I was very impressed with the President's speech tonight

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Well....yeah, I'd say you are incorrect. You were already convinced before Bush ever opened his mouth, as were the people in that building. I'm talking about the people that would be swayed by the inaccurate attacks that the RNC just spent the past 4 days rather than by actual thought about the two candidate's positions. Having had more than one discussion with you, I do not consider you to be among the former group at all. You're just a little misguided, that's all

As to the president's MO of hiding while other people do the dirty work....have you actually paid attention to anything that has gone on during Bush's political career ? Every campaign some "shadowy" (his word) group conveniently appears to smear his opponent. You really think that's just coincidence ?

Obviously I disagree with you regarding "inaccurate" attacks. However, regarding your second paragraph: I disagree with the assertion that the directive to smear McCain came directly from Bush. And, in this case, that's the only way I would hold Bush personally responsible for that.

As for the SBV, of course they have an agenda. . .don't we all? Don't all people and groups who support a candidate have an agenda? So what! I wouldn't even consider this to be a smear campaign. I consider it completely appropriate to tell voters that he has not gained the support of the veterans he served with. Of course I would want to know that. If all of Bush' National Guardsmen didn't support him for whatever reason, I'd want to know about that, too.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
The problem with your theory is that it wasn't the right that brought up Viet Nam, it was Senator Kerry. So why did he do that?

He did it to show that he had defended the country in the past and he will not hesitate to do so in the future. He did it to counter arguments that he would be a weak commander in fhief.

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Could you please provide a link where President Bush has said that Senator Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief?

Actually, I don't know if Bush has, but Cheney certainly did in his speech the other night, and the entire RNC has been about almost nothing else.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Vietnam was brought into it because one candidate stood up for his country, while the other ducked it. It was brought into it because the one that dodged is accusing the other of not being fit to be commander in chief.

Personally, as a Kerry supporter, I would MUCH rather the focus of this debate be on the issues of today, rather than the issues of 30 years ago (and that's partially Kerry's fault as much as it is anyone else's). But if the right wants to keep bringing it up, then Kerry should just keep showing that contrast: one candidate put his life on the line to defend his country, while the other spent his time defending Alabama from the Vietcong.

JMO

if you want to argue the point of viet nam service, include the part where kerry applied for a deferrment and was turned down, it was then that he enlisted only to have a choice in what branch he would serve in...

another of kerry's misdirections, he wants you to believe that his first choice was to enlist,,it wasn't

 

[spearenb]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Abso-friggin-lutely....Heard a rumor this morning that they are also thinking of moving the Central Florida game next week to Mo'Town, but haven't heard anything else as yet.

A buddy of mine (and fellow DVC owner) would be absolutly POed if that did occur. He has 12 people going down for the game and is staying at BWV. At least I can pass the rumor!! That will be fun!!!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Obviously I disagree with you regarding "inaccurate" attacks. However, regarding your second paragraph: I disagree with the assertion that the directive to smear McCain came directly from Bush. And, in this case, that's the only way I would hold Bush personally responsible for that.

The "voted for it before voted against it" accusation of fli-flopping is inaccurate, and if you're being honest you'll admit it. As to the McCain attacks, it doesn't seem strikingly similar to what's going on today ? Why is it that this president never gets held accountable for the things done in his name ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
As for the SBV, of course they have an agenda. . .don't we all? Don't all people and groups who support a candidate have an agenda? So what! I wouldn't even consider this to be a smear campaign. I consider it completely appropriate to tell voters that he has not gained the support of the veterans he served with. Of course I would want to know that. If all of Bush' National Guardsmen didn't support him for whatever reason, I'd want to know about that, too.

Well, if they could find anybody that served with Bush, I'm sure they'd have nothing but nice things to say As to all these people that "served with" Kerry, how much more debunking do you need ? Now, it's coming out that at least some of the signatures were forged, and the vets they claimed were supporting them are anything but. Every day, it seems, they're proven to be lying about one aspect of their little fairy tale or another. How much evidence do you need before you consider something nothing more than a dishonest smear campaign ?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
He did it to show that he had defended the country in the past and he will not hesitate to do so in the future. He did it to counter arguments that he would be a weak commander in fhief.

If that was the point of bringing Viet Nam into it, I would question the effectiveness. President Carter served in the Navy as well, and he was a terrible CINC.

Originally posted by wvrevy
Actually, I don't know if Bush has, but Cheney certainly did in his speech the other night, and the entire RNC has been about almost nothing else. [/B]

He did? I listened to VP Cheney's speech the other night, and I heard no such thing. Perhaps I missed it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
He did it to show that he had defended the country in the past and he will not hesitate to do so in the future. He did it to counter arguments that he would be a weak commander in fhief.

Actually, I don't know if Bush has, but Cheney certainly did in his speech the other night, and the entire RNC has been about almost nothing else.

Hmmm, this is stunning to me. Why SHOULDN'T the RNC point out that, in their opinion, Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief? Some made that assertion, and then they pointed out that he didn't even want to fund the troops. There was a CONTEXT. (Furthermore, as Senator, if he wanted to fund the troops, he should have done it even if he disagreed with some of the other things on the bill. It's wartime. They need funding. That's the bigger picture.)

I don't think Kerry's fit, either.

Hey, did you hear about this: Kerry's campaign was attempting last week to respond to charges that Kerry, while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee suring the 90s, missed three-fourths of that committee's public hearings. The campaign claimed on its website August 16, "John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years and it the former vice chariman of the committee (emphasis mine). Actually, it was Sen. Bob Kerrey, not John Kerry, who served as Vice Chairman of the committee. Kerry still has not answered calls to release his attendance record for the committee hearings.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Actually, I don't know if Bush has, but Cheney certainly did in his speech the other night, and the entire RNC has been about almost nothing else.

Nope, just re-read the text of VP Cheney's speech, and he did not say that Senator Kerry was unfit to be CINC.

 

[Saphire]

It was a wonderful speech by the President. Here was my favorite part:

"One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong."

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by phorsenuf
But what does it have to do with today?

Why can't everybody just move on and deal with the issues at hand. Its so exasberating......

Here's my 2.5 cents.

9/11 and VN were both defining events in each of their lives. So it's only natural to refer to them when they are trying to depict their character and why they believe a certain way about things.

I don't see a problem with either of them using these events as part of the campaign process. As long as they do it accurately and with sensitivity.

Both events touched thousands and thousands of other lives directly and indirectly and I wouldn't have a problem with any of them using their experiences in such a manner either.

Just because it's part of a political process somehow makes it wrong and exploitive?

 

[phorsenuf]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
[B
Just because it's part of a political process somehow makes it wrong and exploitive? [/B]

I really don't think so. What made me question it was this quote in a previous post by wvrevy.

From the blatant exploitation of 9/11

That's why I was trying to find out why it was ok to exploit one and not the other.

 

[Mom2Ashli]

I thought his speech was GREAT!!
I have faith in him for another 4 years.

 

[Teejay32]

Today's Boston Globe:

Bush pledges hope, resolve
Kerry calls rival 'unfit', rips VP on deferments

They each get a few inches on column on Page 1. Page A21 is called "Rating the Speech" and 5 different columnists trash him, but I'm happy to report that there is an actual transcript of the Bush speech on page A26.

I thought it was good. Not much about Kerry at all in there.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I loved it. I love that Bush stands for everything I believe in (family, home, moral values, proctecting us and our country), and I am fervently hoping he is elected for "FOUR MORE YEARS"!!!

 

[louie694]

Bush is the right man, at the right time.
Kerry is all about the past, not the future.
The Vietnam War has been over almost 30 years now.
Let's move on.
We've got lots of struggles ahead.
Look, any enemy that would take over a school full of children, (as is happening in russia now) and kill many of them to further their political and twisted religious beliefs, is a very dangerous enemy.
Now is not the time for waffling, flip-flopping and inattendance.
Kerry doesn't talk about his Senate record, because there is nothing special whatsoever about it. Being constantly re-elected by the voters of massachusetts is no selling point. He is a rotten senator who doesn't even attend votes on key liberal issues. What a hypocrite. Let's move on, now. This campaign is over. 4 more years for Bush.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If that was the point of bringing Viet Nam into it, I would question the effectiveness. President Carter served in the Navy as well, and he was a terrible CINC.

I didn't argue that it was effective, just that that was the reasoning behind it

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
He did? I listened to VP Cheney's speech the other night, and I heard no such thing. Perhaps I missed it.

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don’t approve – as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics.

Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief – and that is to support American troops in combat.

In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate – and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed.

He may not have come right out and said it, but every one of the lies and hypocritical statements above certainly implies it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I didn't argue that it was effective, just that that was the reasoning behind it





He may not have come right out and said it, but every one of the lies and hypocritical statements above certainly implies it.

Yes, but that's my opinion, too! If I were giving a speech at the RNC, I'd certainly make that part of it. . .why is that wrong? 'Cause you disagree?

Uhhh, hasn't Kerry & Co. stated similar things? Hell, they still dispute Bush' legitimacy to BE prez!

 

[AirForceRocks]

He may not have come right out and said it,

So, "certainly did" say it has become "implied it". Just trying to keep the record straight.

but every one of the lies and hypocritical statements above

Where are the lies in the statements?

 

[Geoff_M]

Actually, I don't know if Bush has, but Cheney certainly did in his speech the other night, and the entire RNC has been about almost nothing else.

Wow, so stating that you think your party's candidate is the better person for the job over the opponent, and contrasting the two candiates, is the same thing as claiming the other person is "unfit for command?"

I think that the only person that made that charge against Kerry in NYC was a Democrat!

As for the whole "Went to 'Nam" vs. "ANG" debate. That's pretty much off the table since Bush openly acknowledges that Kerry's actions were more praise-worthy than his own due to the fact that Kerry was in harm's way and he wasn't.

As far as the "right" continuing to bring up Vietnam, that's a puzzlement. The topic was drug into the spotlight by John "Reporting For Duty" Kerry making his service there a major focus of his campaign, plus the media's (aided and abeited by the DNC) obsession with Bush's ANG records. Late comers to the topics were the Swifties (and I do think the bones they have to pick do extend past party lines)... and all the sudden it's the "right's" doings! (Add to this Kerry's attack response last night to Cheney's fictious attack on Kerry's fitness to be CiC by trying to drag in Cheney's Vietnam era history.)

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
So, "certainly did" say it has become "implied it". Just trying to keep the record straight.

Again with the semantic argument Fine. He "certainly implied it". Happy ?

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Where are the lies in the statements?

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don’t approve – as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics.

That's a lie. Kerry has answered that a hundred times since Dick came out with his cute little "permission slip" line.