Bush V Gephardt 2004

Bush V Gephardt. Its getting close to that time. Ive heard that G is the great Dem hope. I checked out his website. Had some good things like an "Apollo" type program to drastically reduce US dependance on foreign oil in 10 years & some stupid stuff like a pipedream about imposing a worldwide Minimum wage. How in the H does he expect super corrupt countries in Asia, Africa, & S America to follow that line ?

Anyways, I'm sure most here will vote Bush. We all like his tax break but I'm not fond of his foreign policy.

Better the devil you know than the devil you dont ?

 

I hate Gephardt. I don't really have much to say other than that.

 

It won't be G. It's going to be Dean and Clark, I don't know which will be on the top of the ticket, but that's the ticket. Dean's pretty conservative about money, and I like his foreign policy. Bush looks strong now, but Iraq is just getting started (Yeah, I've heard the propaganda, but again, I heard the same BS 30 years ago: light at the end of the tunnel, body count, you name it) and when the casualties start growing over 1000, the clammer for us to leave is going to kill his presidency.

Art

 

I was intrigued by Clark but I dont think he's going to make it. I doubt the Demo Libs can stoumach a General as their Champion. Dont know enough about Dean yet

 

Art, I believe that you are correct about it being Dean or Clark. I predict Dean with Clark as VP candidate.

However, I disagree with your outcome prediction. Despite problems in Iraq, none of the Dems have articulated one ounce of how they would handle Iraq & terrorism from this day forward. All they have done is whine about how bad Bush is.

That is not leadership. What Bush did on Thanksgiving was. And methinks the American voting public knows the difference. Oh, and did I mention that the economy seems to be recovering rather nicely in most areas--best growth in 20 years? I note the "horrible economy" whining rhetoric has disappeared from the 7 Democratic Dwarves' blather.

If it is sustainable, the Dems are phuqued.

All IMO, of course.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Some1 on the Vette forum stated eloquently that the Dems may push fro Clark, knowing he has a snowballs chance you know where. Bcus they want Bush to win so that the Iraq conflict will destroy him & the Reps & then the Dems can install their Great Shining Hope, HELLary. Wheres my puke bag?!?!

 

This is all amazingly interesting to me as a government employee reporting to the Executive Branch.

I agree that General Clark as a military guy is not what the liberal democrats had in mind, but what they are really not prepared for is his highly autocratic style. If winning the election is important to them, they have a strategic problem - the two candidates who are gaining momentum, Dean and Clark, are going to have to arm wrestle for primacy. I also agree with Art that Dean and Clark are the likely and best choices for the Dems barring anything unforseen. Dean's ability to raise money is startling. I believe it would be very difficult for General Clark to be a VP (I knew of him in Europe when he was SACEUR), unless he is strategically positioning for 08 knowing that 04 is probably a wash. He is very smart and very ambitious.

This election will be won or lost not on if the democrats put up a good candidate, but if the current administration poops in the street.

Especially if Mr Cheney steps aside for health reasons (an honorable out) and Condi Rice is the VP candidate(likely), or even Secretary Powell. Need no real explanation here as to appeal over the combined ticket, one over the other.
More of a strategic problem for the Democrats is that if General Clark pop-flys out as a vp candidate this time, and continues to build validity as a political force, he is incompatible with Hillary Clinton for a combined 2008 ticket. Especially as they may be running against General Powell. I cannot remember if we have ever had two 4 star Generals run against each other for president. I know which one is more qualified and effective, but that is 4 years away.

The Democrats really need a charismatic front person and some inspired ideas on where this country should go to guarantee success. Senator Gephardt is a smart guy with some appeal, but his party old line power structure is not in the best postion to support him. Despite their apparant supporters, Democratic senior leadership like Senator Kennedy are a liability nationally.

Just a couple of thoughts - interested in what others have to say.

 

Imposition of a world minimum wage will create nothing but greater unemployment...

Politicians do not understand economics. Democrats like these kinds of ploys because it plays into the emotions of the ingnorant.

 

that's just about the silliest thing i've heard in a long long time.

does anybody know the zip code of the PLANET mr. gephardt lives on?

doody.

 

Yes that minimim wage thing is retarded, I'm sure all the stupid bleeding hearts will gobble it up & its a noble goal but how in the world do they expect if to work when the IMF is doling out $ Billions to known drug traffickers in office in Asia, S America, & probably everywhere else in the world


The biggest problem the Dems have is that their pie in the sky goals are wonderful but they have no cost effective way of making them work. Philosophy teaches that although Good Intentions pave the roade to Hades Good intentions + Skillful means of achieving them is what is really necesarry, These skillful means are what the Dems are sorely lacking

 

Russ Turner, thanks for a very interesting & sensible post! I agree with most of what you posted.

One correction, however: "Dick" Gephardt is NOT a Senator....

 

Minimum wage is the same line of stupidity as is rent control. Rent control does not increase housing...it decreases the supply AND decreases the quality. But, I will venture to say that Democrats LOVE the idea of rent control because it is another idea that appeals to those who are clueless. Just ask the Sweedes about rent control.

Thinking causes people to become Republicans.

 

When Hellary comes on the tube, I tell my wife that "The Antichrist is on TV again...". She is tryly an agent of Satan.

 

You're joking, right?

Sneaking to Iraq under cover of night with your lights off into Baghdad International which is surrounded by razor wire, sandbagged machine-gun positions, mortar batteries, battle tanks, and blast shields, and spending a couple of hours with the troops and then sneaking out again is leadership?

How about some semblance of a post-combat plan before you blow the **** out of a country, saving our troops lives, not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians. That would show some leadership.

This draft-dodging, war-monger administration is a joke. Those that have never seen combat tend to have a romanticized view of what war is and what it can accomplish. How bout we send these guys over to Iraq to patrol the streets? This war would be over real quick.

 

"How about some semblance of a post-combat plan before you blow the **** out of a country"

Do you think we stayed up late at night worried about a post-combat plan when we jumped into WW II ?

post-combat is code for (how can we hurt Bush and give the white house back to the Dems?) I don't even like Bush but at least he gets things done. Gore and the UN would still be treating Sadam like a King and talking to the slippery bastard. Bush sucks but at least he has Sadam hiding under a rock where the guy belongs. Sometimes you just have to get some things done in this world. I didn't want to spend the next 20 years 'talking' to Sadam. You can't talk to these people...you can kill them or spend your time trying to guard against the next 9/11, I vote we do both.


Going into Iraq
We planned for the blown dams
We planned for millions of homeless Iraq's
We planned for chemical deaths in the 100,000's
We planned for attacks against other conutries by Iraq

It is kind of weak to march around spouting off about how lame our post-combat plan was! You change the plan depending on what happens with the war.

I wouldn't want to be the man to tell Patton we can't storm across France and take out the Germany tanks, because we don't have a "post-combat plan" yet. He would have kicked that guy in the a$$

It took 7 years to fix Japan and Germany after WWII, if it takes 5 years to fix Iraq it will be a great victory in history. Sorry if todays fast-food mind-set doesn't understand this. After you bust up the country, you sit down for 6 to 12 months... look at what you actually have to work with.......and then set up a post-combat plan. What's the hurrry?

I know people die. But that is war, and mankind has always had war. This has been the fewest lifes lost ever by a huge margin. He have stoped 5 dictators...its never pretty but the world will be better off in the long-run.

Long-run is the key to understanding war,... NOT post-combat plans before the war has even flushed out.

Did Iraq officially surrender?
Did Iraq's thugs slip out of their uniforms and live to fight a different way?
Did the Dictator Die?
Did the Military surrender? Or turn on the Dictator?
Did the people raise up?
Did the troops take out the leadership of the military?

How do you plan for this?

Sometimes you just have to take that first step and then react to what happens from there.

 

1. It is ridiculous to compare Iraq with WWII

2. It was obvious that the U.S. military, with all of its resources, would destroy the Iraqi "army" within a month. In this case, the timeline should have been planned for. No?

3. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911. If you believe he did, you should stop watching Fox News.

 

Dave:
There is a plan to get out of Iraq: give up the contracts, and let the un take over, so that other nations troops help take over. that is a very simple and effective plan. Bush should not have invaded Iraq, it was a war of conquest, and we shouldn't have done it. Irrespection of that, there was no plan if the Iraqis decided to fight us after we had defeated their military. Apparently, Bush, et al, hadn't taken a close look at the West Bank, to see exactly what they were dealing with. Having said that, we need to make sure that the Muslim fundalemenatlist don't end up in power in Iraq. That means that we need them, the Iraqis to have a constitution where the majority cannot suppress the right of the minority, something similar to ours, perhaps.

Bush, et al, aren't going to do this without some very strong medicine, because, I truly believe they think they're right. That means that between now and the elections, another 1000 - 2000 American kids will die, and 10 times that will sustain severe injuries. For nothing. we as a people will then screw their survivors, make sure that those who were injuried don't get suffiicient support to live decent lives, and in general abandon them. That is exactly what we did with my generation, and I'm sure that times haven't changed. Don't argue with me over this, I have specifics, with names, addresses and phone numbers of my friends who that occured to, and there are more than one. My ex-partner, Derek Francis is a prime example. Got hit with agent Orange, got cancer, got nothing, until he died in 2000. His kid may get some compensation, maybe.

We'll see what the country is like come May or June of next year. That will be a closer look at what the election will look like. I was right about the WMDs, and I'm right about this. Wrong program, wrong time.

Art

 

I just ran into this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E56B8E35-2484-40C5-935E-B452A2C74769.htm

I realize the source, but the specifics seem to differ substantially from what the US press is reporting. If they are correct, them watch for more fun and games the next week or so, while they try for revenge.

Art

 

"1. It is ridiculous to compare Iraq with WWII"

No its not. WWII is just an example of a pure war. All wars are unique but the basic idea is ..... first you win... then you worry about what to do with rebuilding.

Logic is Logic. You don't skip doing something complex because you can't plan the after effects. You do what you have to do, and then you adjust and plan some more.



"2. It was obvious that the U.S. military, with all of its resources, would destroy the Iraqi "army" within a month. In this case, the timeline should have been planned for. No?"

We didn't know if the casualities would be 1,000's or 100,000's for our troops. Blow one of those dams and the water and floods would kill millions of Iraq's we had no idea. People feel so safe now...but if you watched those troops the frist 3 days... trying to get the gas mask on in under 13 seconds...that fear was real. Thank god it was a bluff.
We didn't know.




"3. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911. If you believe he did, you should stop watching Fox News."

Extreme Arabs... did 9/11. Extreme Arabs run Iraq. Iraq is a country that has attacked all its neighbors. Iraq lives by example of fear and torture. Iraq wants, seeks chemical weapons. The day after the next 911 is too late for me to worry about if we fairly attacked Iraq.

If Iraq gets its act together and then Irans people take that government back from the religious nuts that strangle growth and education... and Saudi starts voting and letting its kingdom democratize. ....
Did we do such a bad thing getting rid of the government in Iraq that single-handily stirred up hate for the USA amongst all the Arab countries?

Are you saying the Arabs are too dumb and backwards to ever enjoy Self rule?
Or are you saying we are to lazy to help them take back the wealth for the people… instead of the kings, dictators, and religious extremist interested only in holding the people down?

I say lets help them and help our selfs make this world a better place. You don't make a cake with out breaking some eggs. Democrats hate to break eggs.

 

Art, the al jezeera article is complete BS, and you know it. Come on!!! Get a grip!!!

As for the rest of your post, we'll see. As I have asked before, wait for the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad before declaring that you were "right" about WMD. You keep forgetting to do this... And as for your claim that thousands more US troops will die in the next year: weren't you also predicting tens of thousands of US casualties during major combat operations before we went in, and before Baghdad fell? LOL! And as for your desire that the UN take over: I agree but ONLY if the US retains overall control until Iraqi elections. The UN is 100% incompetent if they are left in charge, and have proven so for decades.

Bumboola, I am not even going to dignify your BS with a response, save to ask one question: would you have had Bush drive on an open topped car down Main Street in Baghdad instead of arriving under cover? It is truly pathetic that you cannot even see the good of what he did FOR THE TROOPS, they way he did it (to avoid risking the troops and himself), and instead spew more hate-Bush-at-all-costs bitterness over the results of the 2000 election. Somehow, I don't think you were (more accurately) labeling his predecessor, a TRUE draft dodger and war monger (Sudan on the day he was impeached?? Bosnia in direct violation of UN & EU demands??) as such. Ah, sweet irony & hypocrisy!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The difference here is what you and I consider "leadership."

Decisions should be made by the President, not by his "staff."

The real irony here is that I care a hell of a lot more for the troops than you do and have donated much time and resources to veteran groups.

 

??? Say what?

Leadership means leading from the front. I don't understand your comment about "staff", since it was Bush who decided to go...and who decided to go in secret in order not to risk others or himself unnecessarily.

Again, the American people know the difference between leadership and post-2000-election bitterness.

So I guess I don't understand your post.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here's a suggestion, sparky: STFU about things of which you know nothing.

How DARE you tell me about what or how much I care?

Have you asked me what my/my family's military history is? No, sport, you have not.

Have you asked what my/my family's involvement with vet & disabled vet groups is? No, sport, you have not.

Had you done so, you may have taken a different tack with your post. 'Nuff said.

You have just proven my point 110%, bubba. Remember, ace, he who says the most does the least. So far, you have made it a point, twice, to do the opposite...and it is rapidly losing credibility.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Whatever, Sarge...

I think you have proven your own point.