Vote '04

[Foggy_Goggles]

Smoked a J with Bernie Sanders while having a converstion with Dean in the early 90s at Reggae fest. Not that that (is there any other word you can use back to back correctly) has anything to do with Politics.

I say throw all those fuckers out and start over. Not because the Ds are much different than the Rs, simply because changing all the appointees ensures a lack of continuity. If you let the same group of fuck stains rule for too long, it can get even more dangerous.

[Tippster]

And just in case you don't believe the AWOL charge...

Records of Bush's Ala. Military Duty Can't Be Found


By Wayne Slater
Dallas Morning News
Monday, June 26, 2000; Page A06

AUSTIN –– After a thorough search of military records, George W. Bush's presidential campaign has failed to find any documents proving he reported for duty during an eight-month stint in Alabama with the Texas Air National Guard.

But a spokesman expressed confidence Saturday that inquiries will turn up former Guard members who can corroborate Bush's having been there.

"He specifically recalls pulling duty in Alabama," spokesman Dan Bartlett said of Bush. "He did his drills."

Bartlett said the Republican governor showed up "several" times while in Alabama, where he transferred from his Houston Guard unit in 1972 to work for the unsuccessful Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father.

According to Bartlett, the governor could not recall specifically how many times he reported for duty during his months in Alabama.

After leaving Alabama in December 1972, Bush returned to Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, where he made up missed time in order to complete his obligation, said Bartlett.

Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard from May 1968 to October 1973, primarily flying F-102 fighter-interceptors.

The focus on Bush's service in the Guard--and the transfer to work on the Alabama political campaign--has raised questions over whether he received preferential treatment at a time when many young men were seeking to avoid the Vietnam War.

Both Bush and his father, who was then a U.S. representative from Houston, have denied that the younger Bush received special treatment.

Bartlett said Saturday that he reviewed a 200-page packet of documents last week from the National Guard's records repository in Denver. He said they largely duplicated documents the campaign already had obtained from Texas National Guard headquarters.

"What it shows is that Governor Bush met his annual requirements in order to fulfill his military obligation but doesn't show the portion of the training that took place in Alabama," he said.

While Bush was in Alabama, "most of his work was paperwork related," said Bartlett.

Campaigning Friday in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Bush was asked about his 1972 service in that state.

"I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends."

"I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations."

In May, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, the former commander of the Alabama Guard unit, said Bush did not report to him, although the young airman was required to do so. His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said: "Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training."

"To my knowledge, he never showed up," Turnipseed said last month.

Bartlett said Bush recalls seeing then-Col. Turnipseed. The campaign aide suggested that because Bush was not a pilot, his commander might not remember him.


© 2000 The Washington Post Company

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by SummitCo 1776
Dean is a class warrior and a trial lawyer. Not what Wallstreet GOPers want.

Most Americans from the heartland are not GOP Wallstreeters, even though the WallStreeters have the major spin. It remains to be seen how much sway the marketing boys will have.

Dean may not want to run a deficit, but there aren't enough fiscal conservative GOPers who can stomach Deans extremely liberal social policy agenda to make a misquito shit's worth of difference.

The nation is turning with regard to national health care and schools versus the miltary and tax cuts for the wealthy. I'm not sure that your opinion is shared the populace at large.

Furthermore, Deans total lack of military experience is yet another weakpoint in this security oriented time.

That didn't hurt GeeDuhubya now did it?

Dean only real support will come from the hardcore left. This makes him easy to beat and this is why Bush is praying to run against him.

At least you're consistent. BTW, what is the hardcore left?

All I know is that where my parents live in Florida, the old school Republicans are talking up Dean on the golf course as not so bad. I just think it's cool that the guy took a very unpopular stance and stuck with it. That takes the kind of character I'm looking for, not the same old mealy mouthed crap that all the other candidates spew.

[summit]

Originally posted by Tippster
Riiiight... yet Bush being in the Texas Air Natl. Guard (and going AWOL for a year to work for his daddy's friend) during Vietnam is certainly causing me to rest easier. Cheney didn't serve, neither did Rumsfeld....

The only thing worse than a hawk is a chickenhawk. Personally I couldn't give two shits if the president was in the military or not. It didn't make a whit of difference during the previous administration.

Calm down big guy. It's politics. You are 100% right but still 100% wrong. You are being logical, but the electorate as a whole doesn't see the picture like that unfortunately. As far as the electorate and the media are concerned:

1. Bush's chickenhawness (and that of many memebers of his admin) is old news plus bush spent 4 years as the highest ranking military officer int he chain of command.

2. Clinton and Bush were not campaigning in security minded times like this campgain is.

3. Bush's total inexperience when he took office is irrelevant now that he is an incumbant president running. He has more experience being president than any of the other candidates (for arguments sake at least). (incidently Clinton had zero foreign policy experience when he took office, as did bush... just clinton did things right with foreign relations... bush fixed that)

4. Dean is seen as the most neophytic of the big four dems (Dean, Clark, Kerry, and Ghephardt) in the minds of hte public and press.

[Platinum Pete]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Can you explain? Dean is a financial conservative with a lot of appeal to moderate Republicans. He's been a Gov, has political experience and stuck to his principles in an initially unpopular anti-Iraq war stance.
The rest of 'em seem like the same fucking old story to me and spineless to boot.

Preface: I agree with the points you raise about Dean, I disagree with "The rest of 'em seem like the same fucking old story..."

Let's start by defining "the job" as win the election or serve as President.
Win the election: he's too short (the taller candidate has won every presidential election), his temper will bite him in the ass, his "too liberal" label will be too hard to overcome in order to reach those moderate republicans who ought to vote for him, he's switching up his stories a lot (which Karl Rove will beat him with), most churches will nay him because of his Equal Rights (gay marriage) stance, and his experience as governor of a tiny state with a small economy and very few minorities is not that great.
Serve as President: His fiery temper and reluctance to compromise will kill everything he tries to put through congress. Same problem as Kucinich (who I love). I think Dean would be pretty good as president on ideas and issues, but should he get that far, he's set up to fail.

I do not see Clark or Kerry as "same old story" types.
Kerry, dispite being married to a woman with kajillions of dollars has dedicated himself to a life of public service. He's an expert on foreign policy, was key in ending the Vietnam war, key in breaking open Iran-Contra, knows how to get things done in congress, and (less tangibly) he's an independent thinker who knows how to collaborate.
Clark is definitely not your average Joe candidate. Amazing military history, brilliant mind, humble, heroic, but not the best political "performer." He knows how the Washington machine works (after getting burned by it under Clinton) and will have a first rate team to support him. I trust his instincts.

I'm glad to keep this conversation going if we can all keep it polite.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by grrrr
Sorry Buster, as a moderate (neither Republican nor Democrat), I don't think Dean would be the man.

Why? Can you explain? Because the funny thing is that a lot of te so called exstream lefties don't like Dean because he's too conservative from a fiscal POV, so he caters to all that small government stuff so dear to what I knew as the Republican party.

I think that Bush and supporters are really scared of Dean because he's not playing by the usual party rules. He's pugnacious, wants a balanced budget, libertarian views on personal issues and wants national health care. Sounds like a great combo.

So aside from the cheap innuendo, what's really unappealing about Dean?

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Platinum Pete
Preface: I agree with the points you raise about Dean, I disagree with "The rest of 'em seem like the same fucking old story..."

The point is that all the other candidates either have no political experience (Clark) or are members of the old Washington guard (Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Lieberman). I'm really leery of the old guard, Gephardt blew it when majority leader and did not distinguish goals that what's left of the middle class can relate to.
In that regard they're the same old story. Every one of the supported the Iraq war because it was popular.

Let's start by defining "the job" as win the election or serve as President.
Win the election: he's too short (the taller candidate has won every presidential election), his temper will bite him in the ass, his "too liberal" label will be too hard to overcome in order to reach those moderate republicans who ought to vote for him, he's switching up his stories a lot (which Karl Rove will beat him with), most churches will nay him because of his Equal Rights (gay marriage) stance, and his experience as governor of a tiny state with a small economy and very few minorities is not that great.
Serve as President: His fiery temper and reluctance to compromise will kill everything he tries to put through congress. Same problem as Kucinich (who I love). I think Dean would be pretty good as president on ideas and issues, but should he get that far, he's set up to fail.

I do not see Clark or Kerry as "same old story" types.
Kerry, dispite being married to a woman with kajillions of dollars has dedicated himself to a life of public service. He's an expert on foreign policy, was key in ending the Vietnam war, key in breaking open Iran-Contra, knows how to get things done in congress, and (less tangibly) he's an independent thinker who knows how to collaborate.
Clark is definitely not your average Joe candidate. Amazing military history, brilliant mind, humble, heroic, but not the best political "performer." He knows how the Washington machine works (after getting burned by it under Clinton) and will have a first rate team to support him. I trust his instincts.

I'm glad to keep this conversation going if we can all keep it polite.

I have a really hard time with Clark. I do not trust the military mechanisms and he certainly has his naysayers as LB once dug up.
Kerry is in the old politico school with the Kennedys and the Senate. I'm being unfair in this regard, but I'm just really mistrustful of the Senate which nearly unanimously voted in the Patriot Act. I'm not forgetting that one.

Yeah, Dean is short and fiery, but I think his "liberal" tag is largely unwarranted and has been created by the opposition because they are very, very scared of him. If you look at his record in VT, there's a number of conservative things he did which offend the real liberals.

As far as being polite, you'll have to excuse me for not lambasting you with the usual "hey fucknose!!!"

[descender]

Originally posted by lemon boy
McCain Lieberman?

Come on -

I'm taking Powell/Lieberman Actually, depending I may be writing in Powell.

I would like to see McCain, Lieberman, or Powell in any permutation. Pragmatic moderation is the key.

[summit]

Originally posted by descender
I would like to see McCain, Lieberman, or Powell in any permutation. Pragmatic moderation is the key.

I really liked Powell until this admin and then he seemed like too much of a wuss... but then maybe he is going against his nature because he's knows its wise to temper the hotheads.

[mr_gyptian]

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/001435.php

I realize we're talking about politicians, but Dean's "convictions" can best be described as pandering to the anti-war left. there are numerous instances of him talking about the danger Saddam represented.

even numerous instances of him supporting Bush not Gore in the above link. things have apparently changed in that respect.

Calling Dean a class warrior is almost comical. He's the son of a wall streeter that grew up on the southern CT seaboard attending the toniest prep(St. Georges in Newport) and Yale( need I??). He hopped from the draft with a Doc's diagnosis for a back problem and then proceeded to spend the winter skiing in Aspen. a card well plaid in these parts. However, if we're going to be throwing stones about draft evasion or utilizing powerful daddies to get out of military service. Atleast Bush, went into the guard.

[Cornholio]

Originally posted by Yossarian
$50 on Sharpton. Takers?

heh.

HA!

HA HA.

Thought you were serious for a second, then I started laughing out loud.

heh.

[shamrockpow]

Originally posted by The AD
I just read in the paper today that Dick Cheney now says he would support a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

It repulses me that anyone is even considering amending the Constitution for something so ridiculous. Just one more reason for "anyone but Bush/Cheney" in my book.

Doesn't Cheney have a lesbian daughter??? If this is true, the man is seriously a fucked up person and just as hypocritical as Strom Thurmond...

[Spats]

So people don't want to vote for Dean because the Republican-controlled mass media thinks he's "unelectable".

Did it ever occur to you that the reason Fox News, Clear Channel, and the rest of the major Bush campaign contributors are tarring Dean as "unelectable" is precisely because he's the candidate they're most scared of?

Hell, he's the only pro-gun Democrat, which means he won't automatically lose the South. Sounds way more electable to me just based on that alone.

The Iraq war was sold to Congress based on evidence and statements that Bush and his administration knew to be false -- a FELONY. Their case for war has been completely discredited, the dollar is plummeting, the economy is still in the tank, and it's not clear that the Republicans can hold together their unstable pyramid of lies and fear until November no matter how many bogus "Terror Alerts" they put the country on. So they'd love nothing more than a pantywaist like Lieberman to run against.

Dean scares them because he's been calling them on their bullshit and not backing down -- and because he's looking smarter and righter with each passing day.

[swiss powda]

Originally posted by Spats
the economy is still in the tank

ummm, no. Unless you consider 3+ quarters of gain from DJIA, NASDAQ and the S&P 500 to be an economy that has yet to start it's upward pull.

edit: Also, I'm not voting because I'm not registered to vote. It's the electoral college's decision anyway. I'll register for local voting once I figure out where I'll be after university.

[Ripzalot]

I'm surprised to see that there isn't an overwhelming round of support for Dean here! After all, he is a skier.

[mr_gyptian]

Spats,

I'll trade you Fox News, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, and every religous right outlet( I cannot name them, for I am not of that persuasion).

For...

ABC, CBS, NBC,CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, NPR and, and, and...

As far as Rupert Murdoch vs. Michael Eisner's fight to the death. We can decide the proper location and time later.

[grrrr]

Originally posted by Spats
Hell, he's the only pro-gun Democrat, which means he won't automatically lose the South. Sounds way more electable to me just based on that alone.

"I am a gun owner and a hunter, and I believe that law-abiding adults have the right to own firearms." Wesley Clark

[Platinum Pete]

Originally posted by swiss powda
ummm, no. Unless you consider 3+ quarters of gain from DJIA, NASDAQ and the S&P 500 to be an economy that has yet to start it's upward pull.

edit: Also, I'm not voting because I'm not registered to vote. It's the electoral college's decision anyway. I'll register for local voting once I figure out where I'll be after university.

That's a definition of a recovery for the rich. Those people whose fortunes are tied to investments are getting wealthier doing nothing, while the jobs that were lost are not coming back.

You should register to vote, and get sent an absentee ballot. Where ever you go to university need not be your residence. The electoral college system is screwy and disenfranchising, but do not cop out on your responsibility to make your voice heard.

[board]

Originally posted by Platinum Pete
while the jobs that were lost are not coming back.

.

exactly ! the labor dept press release last friday said it all. Also just wait till they raise interest rates this year which will happen before the november election. Any of the democratic challengers are going to have plenty of ammo to use against Bush.

[Mcwop]

From Scrappleface

Clueless in Command: Bush May Be Autistic Savant

(2004-01-11) -- White House psychologists announced today that President George Bush may be an autistic savant, a condition which combines developmental disability with extraordinary mental abilities often involving memory skills.

The revelation comes after a week in which Mr. Bush's former treasury secretary said that at cabinet meetings the president resembled a blind man in room full of deaf people, and a New York Times report today that Mr. Bush actually serves as the mastermind behind his phenomenally well-run re-election campaign.

"He shows the classic social aloofness and developmental delays of autism with his staff," said an unnamed White House psychologist. "However, he has memorized the names of thousands of obscure campaign workers nationwide, as well as exact state-by-state polling results and fundraising figures."

The announcement confirms what Democrat critics have said of Mr. Bush for several years -- that he lacks the mental acumen to serve as the nation's chief executive, yet is so politically shrewd that his every move and word serve his carefully-crafted political ambitions."

[CUBUCK]

Also just wait till they raise interest rates this year which will happen before the november election.

When this happens its the sign of a growing economy not a sign of weakness. i can't remember an election where an incumbant president loss because the economy was growing too fast. I think you also have to keep in mind that the unemployment numbers are at the 30 year average for the country not at some record high. I know that doesn't give any comfort to those who are out of work but things are not as bad as most believe.

I think there are plenty of issues the Dems can tap into but the economy is not going to be one of them

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by CUBUCK

I think there are plenty of issues the Dems can tap into but the economy is not going to be one of them

Try telling that to the unemployed or to the working poor or to those who are being foreclosed upon.
http://www.indianamba.org/Downloads/...20research.pdf

The economy is a big issue, a lot of people have lost their jobs and the employment scene is really tight for those of us who work and are not in college.

[mr_gyptian]

Ever since the Bush tax cut took effect, the stock market has risen 25 percent, the economy has produced 500,000 new jobs, the economic-growth rate has doubled, and business investment has hit a ten-year high.

It can be argued that these tax cuts and the largest entitlement since Medicare being established will hurt us in the long run. Joe six pack could give a fuck. Additionally, worrying about jobless people voting is kind of like worrying what Summit County is going to do with all this snow we're getting.

[Platinum Pete]

Originally posted by CUBUCK

I think there are plenty of issues the Dems can tap into but the economy is not going to be one of them

The economy is going to be keystone to the dems attacks. "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" All of the republican economy moves have been to the benefit of the wealthy, and that trickle down shit has been proven ineffective. Paul O'neil, Bush's former Treasury Secretary, is coming out against him.
The other big issues will be healthcare and security/terrorism.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Ever since the Bush tax cut took effect, the stock market has risen 25 percent, the economy has produced 500,000 new jobs, the economic-growth rate has doubled, and business investment has hit a ten-year high.

500,000 new jobs? Very interesting, where did you get that statistic? Would the same sources provide any data regarding lost jobs or the net effect? Or maybe even the types of jobs?

It can be argued that these tax cuts and the largest entitlement since Medicare being established will hurt us in the long run. Joe six pack could give a fuck. Additionally, worrying about jobless people voting is kind of like worrying what Summit County is going to do with all this snow we're getting.

Your opinion has been noted.