Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn, when you say “they” I assume you’re talking about both parties?

-Cf

Yes. Both parties.

Go ahead. I’m ready. Convince me.

The Dems wants to put more money in first responders (i.e. police & fire fighters) to help protect America.

Bush and Co. has reduced money to first responders, increased fear by holding high terror alerts status since 9/11, and refuses to protect our borders

Bottom line: No one can stop a mad man who wants to do harm, but an increase in Homeland security force will help along with telling people the truth about real threats against America. I don’t think a mom in the middle of Iowa is at the same risk as a mom in or around New York from any crime, let alone terror.

Hmmm. Ok I’ll bite.

I’m a bit confused here though, first tell me who supports who. I guess I’m a bit removed from the security/soccer mom issue.

Which party opposes soccer, and which party opposes security?

Ha ha Greg.

I didn’t say either opposed soccer or security.

It is the targeting issue. Going after people on one issue as if they haven’t even heard of the others.

Politicians are continually insulting our intelligence - all of us - not just moms.

I would like to be talked straight to. Not down to.

I think it’s fair to say that women tend to be more family oriented than men, but family safety and survival are top concerns for both.

When Islamist murderers are attempting to kill as many of us as possible, it grabs everyone’s attention. When the threat of being wiped out by these serial killers is eventually reduced, we’ll find other, somewhet less immediate issues to focus on, like “free” health care and other “free” Democrat initiatives.

I’ve been wrong once or twice and I could be here, but it seems to me that this explains why Clinton appealed to the “soccer mom” demographic, which voted heavily for him. A majority of men thought he was a slimeball but a majority of women thought he was okay because he promised them “free” stuff for their families.

Since 9/11/2001, the focus has been on survival, which is far more important to most of us than a boatload of empty social promises from Kerry or anyone else.

Oh yeah, and Greg please put me down for opposing soccer…well, except maybe for Mia Hamm’s victory celebration back in 2000.

Nototh:

While Hamm is possibly the greatest woman soccer player of all time, I’m gonna make an assumption (knowing that you are male and therefore single minded) that you were referring to Brandi Chastain’s shirtless victory celebration.

While the women’s team used ecxellent strategy, dominated the midfield with Michele Akers and pushed the ball forward to its dangerous scorers, while those like Kristine Lilly “manned” the defense, many simply remember Chastain whipping off her shirt.

JBOD:

Yeah, I know it’s a demanding sport with very complex strategies and all, but it just never really draws my single-minded male attention. Okay, maybe that one time.

Thanks for the correction.

Okay so let me see… single minded men only watch soccer because a woman’s shirt may come off.
Clinton got in ‘cause he was giving handouts. (I don’t remember getting anything free from Clinton.) Glad it wasn’t that he’s good looking because I never thought that. I was on the side of slimeball even before he admitted it.
So…Clinton won because there were more soccer moms who wanted free stuff than single minded men who thought he was a slimeball voting that day.
(I fit in the Security minded Soccer Mom who doesn’t like slimeballs category.)

Bush is the guy that walks like he has 42” biceps and Kerry is the bony one in the wet suit.

I am having a hard time between Edwards and Cheney. Cheney is the good looking one, right?

Then the wives … Theresa is the Rich B***h and Laura is the Stepford Wife.

Deciding who to vote for may be easier than I thought.

After all … who would you rather have a beer with?

Seriously…
I hope some women will join this conversation. I don’t know how many are regulars at this site and I was attempting to catch the attention of the ones that happened to stop by.

Dawn,
Moms and Dads better wake up and stop dreaming that Bush will keep them safe. He’s own people in Congress, the Intellegent Services, and private sector all say Iraq is going to hell in a hand basket and what is his remarks? “Well, they are guessing.”

Guessing about over half of Iraq is a “No Go Zone”
Guessing that terrorist is planning a direct attack in the U.S.
Guessing that our troops are safe aboard and at home.
Guessing that our citizens are under attack.
Guessing that Bush and Cheney has a snowballs chance in hell of winning in Iraq.

Now, we know Bush does not read, but you would think that even in his protected “Fantasy Land of Everything is Ok” some one would tell him and the rest of America the truth.

Women need to send a clear message this election to men who believe they can lie to them on one hand and try to scare them on the other. Security comes from those of us men who are willing to be man enough to tell the truth. Would you teach you son anotehr way?

Dawn,

I think the real watch-word for this election is: Trust no-one. This election is so bloodthirsty that every blogger’s facts are suspect. And the candidates are both spinning like mad. I recommend http://www.disinfopedia.org, and also http://www.factcheck.org/, to help sort out fact from, uh, rhetoric.

While we’re on facts, if you’ve got broadband, or even if you don’t, I highly encourage you to look at our decisive resolute leader in action during a national crisis - you don’t get this sort of insight into a person’s character very often. Before you make a decision about who’s best to handle security issues, http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm has the tape the RNC doesn’t want you to see.

Dawn,

There’s some buzz and a few polls out that give credence to your theme here.

This article for instance:

But the blame for Kerry’s problem may not rest solely on his own shoulders. Rather, as Tarrance suggests, the better explanation for this development may lie in Bush’s surging popularity with women more than any particular Kerry miscue. While Tarrance fingers Bush’s New York acceptance speech as particularly important, I cannot help but believe that it’s something more pervasive. A single speech that relatively few Americans saw in full cannot account for this extraordinary turn in an election. No, it has to be something more.

I’m thinking that Bush has developed some qualities that Ronald Reagan once used to garner strong female support. These characteristics were eloquently outlined last June by Michelle Easton of the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute in an editorial tribute titled “Why Women Loved Reagan.” Easton identifies three key factors:

First, she pointed to Reagan’s appointment of women to high-level positions.

Similarly, George Bush has given top assignments to such likable and visible women as Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Christine Todd Whitman and Elaine Chao. We saw many of these women in prominent roles during the convention.

Second, Easton cited Reagan’s respectful and loving relationship with his wife Nancy. The incumbent first couple exhibits some of the same chemistry. Laura Bush made her presence particularly felt during August, when Kerry was losing ground to her husband.

I did a check of the Factiva.com news database and found that in July there were 1,024 articles about Laura Bush. But in August, there were more than twice that number, 2,128. With Laura Bush’s favorable rating at 66 percent in both July and August, according to the ABC/Washington Post polls, that doubling of the coverage of Laura Bush paid huge poll dividends for her husband.

Finally, Easton said, “Reagan made women laugh — often by laughing at himself.” In the past month, we have seen more Bush humor, especially of the self-deprecating kind.

Over and over, I have heard ordinary people repeat his line from the GOP convention: “I knew I had problems with the English language when Arnold Schwarzenegger started correcting me.”

Like Laura Bush, women everywhere are finding reasons to love George Bush. hillnews.com

Henry,

I agree that the war in Iraq is not perfect. I will not agree to put the blame squarely on Bush’s shoulders.
If Clinton, Kerry or Santa Claus had taken us to war in Iraq it would not be a perfect war. There is no such thing.
I know… Kerry wouldn’t have taken us to war in Iraq (at least that’s what he told David Letterman). When Kerry said he would have taken us to war in Iraq - he would have done everything else different.
You want me to put my trust in a man who won’t lie.
Can you say, truthfully, Kerry is not a liar?
Truthfully now.
The only thing I can think of is that a person isn’t lying if they aren’t sure what there position is to begin with.
Maybe Kerry isn’t lying. He most certainly isn’t telling any of us everything.
I will not accept “I will bring in our allies to help.”
I want him to prove that.
Has he been secretly meeting with the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia? Are Senators/Presidential Candidates supposed to meet with leaders of other countries and make deals and promises without the knowledge of the President?
Just how can he say - for sure - that he can accomplish this feat without having already set it up?
Maybe Bush isn’t the only one who can’t tell the whole truth.

DAWN,

Soccer moms-security moms; vapid subserviant Oprah viewer on both sides of brain.
Nascar dads-beerswilling morons who are easily mesmerized and entertained by watching things go round and round in circles; same side of brain hmmmmmm.

Okay you may have something here.

Eric,

I can tell you for certain that I don’t feel that strongly about George Bush. If the Dems had come up with someone better and not run the type of campaign they are running I may have voted for their candidate.
I do feel strongly enough about the First Lady issue that even if I did like and trust Kerry chances are I wouldn’t vote for him because of his wife. (Not that I vote for the wife.) She changed her party because her husband was about to run for President. Does that mean all her views changed too? or is she pretending so she can become First Lady?

I have watched Kerry and his wife together and apart. At one political event he was applauding and laughing when she made a comment about 4 more years of Bush means 4 more years of hell. The other day when she was calling whoever it was a scumbag he tried to get her to come with him and you could tell he wasn’t pleased. A radio talk show host - Leslie Marshall I believe - said that Teresa Kerry represents the views of most women. I’d like to know how she got that idea.

I believe Mrs. Laura Bush has class and that is important to me. I have had that discussion with people about Mr. and Mrs. George Bush. People do like the relationship they have.

I also took my own little poll about our First Lady. I asked men and women.

Question:

Do you care what our First Lady is like?

18 yes
2 no

Instead of a yes or no from 3 women - they replied with … “I know I don’t want that Rich B**ch to be the first Lady.”

Of the 18 … 17 wanted Laura Bush to be First Lady.
The one who doesn’t really like Mrs. Kerry but is voting for Kerry is because her son isn’t going to get overtime since he makes over $100,000/yr.. She is mad enough at Bush that she said, ” I don’t care what names that women calls me. I just want Bush out.”

It is a package deal.

Dawn,
I can understand you being shy about taking the country to war, yet if America is forced to fight shouldn’t we use our best minds to win the war. Kerry has been listening to members on both side of congress. Also, he has listened to the lastest intellegence officials and he is starting to lay out a plan.

Yet, how can you as a mom plan a party when you are not sure of the entire cast. Bush’s actions in this election and the 3 months after will add or subtract from the problems Kerry faces on January 20th 2005 providing we settle the argument over the election.

Okay, Henry, let me see if I have this right.

Kerry is listening to people and starting to lay out his ‘plan’.

In other words … he doesn’t know what he will do. Just that he will do it different.

Doesn’t he then have to make an ultimate decision based on what he hears?
If the ‘plan’ doesn’t work exactly as planned, who will take the blame?

I will be watching the debate on foreign policy and I will listen to Kerry.

It was funny yesterday when a dem was talking about Bush being so strong on foreign policy and that Kerry will definitely have to be prepared if he wants to win. I thought Bush was the guy that hardly knew that other countries even existed?

I am still waiting to hear, from Kerry, exactly how he will get other countries to join us.

They may hate us and what we did but they should still want to help the people of Iraq.

I, for one, will not vote for someone who won’t tell me what he will do and just bash the other guy. That does not convince me that he wouldn’t be worse.

I agree that the war in Iraq is not perfect. I will not agree to put the blame squarely on Bush’s shoulders. If Clinton, Kerry or Santa Claus had taken us to war in Iraq it would not be a perfect war. There is no such thing.

The security picture is a lot bigger than Iraq.

In summer 2001, years after Clancy’s best-seller “Debt of Honor” was published (in which a 747 crashes into the capital and wipes out the US government), Bush and his direct appointee Tenet got briefings titled Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly and Bin Laden determined to strike in US, and tragically took no action. Tragically, because in this case forewarned would have been forearmed: the lesson of Flight 93 is that a few lightly-armed men *cannot* turn a plane into a missile, unless nobody is expecting it.

Bush dragged his feet on forming a committee to study problems led to not stopping 9/11, dragged his feet on testifying before them, and having his cabinet testify, and is dragging his feet on implementing the reforms they recommended.

Most agree that the main reason the professionals didn’t catch on to the plot in time was problems in communication across departments. Two and half years after 9/11, Ashcroft and Ridge are waging an open turf war and exchanging information between departments via CNN.

In Afghanistan, the odds are that bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora. A decision was made to go in with Afghan soldiers, rather than US soldiers, and odds are, bin Laden got away. Three years post 9/11, this internationally-famous terrorist, on dialysis yet, has not been apprehended, and some believe he’s still issuing orders.

One reason bin Laden wasn’t apprehended was because of a decision to go to war in Iraq. The reason given for this was to prevent a percieved imminent danger of al Qaeda obtaining WMD from the Iraqis—-a danger that in fact did not exist. Rather than buiding a real coalition, as Bush 41 did for Gulf I, Bush 43 decided to go into Iraq essentially alone. This raised the ante for the WMD bet hugely, and because of this failure in judgement, much of the US military will be bogged down for years, unable to respond to problems elsewhere.

Against advice from military professionals, Bush went into Iraq with a small, mobile force. The smaller strike force worked militarily, but was unable to effectively control the territory they conquered, so there was massive looting—-including looting of low-level nuclear materials—-and small arms that belonged to the Iraq military ended up scatter throughout the population. Which raises to me an important question: if there had been WMD in Iraq, how was this small mobile fighting force supposed to secure them?

Bush ignoring a rising insurgency for months. More recently, Bush has been criticized by his own party for giving
a false impression of the status of Iraq.

If you ask me, this is a long long way from “not perfect”. I don’t know how anyone will clean up mess in Iraq, let alone the budget and economy, but re-electing Bush makes a mockery of any notion of accountability for elected officials.

And by the way, don’t believe the RNC’s description of Kerry’s changes in position. His votes for/against the $87 billion funding bill one thing the Republicans raise repeatedly, but in context it was perfectly reasonable. Kerry was wary about giving Bush an effective blank check without a change in strategy that could avoid a quagmire, but he was willing to compromise and support a version that paid for it by repealing tax cuts for the rich. After voting for that version, which failed to pass, he voted against the final bill registering his disapproval of the strategy. Bush threatened to veto the version of the bill that Kerry supported. But this doesn’t mean that Bush was against funding the troops: this was politics in action. When Kerry voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use force *if necessary*, he said on the Senate floor: “In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days. To work with the UN Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.”

Since then his position has become increasingly critical of Bush. But then again, so has mine. We had poor intelligence about the situation, and so invading Iraq was basically a bet: it might solve a problem, or it might create one. But Bush’s execution of the war has created more problems than any but the most pessimistic of us expected.

I, for one, will not vote for someone who won’t tell me what he will do and just bash the other guy.

So… You are going to vote for Kerry? :)

Seriously Dawn, I’m curious. I provided the link to Kerry’s web site in a previous thread. Did you look at it?

I just don’t understand how you can say Kerry “won’t tell me what he will do.” Kerry has a web site and he’s written two books that detail the things he will do.

If the media isn’t reporting the details, it’s not Kerry’s fault (or Bush’s, for that matter - does he have a plan, or does he just hate Vietnam vets?). It’s your responsibility to find the answers to any questions you may have about the candidates before you vote for one.

It sounds to me like you just enjoy bashing Kerry.

William said: “If you ask me, this is a long long way from “not perfect”. I don’t know how anyone will clean up mess in Iraq, let alone the budget and economy, but re-electing Bush makes a mockery of any notion of accountability for elected officials.”

I still won’t just give my vote to Kerry. He talks big but still has not convinced me that he can do a better job.
He would be guessing too and the situation did not come with directions on how to solve the problems.
I guess he has finally decided he would not have gone to war in Iraq to begin with. Based on everything before and since it started. He won’t have the chance to look into the future (or does he have a crystal ball?) and make decisions based on the past if he becomes President.
Can you give me a time in our history when jobs were not lost in different sectors of our economy? When there were no changes in the workforce from one type of industry to another?

Jobs have been going elsewhere for a long time.

People have been coming into our country illegally for a long time.

I still say that the Dems should have come up with a better candidate.
Yes. You can say that the Republicans should have too, but that doesn’t solve anything.

We, the people of the United States, have to pick better candidates all the way around.
It would be nice if the two parties could actually work together and do what is best for everyone.

I know … I am living in a fantasy world.

It is my responsibility to find out.
He is selling himself to me.
He has a plan posted on his website? I don’t have a computer and internet access.
I check the stores every time I go for books. The 9/11 Report just arrived here last week and I bought one. Haven’t seen any of Kerry’s books yet.
We don’t all have the same access to information.
He has a massive network of people and seemingly endless amounts of money for his campaign and it is my responsibility to find out? Again, he is selling himself to me.
I have not seen campaign workers for either side in my neighborhood and I have seen 3 signs in peoples yards so far - 2 for Bush and 1 for Kerry.
Nothing has come in the mail.
No one has called.
The easiest way to find out - for me - and a lot of others is via television.

I listen to both sides. Both candidates.
I listen to both sides talking bad about the other and both talking good about themselves.
If we are not supposed to use the television as a means to get information why are they all on there talking all the time?

I make a choice of whether I think someone is just blowing off or if what they said really meant something.
Thanks for letting me know Bush hates Vietnam Vets. I never heard him say that. Did he have that published in a book?
My intention is not to bash Kerry. It is to find out what he actually means.
Can you tell me that the page you read on his website will still be there tomorrow? Can you guarantee it won’t be changed in any way?
What if I can’t get back to the site and check and he changed it?
I guess I would be the one who didn’t know what I was talking about.

I still won’t just give my vote to Kerry. He talks big but still has not convinced me that he can do a better job. He would be guessing too and the situation did not come with directions on how to solve the problems.

You’re a forgiving person, Dawn. I agree that being president is a difficult job. But at some point you have to look stop looking for excuses, and start looking for results.

While claiming to be a responsible wartime leader, Bush has wasted a huge government surplus, and wasted most of the military’s power on a poorly-executed, unnecessary detour from serious attempts to apprehend the actual perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. While doing that he’s consistently ignored expert advice, often from those that were explicitly there to advise him.

Sometimes it’s scary to make a change (he said patronizingly to the Soccer mom) but frankly I’d be scared not to.

Can you give me a time in our history when jobs were not lost in different sectors of our economy? When there were no changes in the workforce from one type of industry to another?

Jobs aren’t just changing, Dawn, they’re going away. W is on track to have a net loss in jobs over his 4-year term. The last time in our history when that happened was the Great Depression.

Dawn:

He has a plan posted on his website? I don’t have a computer and internet access.

In that case, Dawn, I applaud your perseverance and ingenuity in managing to take part in this discussion to begin with.

My intention is not to bash Kerry. It is to find out what he actually means. Can you tell me that the page you read on his website will still be there tomorrow? Can you guarantee it won’t be changed in any way? What if I can’t get back to the site and check and he changed it? I guess I would be the one who didn’t know what I was talking about.

So you are on one hand complaining that the information is not available to you, and on the other hand complaining that the information is available on a medium too easily changed?

http://www.archive.org - this site maintains public archives of websites, organized by date, that you can easily use to check if Kerry has changed his site from a past version. If you’re really that concerned about him editing his website to change his position, which frankly seems like an unfounded fear to me, this should help address such concerns.

Is it me or is it kind of odd that Eric signed a thread to himself, except of course with a link to Dawn’s mailbox? (fifteenth post) Is Dawn just Eric’s alter ego?

Do you you wear garter’s when you type your responses as Dawn, Eric?

You been sending stuff to Dan Rather, Eric?

Sorry Greg. I obviously wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing - my head must have been spinning.

Didn’t anybody get that?
I don’t see the point in reading that page on Kerry’s website right now.
He may change it tomorrow.

I am waiting for the debate. The one where he is going to go on National television and convince us he is the better man for the job.
I want to SEE him talk.

Then when it gets closer to election day I will go to his site and see if he is still saying the same thing.

Hmmm. Uh huh.

You mean Kerry equivocates kind of like Bush does on things like Weapons of Mass Deception related programs?

Sounds good Greg, or maybe it doesn’t.

Dawn:

Do you really think that Kerry is likely to change his web-page just to make it seem like he hadn’t said something that he had? What would be the point? People aren’t that stupid, they wouldn’t be so easily fooled, they would remember the previous version that they had read. Not to mention the hundreds of other web-pages that would still exist that Kerry has no way of editing that report on his position from information sources like his website. Editing it in the way you suggest he might would be tantamount to political suicide.

If you’re so worried about Kerry changing his mind, why does the television debate matter to you anyway? How do you know he won’t just say one thing to get into office then turn around and do something else entirely? If you have no confidence in his resolve on certain issues, if you really feel that he is the flip-flopper that he has been painted as by his opponent, how would a televised debate matter at all?

Ignoring the information put out by the man about the specifics of his plans on both his website and in his books as if it had never been put out at all, simply because you think he MIGHT change his mind on it in the future, doesn’t make any sense.

Jarin,
Thanks for making my point.

The debate - there is a difference between reading words off a page and watching someone say them. If watching someone talk isn’t any better than reading their words why are they having the debate to begin with? They are having the debate to ‘show’ the American people where they stand. The media is expecting more people to ‘watch’ this 1st debate than any debate in history. Both men are rehearsing and having experts tell them exactly how to stand, what to say - all of it. No matter how much they practice it will not hide the sweat.
I don’t expect anyone to never change their mind. It shows that they are paying attention and keeping up with things. Changing your mind because the polls or your advisors tell you to is something different.
Most issues that are brought up during elections are the ones that have enormously strong feelings on both sides.
The candidates fire up their base and get them ready to make a stand for whatever comes next.
It is nothing but a game. Playing on people’s emotions to get themselves into office.
Knowing that people tend to care about 1 or 2 issues gets them to forget about the rest of them.
I don’t know how many times I have heard - ‘He stands for this … I don’t really care about the other stuff.’

No matter how much they practice it will not hide the sweat

Have you ever heard of acting as a profession? Do you think soap operas are real people in real lives?

I suppose you think lie detector tests can’t be thwarted, too.

By the way, I’ve got some land in Florida and a great insurance plan for you.

Funny Greg … I was going to use that land in Florida thing on someone else… only I was going to say beach front property.

Are you afraid that Kerry won’t ‘act’ well enough? I was going to say something else not so nice about Kerry and bit my finger instead.

I stick to the real life soaps like ‘The Petersen Trial’ - boy am I glued to that one! I wonder why the media hasn’t set up a camera in his jail cell? It is my right to know when the man uses the toilet.

You have to visit this site:
www.security-moms-care.com

Lets keep America secure for our children!!!