bush was the youngest naval aviator in WWII, was shot down and could easily have died, and that his son had the audacity to play dress up in a flightsuit. His taste for aviation certainly wasn't evident when he missed his flight physical . . . Democrat or Republican, left-wing or right-wing, if G.W. Bush were my son, I'd smack him upside the head so hard his dealer would feel it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hgc
What bothers me is that this was a guy that favored the U.S. govt policy to prosecute the war in Vietnam, yet used his father's political connections to jump to the top of a 500 person waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard so that someone else could go to Vietnam in his place.

The 147th Fighter Interceptor Group had a waiting list of 150 persons for 156 openings. Bush was among a small group of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year flying F-102 jets.

Source (http://38.144.96.23/tacitus/archives/001508.html#001508)

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by LFTKBS

But in this instance, this President, who has never been in a war zone, who has never been shot at, decides to start not a pre-emptive but a preventive war.


If you are against the idea of the President deciding to start a preventative war, I can understand your position although I do not agree with it in this instance. I don't see what difference it makes if Bush had ever been in a war or not, or been shot at or not. If he had, would your stance on the preventative war be different? As I recall, Lincoln had no combat experience either. He turned out more or less OK. Combat experience does not have much to do with leading a nation in combat. What combat experience did FDR have?

If you think Bush's guard record makes him morally unfit to lead, that is a different issue. I don't agree that it does, but it is a matter of opinion.

Edited for fat fingers.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Bonzo
As I recall, Lincoln had no combat experience either. He turned out more or less OK. Combat experience does not have much to do with leading a nation in combat. What combat experience did FDR have?

Well, Lincoln was in the milita and served during the Blackhawk War, but otherwise had no service to speak of (neither did most males his age or younger, given our only prior wars were in 1812 and 1848). FDR was not a soldier, but did serve as Secretary of the Navy as I recall, either during or after WWI.


If you think Bush's guard record makes him morally unfit to lead, that is a different issue. I don't agree that it does, but it is a matter of opinion.

I don't know either, which is why I have mostly stayed out of this debate. But if somebody has evidence that Bush was making speeches favoring the war and backing 'our troops' in Nam while at the same time not serving, then I would think the anti-GWB folks would have a stronger argument, rather than by inference. (And I'd bet a shiny new dirham they are looking for it) [/B][/QUOTE] ;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Bonzo


If you are against the idea of the President deciding to start a preventative war, I can understand your position although I do not agree with it in this instance. I don't see what difference it makes if Bush had ever been in a war or not, or been shot at or not. If he had, would your stance on the preventative war be different? As I recall, Lincoln had no combat experience either. He turned out more or less OK. Combat experience does not have much to do with leading a nation in combat. What combat experience did FDR have?

The difference being in both of those cases, the President didn't have to lie out his ass to push the country to war.

I'm in the "don't give a damn about Bush's Guard service" camp. I've found it incredibly amusing, but don't really care one way or the other. It's a case of "Bush went AWOL during his guard service" versus "Matt Drudge says Kerry boinked an intern." Standard Republicrat politics.

This election year, I'll either do the same thing I did last time (vote Green), or skip it altogether and raise drink to "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well the comparison of Bush and Lincoln is way off base. Lincoln basically had war thrust upon him and it directly involved the survival of the nation. He did suspend Habius Corpus and did some other less then savory things but the war itself was a completely different animal. I could say there are parallels between the suspension and the Patriot acts 1 & 2 but that does not say that they are equal.

The debate of wether the war needed to be prosecuted by Bush preemptively and his reasons for doing so are addressed on many other threads so we probably don't need to re-hash it here.

The idea of the differing judgments of a person who has been in harms way and one who was not is a valid point and here's why I believe that.
To a soldier or a warrior like Kennedy or Eisenhower or Powell or Kerry, the horrors of war where you have been shot at, wounded , seen your friends talking one second and watching them die the next tempers them to realize the cost at a deeper level then a casual observer. To the person who has not been through these trials like the president the question of war is an abstract.

That is why the rule of thumb is that the seasoned warrior will normally be the first person to look to any alternative to war.

Kennedy saw this and during the Cuban missile crisis refused to be " Another Tojo" in preemptively striking Cuba against the advice of many civilian and military folks ( who flew desks after WW2) .to attack.

Thank god the man was right as we did not learn until the middle 90's that the missiles were armed and ready to fly.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by Cleon

The difference being in both of those cases, the President didn't have to lie out his ass to push the country to war.


If Bush lied about the intelligence, then so did Clinton and nearly every intelligence service on the planet.

Was the intelligence good? Obviously not. But that is not an indication to me that Bush lied about it.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well the comparison of Bush and Lincoln is way off base. Lincoln basically had war thrust upon him and it directly involved the survival of the nation. He did suspend Habius Corpus and did some other less then savory things but the war itself was a completely different animal. I could say there are parallels between the suspension and the Patriot acts 1 & 2 but that does not say that they are equal.

Point taken. One might argue that the war on terror was thrust on Bush also, and directly involves the survival of the nation. When a terrorist decides to nuke New York city, our national survival will be at stake. They would do it today if they had the means to do it. If we sit on our a$$, it is only a matter of time until they do. There's not a lot of room for debate with these people. I would prefer to have them attacking our soldiers in Iraq, then attacking our civilians at home. The military are volunteers, and know what they have signed up for.

All in all, I would prefer a party strong on defense than one that has repeatedly proven not to be.

[TillEulenspiegel]

The difference being that Bush and many supporters like to imply a link between Al-Keida and Saddm. There was no link. There is some evidence that these people are infiltrating and causing trouble now , after Saddam was deposed. The fact was that existed no link before the war the administration has said such. There are internal documents that reveal Saddams edicts that the be no accommodation w/ Al-Keida both before the war and after when he was on the run. I have no quibble with our action in Afganistan nor do the vast majority of the American people.

So any attempt to portray equivalence between our military action in Afganistan and in Iraq , is patently false.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

So any attempt to portray equivalence between our military action in Afganistan and in Iraq , is patently false.

Not necessarily, when President Bush declared a war on terrorism, skeptical world leaders asked 'really or just the ones that attack you directly.'

Bush made a strategic mistake in talking about Al Q. links because after that line bombed it made it an untouchable subject. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, just not a state sponsor of Bin Laden (directly).

[geni]

I fell that there may be something inherently wrong with a country when it has a population of 291 million and the best person that it can come up with to lead it is George W Bush.

I also find it rather worrying that what people did in a war fort before I was born becomes an election issue of any importance when said country has so many other problems to face (What to do about the income gap, What to do about the mess that is the war on drugs, what to do about terrisom, what to do about healthcare, what to do about education, what to do about imigration what to do about geni's spelling etc). We talking about the man who will be elected to lead the most powerful country on the planet and this is significant.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The difference being that Bush and many supporters like to imply a link between Al-Keida and Saddm. There was no link. There is some evidence that these people are infiltrating and causing trouble now , after Saddam was deposed. The fact was that existed no link before the war the administration has said such. There are internal documents that reveal Saddams edicts that the be no accommodation w/ Al-Keida both before the war and after when he was on the run. I have no quibble with our action in Afganistan nor do the vast majority of the American people.

So any attempt to portray equivalence between our military action in Afganistan and in Iraq , is patently false.
Maybe, but there was a very real possibility of a future Iraq-Al Queda collaberation. Along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". After all, Bin Laden had no problems taking aid from America to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan, is it really unthinkable that he would have accepted some bio or chem weapons from Saddam to attack America? I'm not willing to take that chance.

originally posted by hgc
What bothers me is that this was a guy that favored the U.S. govt policy to prosecute the war in Vietnam, yet used his father's political connections to jump to the top of a 500 person waiting list for the Texas Air National Guard so that someone else could go to Vietnam in his place.
Do you have any evidence that Bush ever spoke in favor of the Vietnam War? I haven't heard this before.

[clk]

Originally posted by WildCat

Maybe, but there was a very real possibility of a future Iraq-Al Queda collaberation. Along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". After all, Bin Laden had no problems taking aid from America to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan, is it really unthinkable that he would have accepted some bio or chem weapons from Saddam to attack America? I'm not willing to take that chance.


Is that the standard the standard to go to war now? Attack any country that might give terrorists a WMD? If Bin Laden has acquired a WMD, I doubt it's from Iraq. Bin Laden has stated that he hates Saddam. Also, I doubt that Saddam would be stupid enough to place himself at risk by associating himself with Bin Laden.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by clk


Is that the standard the standard to go to war now? Attack any country that might give terrorists a WMD? If Bin Laden has acquired a WMD, I doubt it's from Iraq. Bin Laden has stated that he hates Saddam. Also, I doubt that Saddam would be stupid enough to place himself at risk by associating himself with Bin Laden.
He hated the US too, yet he temporarily allied himself with it in order to get weapons.

I also doubt Saddam would have given Bin Laden WMD's, but then I also doubted that the Marlins would win the World Series this year. With terrorism, the risks are huge to gamble on the efficacy of mere doubts. Right now, all doubts are removed and there is only certainty. And certainty feels a lot better to me.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by geni
I also find it rather worrying that what people did in a war fort before I was born becomes an election issue of any importance when said country has so many other problems to face (What to do about the income gap, What to do about the mess that is the war on drugs, what to do about terrisom, what to do about healthcare, what to do about education, what to do about imigration what to do about geni's spelling etc). We talking about the man who will be elected to lead the most powerful country on the planet and this is significant.

Regardless of our potential differences of opinion on how the war on terror should be fought, and whether or not Iraq is an integral part of that strategy (I happen to think it is, but understand how you may disagree if you do), I absolutely agree with who geni has said here.

[clk]

Originally posted by WildCat

With terrorism, the risks are huge to gamble on the efficacy of mere doubts. Right now, all doubts are removed and there is only certainty. And certainty feels a lot better to me.

If you attack any country that might give terrorists WMDs, then you'll be at war with alot of countries, for a long period of time. I have to wonder whether that would create more problems than it would solve.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by BTox
This whole issue is what the dems do best - the politics of personal destruction.:roll:

Stop, you're killing me!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by WildCat


Do you have any evidence that Bush ever spoke in favor of the Vietnam War? I haven't heard this before.
Do you have a shred of even the wildest hunch he didn't favor the party line?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Bonzo
All in all, I would prefer a party strong on defense than one that has repeatedly proven not to be. Y'hear that, Mr. Roosevelt? Mr. Truman, Mr. Kennedy? Yes, even you over there, Mr. Johnson.

Boy, what a bunch of softies.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by geni
I fell that there may be something inherently wrong with a country when it has a population of 291 million and the best person that it can come up with to lead it is George W Bush.Your sentiment may be honest, but the assumption is a little heavy-handed.

Mr. Bush was essentially selected by the party and promoted for the top position for a number of reasons, all of them designed to ensure his election. Among these, his supposed strength in the traditionally Democratic Hispanic community (due to his governing a border state), his proclaimed religious piety, and his name recognition (along with the idea that electing him would be poetic justice for the defeat of his father at the hands of the Dread Pirate Clinton).

The Republican party had a fine, capable, qualified candidate in Sen. John McCain. The problem with him is that he wasn't "theirs," in every meaning of that word.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Y'hear that, Mr. Roosevelt? Mr. Truman, Mr. Kennedy? Yes, even you over there, Mr. Johnson.

Boy, what a bunch of softies.

They are not the Democrats I am talking about. The Democrats of today are hardly the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Kennedy's principles are barely recognizable in the Democratic party line of today, which is dominated by liberal special interests. Kennedy was smart enough to cut taxes; Democrats today are the party of big government solutions, higher taxes, and class warfare. After many billions if not trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty, all we have to show for it is that fact that black illigitimacy has skyrocketed, education is down the toilet, etc.

Since 1972, the Democrats have been soft on defense, as the party shifted increasingly to the left. That's one reason so few Democrats have been elected President in the last 30 years. Those who were were pathetic in the area of national defense, and voters remember it.

[geni]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Mr. Bush was essentially selected by the party and promoted for the top position for a number of reasons, all of them designed to ensure his election. Among these, his supposed strength in the traditionally Democratic Hispanic community (due to his governing a border state), his proclaimed religious piety, and his name recognition (along with the idea that electing him would be poetic justice for the defeat of his father at the hands of the Dread Pirate Clinton).

The Republican party had a fine, capable, qualified candidate in Sen. John McCain. The problem with him is that he wasn't "theirs," in every meaning of that word.

So there is something fundimenterly wrong with the system.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by subgenius

Do you have a shred of even the wildest hunch he didn't favor the party line?
You mean the Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) who got the US stuck arm deep in that tar baby? I didn't know that support for the Vietnam war was divided along party lines.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by clk


If you attack any country that might give terrorists WMDs, then you'll be at war with alot of countries, for a long period of time. I have to wonder whether that would create more problems than it would solve.
Few countries have the motive that Iraq did, having suffered a humiliating defeat in GWI. Saddam also tried to have Bush senior assasinated. Iraq was undoubtedly bent on some sort of revenge.

For some countries the carrot works, others the stick. It's not a one size fits all issue.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by WildCat

You mean the Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson) who got the US stuck arm deep in that tar baby? I didn't know that support for the Vietnam war was divided along party lines.


Party Line! Republican Party!


Get it through your skull.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



Party Line! Republican Party!


Get it through your skull.
Oh, ok. Stupid me...
:hit:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Bonzo
Since 1972, the Democrats have been soft on defense, as the party shifted increasingly to the left. That's one reason so few Democrats have been elected President in the last 30 years. Those who were were pathetic in the area of national defense, and voters remember it.
Somehow, we managed to do okay in Afghanistan and Iraq with a defense that was sustained for eight years under a Democrat. Those great toys that the Iraq invaders used didn't suddenly materialize under Bush.

While Clinton may have cut military spending, it doesn't seem that the military was particularly weakened. Most fiscal conservatives would regard that as a good thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bonzo


Since 1972, the Democrats have been soft on defense, as the party shifted increasingly to the left. That's one reason so few Democrats have been elected President in the last 30 years. Those who were were pathetic in the area of national defense, and voters remember it.

Tell me one country in the world that is contemplating invading the US.

[hgc]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Tell me one country in the world that is contemplating invading the US. Friggin' Canadians. They're plotting an invasion of Vermont to get their hands on our prodigious Maple syrup reserves (also known as Maple trees), so that they can indulge their sick obsession with manhole-cover sized pancakes while they slide a friggin' rock across the ice with a broom.

But to get serious for a moment...

The vital interests of the U.S. extend well beyond our own borders, and an essential component of our wealth and lifestyle is protected and supported by our trade and influence throughout the world. By the way, our projection of military power is an essential component of the wealth and liberty of our friends throughout the world, particularly in Europe and East Asia. Even if our friends sporatically unlearn that part of the equation (France!).

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hgc
Friggin' Canadians.

Yup (http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/)

http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/Wawmap3.gif

[clk]

Originally posted by geni


So there is something fundimenterly wrong with the system.

Yes, you are right. There is something very, very wrong when a fine man like John McCain gets beaten by a man like Bush. I've noticed that Republicans don't have any qualms about nominating unqualified candidates...look at Bush and Arnold....while the Democratic nominees are usually incredibly smart and competent.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
:roll:

Stop, you're killing me!

You're welcome.

[BTox]

Originally posted by clk

...while the Democratic nominees are usually incredibly smart and competent.

Yes, incredible is a good word choice there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hgc
Friggin' Canadians. They're plotting an invasion of Vermont to get their hands on our prodigious Maple syrup reserves (also known as Maple trees), so that they can indulge their sick obsession with manhole-cover sized pancakes while they slide a friggin' rock across the ice with a broom.

But to get serious for a moment...

The vital interests of the U.S. extend well beyond our own borders, and an essential component of our wealth and lifestyle is protected and supported by our trade and influence throughout the world. By the way, our projection of military power is an essential component of the wealth and liberty of our friends throughout the world, particularly in Europe and East Asia. Even if our friends sporatically unlearn that part of the equation (France!).

Does the US have the right to impose it's military will across the world for it's own interests at the expense of the rest of the world?

What threats to peace are there in Europe? The UN is actually involved in numerous peacekeeping operation around the world on shoestring budgets with no help at all from the US.

I heard the other day that the ongoing tragedy of Cyprus may be resolved due to UN action. If this works out, it will be great news. And without an aircraft carrier in sight.

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox


Yes, incredible is a good word choice there.

Thank you.

[jj]

Originally posted by Bonzo
I understand your point regarding Bush. However, what Bush did was certainly better than what Clinton did. Clinton's total avoidance of the war was not an issue with the

CLINTON IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

While I realize you guys would still like to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Bill got a blow job, it's time for you to move on and deal with the fact that Mr. W gave us all the part the elevator runs up and down in.

[hgc]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Does the US have the right to impose it's military will across the world for it's own interests at the expense of the rest of the world?Not to sound to callous, but right is not the point, as there is no higher authority to define or enforce rights. The people and the government of the U.S. should be responsible to excercise power in accordance with our own laws and ideals. At the expense of the rest of the world? That's your opinion. Sometimes power has been excercised irresponsibly, and sometimes the perpetrators have paid the political price (Lyndon Johnson). It's a tough question, but not so one-sided as you present it.What threats to peace are there in Europe? The UN is actually involved in numerous peacekeeping operation around the world on shoestring budgets with no help at all from the US. The threats to peace in Europe have been greatly reduced, thanks to the perserverence of U.S. involvement over many decades. They continue though, and it sure is a pity that European powers aren't willing to shoulder the expense exclusively of fixing it up.

The UN, while a very important and useful world organization, is not and never has been a guarantor of peace, in a forceful way. UN peacekeeping missions only operate in situations where the controlling factions all agree to settle down and let them come in. They do not fight, and fighting is sometimes what is required.I heard the other day that the ongoing tragedy of Cyprus may be resolved due to UN action. If this works out, it will be great news. And without an aircraft carrier in sight. Don't be so naive. Good news that it is, the Cyprus solution only happens because the powers that be, Greece and Turkey, allow it to happen. The UN is a vehicle for negotiation and implementation of the specifics, not the enforcer or guarantor.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hgc
Not to sound to callous, but right is not the point, as there is no higher authority to define or enforce rights. The people and the government of the U.S. should be responsible to excercise power in accordance with our own laws and ideals. At the expense of the rest of the world? That's your opinion. Sometimes power has been excercised irresponsibly, and sometimes the perpetrators have paid the political price (Lyndon Johnson).



That's right, he was tried and executed for crimes against humanity, or maybe that was in a parallel universe.



It's a tough question, but not so one-sided as you present it.The threats to peace in Europe have been greatly reduced, thanks to the perserverence of U.S. involvement over many decades. They continue though, and it sure is a pity that European powers aren't willing to shoulder the expense exclusively of fixing it up.



The threat from the USSR has been debateable. However, you have to ask, was the US or the USSR the greater threat to Greece with the General's coup, or in respect of Iran, which had the one of the greatest offenders on the AI list of shame running at with the backing of the US. Or Chile. The list goes on. You can understand my skepticism.



The UN, while a very important and useful world organization, is not and never has been a guarantor of peace, in a forceful way. UN peacekeeping missions only operate in situations where the controlling factions all agree to settle down and let them come in. They do not fight, and fighting is sometimes what is required.Don't be so naive. Good news that it is, the Cyprus solution only happens because the powers that be, Greece and Turkey, allow it to happen. The UN is a vehicle for negotiation and implementation of the specifics, not the enforcer or guarantor.

The best results are those arrived at peacefully via negotiation. The least sustainable tend to be those forced upon people.

The UN does not pretend to be the world's policeman.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by clk
[B]

Yes, you are right. There is something very, very wrong when a fine man like John McCain gets beaten by a man like Bush. [B]
He got screwed, also. The nomination was rightfully his.
And it will come back to haunt them. McCain Republicans are a different independent thinking breed.
That party needs him and them. A true hero, not an idealogue, not a total whore. And he can actually walk and talk at the same time.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Bonzo
They are not the Democrats I am talking about.So your generalization was a little less general than you implied? How was one to know?The Democrats of today are hardly the party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.Nor are the Republicans of today even remotely the "party of Lincoln," though it's the safest bet since Seabiscuit that we'll soon again hear this line, as we do every couple of years.

In any event, you say you're referring to "modern" Democrats, check. How recent should we consider? Decorated and disfigured war hero Sen. Dan Inouye? Decorated triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland? Oh wait, he's no longer in office in part because his Republican foes bleated that he was "soft on terrorism." Kennedy's principles are barely recognizable in the Democratic party line of today, which is dominated by liberal special interests. Kennedy was smart enough to cut taxes; Democrats today are the party of big government solutions, higher taxes, and class warfare. After many billions if not trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty, all we have to show for it is that fact that black illigitimacy has skyrocketed, education is down the toilet, etc.I have neither the patience or interest in countering these points, refuted as they've been time and time again, and, frankly, simpleminded as they are.Since 1972, the Democrats have been soft on defense, as the party shifted increasingly to the left. That's one reason so few Democrats have been elected President in the last 30 years. Those who were were pathetic in the area of national defense, and voters remember it. Yawn.

Oh, for the record (not that it isn't obvious to the literate):Party of U.S. Presidents elected since 1974

Jimmy Carter - D Ronald Reagan - R George H.W. Bush - R Bill Clinton - D George W. Bush - RThe grand total? Three(3) Republicans, and two(2) Democrats. Yes, I see what you mean about "so few" of the latter being elected in comparison to the former.

Of course, the tally should tip the other direction as Mr. Bush the younger was not elected. But his victory on a technicality still, what'reyagonnado, stands.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin

Of course, the tally should tip the other direction as Mr. Bush the younger was not elected.

At least you didn't disappoint me by failing to come back with this one. :D

Obviously the Democrats are not the party of big government and higher taxes, as you say you can refute those points. Guess I have not been paying attention.

We can agree to disagree (at least I can.)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin

Of course, the tally should tip the other direction as Mr. Bush the younger was not elected. But his victory on a technicality still, what'reyagonnado, stands.

Technicality? Since when is winning the majority of electoral votes a "technicality"? And the left says we're still obsessed with Clinton! :D

[bignickel]

Originally posted by BTox

Technicality? Since when is winning the majority of electoral votes a "technicality"? And the left says we're still obsessed with Clinton! :D

I think he's referring to Gore's winning of the majority of electoral votes, but having the vote re-count stopped by a FEDERAL Supreme Court, to be the technicality in question.