Anybody But Bush!

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Actually, I agree with Sen. Byrd that President Bush does have to answer to a lot of people. I don't think the *system* gave President Bush too much authority though. I think the Congress gave President Bush too much authority. Sen. Byrd opposed the resolution, as I recall (could be wrong). I think he was right to oppose it. The President should not have the power to declare war. Congress ought not have the authority to cede that power to the President either.

It was honestlya brilliant political stroke on the part of Karl Rove. Make the dems either come out against a popular (at the time) war and be painted as anti-American, or vote for the resolution and get the power the president wants. It was a no lose situation for them.

I still wish more Dems had had the guts to stand up against it, but unfortunately, too many politicians were askeered of appearing "weak" so they thought they had to act as hawkish as the Republicans, from Hillary on down.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by bsears
doubletrouble_vb

I admire your guts in coming out and admitting you are for ABB and giving your reasons. It is regrettable that some posters thought it would be "cute" to leave the responses they did. You said nothing nasty or objectionable, and did not deserve to be treated so rudely.

Before you begin condemning others responses, you might want to read this thread. It may help clarify why some people left the responses they did. You may be surprised to learn it was for the exact OPPOSITE reasons you assumed.

 

[Sandy V.]

I guess I sit on the other side of the fence. While I am not completely entralled with Bush (actually, I'm pretty far from it especially on the environment and many social issues), Kerry's lack of a definitive Senatorial record really scares me as to what he would do in the Oval Office.

Since I agree with Bush's stances on national security and economic policy, for me, he's the lesser of two evils. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Does that make me an "ABK" (Anybody but Kerry)?

By the way, I think that this whole thread has a lot of merit. And I also like the lack of name-calling.

 

[jrydberg]

Yeah, it did put a lot of Senators in a difficult political position, but, strangely enough, I have a lot of respect for those Senators who did vote against it.

This has nothing to do with whether I support the war or not. The fact is the manner in which it was done was inappropriate, IMO. Honestly, I think the same can be said of the first Gulf War to a certain degree. In both cases, the commitment of US troops to the area was clearly a buildup to sustained military action against another nation. As such Congress should unequivocally declare war or unequivocally reject it. It is properly the role of Congress to do so.

It sets a dangerous precedent, IMO, for Congress to cede that responsibility to the President. Those powers were separated for a good reason.

Unfortunately, you are correct in that the political atmosphere put so much pressure on the Democrats that many of them could not withstand it. Politically it was a brilliant bit of maneuvering, but long term it will not sit well, I'm afraid.

 

[Laz]

Being one of the people you are talking about, I do appreciate the fact that you are voting, and I eccourage you and everyone get out to Vote. Every Vote is a slap in the face of the terrorists!

But I definitely appreciate hearing a Kerry supporter say something besides "Bush is an idiot."

AMEN!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

It's so confusing, and I was always under the impression that the President doesn't have the power to declare war by himself. Did this in some bizarre way alter our constitution? Isn't that what protects us from becomming a dictatorship?

I guess it's hard to know why certain congressional or senatorial members are making certain choices, etc. What a mess we have now! That what it seems like, anyway!

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Before you begin condemning others responses, you might want to read this thread. It may help clarify why some people left the responses they did. You may be surprised to learn it was for the exact OPPOSITE reasons you assumed.

And you might want to read my response on that thread. And if you believe the posts were for any reason other than what I said, please show me where the OP was nasty or insulting to the president or to any poster...I believe that is what auntpolly was urging people to ignore, not any political statement you happened to disagree with.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
Before you begin condemning others responses, you might want to read this thread. It may help clarify why some people left the responses they did. You may be surprised to learn it was for the exact OPPOSITE reasons you assumed.

I think you're missing the point. All the hmmmm's....were supposed to be used when one encountered a rude or insulting post. The op of this thread was neither.

Besides, it's gone beyond just a simple hmmm. Now they've created meanings for them that are more insulting than you'd ever be able to post.

If I tell you that I'm going to use the word "cat", but in my world the word "cat" means "moron" and I call you a cat...it's pretty much an insult, wouldn't you say?

Really, this is getting dumber and dumber.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by bsears
And you might want to read my response on that thread. And if you believe the posts were for any reason other than what I said, please show me where the OP was nasty or insulting to the president or to any poster...I believe that is what auntpolly was urging people to ignore, not any political statement you happened to disagree with.

Read it and I still think you are completely misunderstanding some of the responses and the purpose of this.

I use this technique all the time when I wish to acknowledge someone's opinion without taking a position on it. If you wish to read more into it that is there, that is certainly your choice to do. That is unfortunate, but understandable on an Internet message board.

BTW, your comments are ... interesting.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I think you're missing the point. All the hmmmm's....were supposed to be used when one encountered a rude or insulting post. The op of this thread was neither.

Besides, it's gone beyond just a simple hmmm. Now they've created meanings for them that are more insulting than you'd ever be able to post.

If I tell you that I'm going to use the word "cat", but in my world the word "cat" means "moron" and I call you a cat...it's pretty much an insult, wouldn't you say?

Really, this is getting dumber and dumber.

As I said, if you want to read something into a post that isn't there, that is certainly your privilege. I would agree with you that such behavior does make a discussion dumber and dumber.

 

[Disney Doll]

As far as nasty and insulting...most political threads turn into one big long "insult-fest". People call both the President and Senator Kerry names("shrub" comes to mind when referring to the President)or make commnets about their appearance(I seem to recall several comments about how Senator Kerry looks like Herman Munster). What those folks who stoop to that level don't realize is that it dilutes their message, which may be a good one, because of the childishness of how the message is presented.

In terms of the original post...I know there are folks who vote for one candidate just to vote against another, but I truly prefer to vote for a candidate that I like, think holds the same beliefs I do etc. I hate the thought of voting for the lesser of 2 evils, or voting for someone because I am, in effect, voting against someone else. I don't believe that is the best use of my vote.

 

[hydster]

I don't want to vote this year because
I hate them all the same! It's like being given a choice in how you die between the electric chair or firing squad..both choices suck for their own reasons!

 

[Sandy V.]

Disney Doll - I agree with your last paragraph about being reluctant to vote for "the lesser of two evils", but if my choices are "the lesser evil" and "don't vote", then I'd much prefer to vote.

I'd still prefer to be part of the process, and not sit it out simply because neither candidate has my full approval. You are right, though, it would be best to be passionate about voting for a candidate. I'm nowhere close to that right now.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by doubletrouble_vb
I've seen a number of posts challenging Kerry supporters to specify what Kerry will do better.

I'm happy to say I'm in the Anybody But Bush camp. Why you ask? How could she possibly have this stance? Seems ignorant and uninformed.

It's easy (it's so easy). A Democrat in the White House will lead to a Federal Government divided. It will do a very nice job of putting the branches of government at odds which is how I think it best functions.

It is my fond hope that the adverse relationship will put the brakes on the erosion of our freedoms. Also I believe one of Kerry's stances is the removal of government incentives for multi-nationals that ship their manufacturing/jobs overseas. Plus I'd rather see agribusiness in the oval office than the oil business (can you say $45 a barrel...who da thunk it when we invaded Iraq?).

Interesting opinion and thanks for keeping it civil. Regarding the comment "Also I believe one of Kerry's stances is the removal of government incentives for multi-nationals that ship their manufacturing/jobs overseas." I would urge you to visit here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225

I think this site does a credible job reporting political ads.

Richard

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

I don't mind the lack of opinions. I do think it is funny I post a statement in response to Why Kerry? and Why anybody but bush? statements and get that reponse.

Thanks richiebaseball for the link. I don't blame bush for the job situation ...I do disagree with one undercurrent of the article that outsourcing/offshoring will somehow magically generate jobs of the same calibre at home (although it didn't say that I must admit...just jobs at home). I don't think companies should be rewarded for sending jobs overseas...not with contracts and not with tax breaks.

I'll admit ABB is a bit further than I would really go...what I know right now is that the Bush Administration (as opposed to the President himself) has managed to meet some of my and my friends fears during the four years it has been in power. I'd rather give another cartel a shot at the White house rather than letting this one continue down the path its been on. They scare me so I'd rather have their power base (Bush) removed from office and replaced with some one who seems relatively harmless and has different domestic allies and supporters.

My main fear with Kerry is that he will promise whatever it takes to get re-elected during the next four years. However my fear of the Bush administration far outweigh these concerns...plus I don't believe the Democrats will regain both houses in November so my house divided theory still goes for me.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
It's so confusing, and I was always under the impression that the President doesn't have the power to declare war by himself. Did this in some bizarre way alter our constitution? Isn't that what protects us from becomming a dictatorship?

I guess it's hard to know why certain congressional or senatorial members are making certain choices, etc. What a mess we have now! That what it seems like, anyway!

I guess this is my point. The President should not have the power to declare war. But that's effectively what the Congress gave President Bush (both the current one and his father). Rather than making a tough decision (granted they were under tremendous political pressure), they basically said, we authorize you to declare war if you think it warrants it. One reason for the system we have is that it then makes the President *and* Congress responsible for war. Doing it this way leaves the door open for far too much political maneuvering on war issues. I think bypassing the mechanism for a declaration of war contributed to the mess (along with poor planning and execution).

 

[TheBellhop]

HEY LOOK EVERYBODY!!! I THINK I'M SO COOL BECAUSE I'VE JUMPED THE BANDWAGON ON HACKING AWAY AT THE BUSH!!!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I guess this is my point. The President should not have the power to declare war. But that's effectively what the Congress gave President Bush (both the current one and his father). Rather than making a tough decision (granted they were under tremendous political pressure), they basically said, we authorize you to declare war if you think it warrants it. One reason for the system we have is that it then makes the President *and* Congress responsible for war. Doing it this way leaves the door open for far too much political maneuvering on war issues. I think bypassing the mechanism for a declaration of war contributed to the mess (along with poor planning and execution).

So when this part of history gets ripped apart and studied by the experts, twenty years from now, are they going to say that this was the wrong thing to do? I mean will they say it was wrong from a military and historical perspective to go to war with Iraq?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
So when this part of history gets ripped apart and studied by the experts, twenty years from now, are they going to say that this was the wrong thing to do? I mean will they say it was wrong from a military and historical perspective to go to war with Iraq?

I think that's a different issue. Whether it was the right thing to go to war or not, this was not the right way to go about it, as laid out in the Constitution. IMO, the Congress should have told President Bush, appreciate the heads up, come talk to us when you're ready to *edited: to ask for a declaration of* war.

 

[caitycaity]

That could be code for "what you just said really blows but I'm not going to contribute to the negativity."

i can't believe adults are actually doing this. it reminds me of the cliques and inside insults that we had at my middle school!