I ask the forum a couple of week's ago why they were a Democrat/Republican. It really is odd to me that candidate's don't seem to matter, issue's don't seem to matter. And considering basically half the country doesn't even care enough to vote. Do we all just enjoy conflict's? I would like to pose a question. Why do candidate's and issue's fly out the window when they don't fit the argument we made in a previous election. As an example, When Bill Clinton ran vs. George Bush 41 and Bob Dole ,who were both veteran's, it was a non-issue to Democrat's at the time that Clinton took a pass on the war and went oversea's to keep from going. We all remember the letter's he wrote to request the pass. Now I'm cool if your argument is "it's not a big deal", and if you are consistent. I do however find it tough to listen to those same individual's herald Kerry now, and want to condemn Bush for serving in the guard. Can someone help me here?
Can anyone answer this
- Thread starter michaeljbird
- Start date
I'll start- Politics: One version...(used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
As someone supporting Kerry this time around (I supported Dole in '96), I think your question is good. I'm sure there are many partisans who basically are like lawyers and will say whatever it takes to promote their candidate - even if that means they'll turnaround and do the exact opposite next time around.
Regarding this election specifically - I did not feel the service of either candidate should have been an issue. I wasn't surprised that Kerry people played it up though - it's smart politically.
Bush people should have let it go though. When they try to downplay Kerry's service with slander - it only opens the door for all the National Guard questions.
Add to this the fact that so many in the National Guard are serving in Iraq - and how that compares to Bush's duty in Alabama - and it looks bad for Bush.
Also,if we were not at war, I think the issue would hardly matter at all - much like when Clinton was running both times.
Regarding this election specifically - I did not feel the service of either candidate should have been an issue. I wasn't surprised that Kerry people played it up though - it's smart politically.
Bush people should have let it go though. When they try to downplay Kerry's service with slander - it only opens the door for all the National Guard questions.
Add to this the fact that so many in the National Guard are serving in Iraq - and how that compares to Bush's duty in Alabama - and it looks bad for Bush.
Also,if we were not at war, I think the issue would hardly matter at all - much like when Clinton was running both times.
When Clinton ran no one seem to bring up service from either party being a big deal. When they talked about Doles military record Clinton applauded his service to the country. Clinton did not start running the man down. And it became a none issue. Bush keeps talking at least he was. How he is the strong leader from his experience. So Kerrys answer was a no brainier. It made it easy for folks to see the different approach the two took.
For me it is a matter of ethics. Clinton was against the conflict in Vietnam. He spoke against it and he asked that he not serve. Bush was in favor of it. Just recently he said he he supported his countries position. Then he took a back door loophole availible to the rich and connected. To me that is the difference. If Bush was for it he should not have used his fathers influence to find a way out of going.
I've got news for you fellas, doesn't make a shit if Bush served
in the Boy Scouts or Kerry shot a kid in the back, IT WAS 35
FRICKEN YEARS AGO....what DOES matter is WHO can lead US
thru WW3.......WHO DO YOU TRUST????????...I know what
side of the isle I stand on......
in the Boy Scouts or Kerry shot a kid in the back, IT WAS 35
FRICKEN YEARS AGO....what DOES matter is WHO can lead US
thru WW3.......WHO DO YOU TRUST????????...I know what
side of the isle I stand on......
Stevied, for you it is a matter of ethics....and you use Blowjob
and ethics in the same sentence....LMAO
and ethics in the same sentence....LMAO
Michael, you ask a extremely valid question, I'm independent as far as voting goes (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton Clinton, gw) so I'll try to answer your question. I think Murphy is correct in this partisan world party members will back there candidate in my opinion no matter what their record shows. Long before Kerry the nominee, Bush was running as the candidate TOUGH AGAINST TERRORISM, THE GREAT PROTECTOR. If he wanted to run on that ideology, then he deserves to be taken to task regarding his service, or more accurately lack of service. Because Michael, he did not exactly serve. He avoided taking a physical because of drug use, that's pretty widely known, although impossible to prove with his records being altered.
Interesting responses. Or in this case non-responses. Shamrock I too consider myself moderate. I really wish more people were. I just find it odd that some can take issue with something the other party/candidate did and then see it the other way when it's their party/candidate. I am aware not all situation's are exactly the same but the gist of it is. I am going to say what I said in another post. I think we as a nation seem to love conflict. Love to argue.Despite what our LAST argument was. It's a shame that it take's a horrific event like 911 or a national weather disaster, to see us working together as brother's and sister's. I mean we can all have an opinion and are entitled to it,but when the anthrax hit's the building or a plane goes through a building it's "God Bless America". Where were all the protest at ALL athletic event's in the aftermath of 911. We sang God Bless America on a daily basis. We were supporting our neighbor.We showed compassion. One of my dearest friend's husband was one of the 4 "Let's Roll" men that took down that plane in Pennsylvania. It put's life in perspective when you are that close to something. I see her often with 3 beautiful daughter's who will never know their father who was a hero. It's a shame that we argue over menial thing's when obviously we don't even know where we stand half the time. It depend's on what OUR CANDIDATE/Party has done, said,or is doing THAT PARTICULAR DAY.
Bird you are correct. The message of the day. It's tit for tack. You watch this week with Bush. Bush is going to bring John MC Cain along to make him look better. So Kerry I'm guessing will get a few of his Vet friends to re join him next week.
Now does any of this tell us what they will do about. Unemployment, health care, the deficit, Iraq, A Fair wage for those who work in poverty. Protect out borders. Thats what folks need to hear. I can make up my mind on who served how and when with out being told about it each week. That was then. This is now. What you doing for us now and tomorrow is the question we all should be asking.
Now does any of this tell us what they will do about. Unemployment, health care, the deficit, Iraq, A Fair wage for those who work in poverty. Protect out borders. Thats what folks need to hear. I can make up my mind on who served how and when with out being told about it each week. That was then. This is now. What you doing for us now and tomorrow is the question we all should be asking.
The fact that Republicans selected little shrub over John McCain in 2000 tells me they don't know Sh*t from Shinola.
HOW could you make that choice? Either Republicans are complete dumbasses or it was all rigged...setting a precedence for the Presidential Race.
HOW could you make that choice? Either Republicans are complete dumbasses or it was all rigged...setting a precedence for the Presidential Race.
