SPare Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 OK, since my last post degenerated into going back and forth over dogma, here's the most substantial reason that John Kerry doesn't pass my smell test. The divide between officers and enlisted men is normally pretty large- less so in the infantry, moreso in other combat arms, and even moreso in the Navy. Just think of all of the war movies that you've seen where the boys in the platoon get by on the basis of their relationship with their sergeant, while the platoon commander (the Lt/ Captain) is some guy who's away a lot, not completely part of the group, doesn't get his hands dirty- and that's the infantry. Well, JK was that Lt to the guys who stand up for him now. The vast majority of his "band of brothers" can't stand the guy. I say this as an army officer- if an officer has to look in the junior (enlisted) ranks to find his friends, he's probably a pretty contemptible person- not because he makes friends with the men, but because he's been ostracized from his own circle. Now think about the patrician air that Kerry gives off today, and ask yourself whether a guy just out of Yale would prefer to hang with his fellow officers or with "the boys". In relying on the people who served on his boat, JK is completely ignoring all of his peers, the skippers of the other boats (unlike most Navy ships, it appears that the PCF were one officer gigs). Contrary to the protestations of journalists and spin doctors who have never been in uniform, these are the guys who know best whether the guy commanding the next boat/ platoon/ plane over is good, or if he's dangerous, or most importantly, if he's good at what he does, but is a blowhard who can't resist making every little thing that he does seem like the turning point of the war. Yes, I realize that there's a large factor involved at this time that's quite apart from his 4 months in Vietnam- this being his anti-war protests. That alone is going to skew some people's minds who would otherwise be ambivalent about the guy. But skewing the minds of the men on his boat is the fact that their Lt is running for president. If someone who you knew from college asked you to stand behind him at his nominating convention would you try to support him as best you could, even if you weren't very close at the time? Wouldn't you think of the good times you had, and bury your doubts? Of course- it's human nature. End of the day, two items that I've read pretty much sum up the issue: 1. If Kerry can't defang 250 guys with only a million bucks in backing, what kind of president is he going to be? -and- 2. Why would JK make the centrepiece of his campaign his contribution to a war that he is best known for opposing? Both items smack of a certain amateurism that Kerry just seems to exude. The Dems would have been a lot better off with Dean- at least you knew where he was coming from, and was being pretty honest about it. Heck, they would have been better off with Gephardt or Lieberman or Edwards for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan44 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Both items smack of a certain amateurism that Kerry just seems to exude. The Dems would have been a lot better off with Dean- at least you knew where he was coming from, and was being pretty honest about it. Heck, they would have been better off with Gephardt or Lieberman or Edwards for that matter. [/b] I think Kerry has been duped by Hillary's carefully positioned patron ..Terry McAullife, who originated the attack on Bush's service records and set the stage for the Swifties to pour out from under the woodwork. It has become the greatest faux pas in my years of political observation. Kerry had everything going his way...he had his Westinghouse Buddies..(ie Russert, McCain, Carville, and Imus) to spin whatever he needed. Now he cannot get past this...and Hillary is the winner in this. Larry Sabato from the UVA is an extremely cogent Political mind..he was on Kerry to win three weeks ago ..now he has posted a very telling article on his website that says it all... http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2004082401 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatFischer37 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 one problem with your theory about Dean, Gephardt, etc....they are non-electable. Whether you like him or not, Kerry presents the best chance of ousting W in November Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan44 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by PatFischer37 one problem with your theory about Dean, Gephardt, etc....they are non-electable. Whether you like him or not, Kerry presents the best chance of ousting W in November that would seem to be a no-brainer..Kerry ain't going anywhere and Nader sure isn't going to win.. Kerry has to come clean, he is in a free-fall and will be reduced to his base of about 42%...at the most. That will equate to the last Mass. liberal to share and spread his own special sunshine with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatFischer37 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 come clean??? terpfan44 I will take that bet of 42% anytime you're ready Have you checked out the status of our foreign policy, the economy and most of all Bush's track record in office? where do you get your info on world matters ...extremeskins.com? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 OK, perhaps they're "unelectable"- but isn't Kerry proving to be "unelectable" as well? I mean, seriously, if you're running a major party do you really want to saddle yourself with a guy who makes those kind of amateurish mistakes, and doesn't seem to take a strong position aside from party dogma? Also, isn't it really rather disingenuous for a party (or a candidate for that matter) to run against what they truly believe? I realize that this is a lost argument, but wouldn't it be better for all concerned if a party simply set up shop announcing what they believe in, and let the chips fall where they may? Running a guy like Kerry is really a cover for the fact that the Democrats have a reputation (deserved or not) for being soft on national security, and strong on social security. And yes, I realize that both the Hatfields and McCoys are guilty of this behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Kerry 2004 = Dole 1996. They were both inept candidates whose campaign was based primarily upon the belief that they deserved the Presidency based upon their long political lives. That ain't exactly inspiring to the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 How is Kerry unelectable if he's ahead in every poll? I know polls are meaningless right now, but come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Yeah Kerry not being supporter by REPUBLICAN vietnam vets is odd. But Bush's inability to cart out ONE GUY that can remember him during the time in question concerning his service (or lack of) smells rosy. I don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 How did Bush learn to fly a military jet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembered George W. Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations. "I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race. "He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time, and he left at the end of the day." Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 What scares me about this vietnam issues is Kerry won't just let it go, if he has nothing to worry about then why is he fighting over it, where there is smoke there is fire and his campaign manager is a fool to use this and the republicans know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Kilmer. Link me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I'm actually starting to buy into the conspiracy theory that Kerry is really a DNC patsy candidate whom they have no intention of allowing to win. I really do wonder if Hilliary on 08 does have any influence. Why doesnt Kerry just release his actual military medical records (not the stuff he posted on the web) and his journal that everyone is talking about. He actually is making himself look guilty. I actually hope he isnt, and that I can regard him as Hero. It's the only saving grace he's got from my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/133507.shtml Before you cry out about it being NewsMax, look at the bottom. It's an AP piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 He won't let it go because the republican machine is somehow saying without shame that a veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then allegedly exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place, and then didn't even bother to show up half the time for his National Guard service. I would fight back too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/133507.shtml Before you cry out about it being NewsMax, look at the bottom. It's an AP piece. Seems it's not so cut and dry. http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/9872.php Meanwhile, a retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said he remembers Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations. However, the time John Calhoun says Bush was in the unit conflicts with documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Kind of like Kerry's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Kind of like Kerry's? Point made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Honestly Des. I wish more than anything this election would be about vision for the future and recent political history (both the Pres and Kerry's) But that kind of stuff isnt juicy enough for the media or joesixpack. I also wish that both sides would stop accusing the other of doing something they themselves are just as guilty of. Are Swift boats under some sort of GOP direction? Of course they are. But so is MoveOn and the other attack machines on the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 But that kind of stuff isnt juicy enough for the media or joesixpack. And there it is. Pretty soon debates will consist of Madden games played using carefully chosen historic teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 And then guys like me would ask "why aren't they playing ESPN?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Hooper And then guys like me would ask "why aren't they playing ESPN?" Nader would be playing that by himself and demanding TV coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Speaking of Debates, did you see Russert this weekend? The Bush guy (cant remember who it was, but one of the campaign gurus) wouldnt answer the direct question "will Bush agree to all 3 scheduled debates?" Interesting. More still is the "shock" double voting problem in FLA. Seems the NYTimes discovered that 46 THOUSAND people voted in NY as well as Florida last Pres election. Think about that for a minute. I know Im the conspiracy nut in the bunch, but I have this eerie feeling that this election is not going to go off as currently planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Speaking of Debates, did you see Russert this weekend? The Bush guy (cant remember who it was, but one of the campaign gurus) wouldnt answer the direct question "will Bush agree to all 3 scheduled debates?" Interesting. More still is the "shock" double voting problem in FLA. Seems the NYTimes discovered that 46 THOUSAND people voted in NY as well as Florida last Pres election. Think about that for a minute. I know Im the conspiracy nut in the bunch, but I have this eerie feeling that this election is not going to go off as currently planned. I don't see why Bush would want to avoid debates. He comes off very well even if he does fire out a bushism every now and then. He absolutely owned Gore in 2000. As for the election, this one is shaping up to be uglier then 2000. I hope I'm wrong but I'm getting a little tired of reading that fraud is found and no one goes to jail. I dont' care if you are GOP or Dem our elections must be trusted by the people or we are in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.