You really think the admin would be so stupid, with all the Dan Rathers out there, to falsify the translation of the Iraqi conversations? You don't think by now we would have heard a firestorm if there were the least bit of suspicion there? Sheesh, you have to take some things as fact or you just get ridiculous. Didn't you see the testimony? It was all pretty clear.
dwhite
Actually, Fred and Doug, last I heard (this morning) Dan Rather has almost come out and said he thinks the documents are true. CBS did not say they are forgeries last I heard. They said that they cannot "prove their authenticity" and so should not have run with the story. This is a far cry from admitting the use of forgeries. There's more to the story, but I didn't hear it clearly and haven't had time to check it out.
dwhite
While what you say may have merit regarding useless meetings, more telling is attendance to cast votes during normal Senate business. One cannot argue that attendance at Senate votes is bureaucracy or "useless" meetings -- it is what these Senators were hired to do. Both before and following their announcements of candidacy, both Kerry and Edwards had absentee rates far higher than most of their peers. As a matter of fact, Kerry's absentee record following his announcement actually improved after he announced. Before he announced, his absentee record was 57% (yep, he missed more votes than he cast).
Just a couple links found in a google search for "kerry senate voting attendance"
LOL. You mean the way Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman? No, actually "reports" are that the Kerry Campaign SAYS they had nothing to do with it. The jury is still out and I have a feeling some enterprising reporter will get close to the truth eventually.
dwhite
No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us. One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it, and one who is just saying anything to get elected.
Crawford? Vacation? I guess you've never been to Crawford. :) I really don't see a parallel between Kerry missing meetings on national security vs where Bush gets work done. Voters are looking for someone who can make the country safer and to make the evaluation you have to look at the resume, not only at what they say now. Here's a guy who missed most of his meetings on national security -- not a good thing by any stretch. People make time for the things they believe are important.
dwhite
OK, bottom line, no BS. You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative?
dwhite
I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear.
dwhite
Anyone that is in a position to
Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-)
I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician. It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly) come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin.
- Al
In article , snipped-for-privacy@hadenough.com says... [...]
Yes, the voting record is a horse of a different color. Definitely a potent negative in the Kerry column, I won't deny that. Not enough to tip the balance in terms of adding up all the other positives and negatives in my book, but possibly a determining factor for folks that are otherwise on the fence, I would imagine.
- Al
In article , dwhite110 @optonline.net says... [...]
You give him more credit than I do. Post 9/11, an aggressive offensive on terror was essentially a mandate. Plus, I don't think he believes it is potentially disastrous politically. On top of that, having pegged Kerry as being wishy-washy, he has very little choice but to stay the course. And, tragically, I think he really believes it will pay off in the long run.
Did Clinton really poll on vacation spots and tie selection?
- Al
I agree completely. Al
Inquiring minds want to know... Could you list a few of Kerry's positives?
I know I am confused. Over the last year or so, he has taken so many positions on issues that I have no idea where he stands. Take Iraq for example. He has taken so many positions that he has now said something at some point that everyone can agree on, however, not at any one point in time, AND that anything he says in the future will certainly conflict and contradict something he has said in the past.
Frankly, he makes my head spin. How can anyone really know what position he will take on any issue if he should get elected?
Personally, I don't give a damn whether a press/media organization is "slanted" just as long as they are upfront and don't try to hide it. For that very reason I can enjoy reading Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly on the same cup of coffee.
In article , dwhite110 @optonline.net says... [...]
That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running ability.)
- Al
[...]
ROTFLMAO!! ... you just may have something there, Al!
;>)
issues that I have no idea where he stands. Take
some point that everyone can agree on, however,
certainly conflict and contradict something he has said
take on any issue if he should get elected?
Here are his top two positives:
Beyond that, "good enough," albeit vague, wishy-washy or nearly anything else is all I ask for. For me the crucial issue is that GWB has burned his bridges with the world community. Very few of the mistakes, well meaning or not, that he (often with the support of congress) made are undoable. And no, being in better sync with the world community is not necessarily tantamount to bending over for every U.N. initiative that comes along. I believe Kerry, if nothing else, is capable of finding a happy medium with regard to diplomacy. Not necessarily as the result of any special skill set, but simply because he isn't GWB, I.e., he hasn't used up all his favors. He is in a position, with regard to the world community, of starting off with a clean slate. For me, that's huge. I figure he's been around Washington enough to keep from doing much damage otherwise. One other requirement is that whomever we elect will maintain an intelligent anti-terror momentum. With international cooperation, the type only possible with someone other than Bush, I think that's possible. And I think Kerry will be forced to pony up in that regard in the event he starts to falter.
Having said that, I think Bush gets a little worse than he deserves from the world community, and Kerry definitely better than he deserves (only because he's the Bush alternative.) But we don't have the option of telling the world community to screw off - we can only take advantage of the opportunity to start over.
Sorry for blathering on for so long, but my only alternative is to be productive at work :-).
- Al
Don't get me started... (is that different than "don't feed the troll?") :-) I'll trade all of my double-talk for that shop of yours!
- Al
on issues that I have no idea where he stands. Take
at some point that everyone can agree on, however,
certainly conflict and contradict something he has said
take on any issue if he should get elected?
Same answer I always get. Anybody but Bush!
His promise for a less dangerous and better future with no apparent plan of action to get us there somehow seems convincing to you??? What am I missing here? I mean, what else is he going to say?
Al, this is just all really over the top. Bush has shown he and his admin are anything but helpless. In fact, he sees his pivotal place in history and is doing the right thing despite the naysayers who have their own pecadillos. I think sometimes that Bush is just a sounding board for angry people to bounce their frustration off of.
dwhite
OK, well then I'll call off the attack dogs I had scheduled for you in the morning.
(but you're still voting for the wrong guy. Who do you think the terrorists in Iraq want to win the election?) ;)
dwhite
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.