| Poster | Message |
|---|
S Saines
|  05 May '04 05:11 : 0 recs : edited 7 times : last edit 05 May '04 05:42
I'll take the donuts! With sprinkles...and then give them away....OK...maybe keep just a couple...Krispy Kremes are very dangerous.
Cranky wrote /04 04:28:
[re: your musings regarding the sentiments of the military and their families. I would wager you a box of donuts (ask Saines) that they will resoundingly back Bush in this election, as they resoundingly backed him in the last election.
Reasons: historically, or at least since Clinton the undisciplined was in power, the military has been hostile to the democratic party here. Clinton vacillated between apathy toward and frantic overuse of the military, and treated the joint chiefs of staff (big wig military types) like punks. Gore was nothing more than a pale robotic version of the Arkansas slickster, so he duly suffered in the elections- note Gore's attempts to suppress the absentee military ballot in Florida.]
Things have changed!
[A Pentagon statement said various Army National Guard and Reserve units would be deployed with those forces. In a separate order, another 37,000 troops for combat support and combat service support duties, already notified to prepare for service in Iraq, have now been approved by Mr. Rumsfeld for deployment, the statement said. Of that 37,000, about 16,000 are reservists.]
U.S. Commander to Keep 135,000 Troops in Iraq Through 2005
One of the reasons that US/UK are in trouble is because they are very over-stretched. Sending reservists to do professional military jobs is...well, just plain unprofessional-like. This is not a case of occupying Germany after Armistice. This is dirty business getting dirtier by the day. Anyone who can't admit this is missing the obvious.
Exactly as many had predicted, albeit not our George or Tony! Nosirrreee! Them's got God on their side! It was all going to turn and Holy and Divine for the Bible Brothers.
The polls I've seen have indicated a rise in anti-Bush support even amongst military families. The backlash has only just started as Joe Sixpack is being sent to do the dirty deed, and then blamed when the back-room stuff leaks out. There seems to be a vacuum of responsibility above the ranks, save for one sacrificial Officer. And she's hardly gone all quiet. She's already laying blame up the ladder, including herself. That's far more than can be said about the civvy boys in the Pentagon.
NYTimes reported via Int'l Herald Tribune, April 11, 2004:
[Various studies in the past have found that overall, military personnel and their families vote at least 2-to-1 Republican; in some subsets, like elite officers, the ratio is as high as 9-to-1. But that backbone of support can no longer be taken for granted, experts say. And the large number of military personnel in swing states like West Virginia, Florida and New Mexico means that small shifts in military voting could prove decisive in the national election.
.
"Iraq has put great strain on the forces and looks a good deal more ambiguous than it did a year ago, and that has spawned a lot of disgruntled comments," Feaver said. "That is probably not enough to give Kerry an edge outright, but it does eat into the Republicans' natural advantage." Feaver said that discontent tended to be greater among short-term recruits and even more so among reservists, who never expected to be called to war for such a long period.
.
"The president is on probation with military voters," he said][...]
www.iht.com/articles/514292.html
"Among military families, questions about Bush "
(url is posted unlinked due to a glitch in interoperability of software. This is my sixth edit, and glitch probably due to IHT url being copied and pasted from IE6, due to display problems in Mozilla browsers, but NYT article copied and pasted from Firefox Browser. The IHT site is problematic for non-MS browsers. I'll pursue this in the Comments Forum) (any suggestions out there cyber-geeks?)
This election is Bush's to lose more than Kerry's to win. This Prisoner Debacle is not going to reflect badly on Kerry now, is it? |
|
| |  You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
2BrixShy
| 05 May '04 03:28 : 0 recs
Well then:
Thoughtful-
re: your musings regarding the sentiments of the military and their families. I would wager you a box of donuts (ask Saines) that they will resoundingly back Bush in this election, as they resoundingly backed him in the last election.
Reasons: historically, or at least since Clinton the undiscipliined was in power, the military has been hostile to the democratic party here. Clinton vacillated between apathy toward and frantic overuse of the military, and treated the joint chiefs of staff (big wig military types) like punks. Gore was nothing more than a pale robotic version of the Arkansas slickster, so he duly suffered in the elections- note Gore's attempts to suppress the absentee military ballot in Florida.
Kerry has the stain of his Winter soldier testimony on his record- that is, he testified back in '71 that virtually all soldiers in Vietnam were war criminals. Additionally, his voting record in the senate is chock a block with votes against any spending to benefit the military. His quote regarding the continued funding of Iraqi soldiers is priceless: "Actually, I voted for the funding before I voted against it".
As for your other perhaps unstated suspicion, that the parents of the military would vote for anyone that could bring their boys home- I think the fact that this is a volunteer military and you're talking about career soldiers takes this issue down a few notches.....also, I don't think you realize that the resumption of activity in Iraq is supported far more widely here than over in Europe and up north in the land of the expensive flags that can't fly (aka Canada). I am generalizing and have no factual basis, but I believe military families are very supportive of what's going on there- probably to a much greater degree than the general populace.
As for who I favor- if I was betting on the outcome- Bush. If I was stating my choice- also Bush.
The Betting rationale:
Frankly, I think Kerry is going to get beat like a dimestore drum in this one. Shades of Mondale come to mind here (he took one state- his own). He has to this point no message or issues other than 1) I was a Vietnam hee-ro, and 2) Bush sucks, and I ain't him.
re: Point 1- Today, a great public show was made of a mass of veterans that served with/under Kerry in Viet Nam voicing their opinion that Kerry is unfit to lead. Add that to Kerry's flip-flops regarding the disposition of his war medals, the growing suspicion that at least one (and possibly more) of these medals was awarded under very shaky circumstances, his weird treatment of his wartime medical records, and the murky circumstances surrounding his involvement with an Anti-war group that entertained the idea of gunning down Senators (complete with research on the subject recently being stolen from a reporter's house). This whole Viet Nam "issue" is rapidly turning from a positive asset to an albatross for the Easter Island Statue from Massachusetts.
re: Point 2. You can't run on a negation and expect to win the US Presidency. I despised Clinton with a burning passion, but I also have to admit he was able to brilliantly package his mumblemouthed nonsense into a series of "issues" that allowed him to get elected, albeit by the skin of his graying teeth and by the efforts of H. Ross Perot. The point is, even if you despised Clinton (which I did) there was something to his candidacy to point at and vote for. In contrast, Kerry to this point has thrashed about like Frankenstein fleeing angry villagers in his effort to come up with a galvanizing message or issue. Some that have come and gone like spring rain are let's see- George Bush has ruined our economy (whoops, the recession is ending), George Bush has authored a jobless recovery (whoops, 308,000 new jobs last month), George Bush is screwing up Iraq and the UN needs to take over (whoops, UNScam and the US populace hates that idea), Traitorous companies are exporting jobs (whoops his Wife's company has already exported 72% of theirs), and his new and improved misery index (whoops, everyone mocked it).
Add to that the guy is just a pompous spoiled dink. He married rich twice, has several mansions around the globe, and suffers from a virulent northeastern strain of Gore's disease- he gives off the arrogant impression that he thinks he knows more than anyone. In short, Americans don't like monied snobs. Kerry is a monied snob.
The choice rationale:
To my complete and gapjawed surprise, the Bush administration has done a decent job in several areas. The handling of the Chinese spy plane incident was masterfully handled- so much so that everyone has forgotten it. He has done about as well as one could with North Korea, given the hideous mess authored by Clinton and Jimmy "ghoul grin" Cahduh that was handed to him. I believe he has rightly assessed the Palestine/Israel situation, given Arafat's predictable disdain and disrespect for the "road map". Immediately post 9/11, Bush did great- there were a lot of democrats that shamefully admitted they were glad Bush was in the White House instead of Gore at that time. I was in favor of regime change in Iraq, going along with the policy adapted (by vote) in 1998 when Clinton was in office, and I support Bush resuming activities per Hussein's UN surrender of 1991. I believe removing the Taliban was the right thing in Afghanistan. I believe WMDs have been found (note the latest AQ arrests in Jordan I believe). Bush correctly sees that we are at war with Islamofascism, and that they are not interested in negotiation but domination. Domestically, I believe Bush's tax cuts have been extremely beneficial to our economy- and recent GDP growth figures would bear this out. I think Bush saw the error of his ways with the steel and other tariffs, and acted accordingly. I think (and Bono the everwise leader of U2 agrees) that Bush has acted far more substantively than the cipher that preceeded him on the subject of AIDS in the world.
I think Bush has made some horrid mistakes- the healthcare legislation he signed was a pandering joke, as was his immigration policy. His agreeing to sit in front of the ridiculous farce known as the 9/11 commission was a major blunder. I believe he has let the Democrats filibuster the judge confirmation process for far too long. He has made no effort to publicize the fact that Kyoto was killed resoundingly in the Senate during Clinton's regime, not his. His decision to continue with Cheney is a mistake, because in four years Cheney will make an unacceptable candidate- Rice or Powell would be far better options, which is weird considering that Republicans are supposed to be the party of rascists here in the states according to conventional wisdumb.
I also think Bush is a dreadful public speaker, and this is painfully evident whenever he shares a stage with your man Blair. However, the man is not stupid, despite all appearances. He graduated from Yale, and I believe he got an MBA from Harvard.....roughly akin to taking degrees from Cambridge and Oxford. I always thought it funny that Gore was considered the smart one when Gore barely passed undergraduate and flunked out of his masters program in Divinity- how do you fail the study of God?
To boil it all down- Bush is not the greatest, but realizes that we are in the midst of a war with people that despise us. Contrast that with kerry, who believes that this is all a legal matter (his words, not mine) much like Clinton did, which brought us 9/11.
Domestically, Bush is so-so but he did cut taxes which spurred our economy. Kerry has stated (equivocally of course) that he would erase some/all/a little/none of these tax cuts- typical. The fact that Bush wears his religious beliefs on his sleeve doesn't bother me so much- It got him off blow and booze, and I've yet to hear him say Jesus told him to blow up buildings or kill children or murder "infidels", so in comparison to the Islamic psychopaths opposing us he's pretty mild with the Supreme Being jibber jabber. Kerry in contrast blusters contradictorily about his Catholicism and authoritatively cites imaginary rulings by non-existent Popes, then appears before Jewish Organizations and talks about the 10 commandments- I forget where those appear in the Talmud, perhaps someone can help me with that one..... or maybe just Kerry is stupid.
Conclusion- Bush wins without breaking a sweat as things stand. And I'll put money, donuts, or beer on that bet. Takers? |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Thoughtful
| 04 May '04 18:08 : 0 recs
I would also supect that the soldiers families do not want them in Iraq either and that could be a lot of votes. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Thoughtful
| 04 May '04 18:01 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 04 May '04 18:27
I wonder who's side the military are on? The top brass and the ordinary soldier.
I would guess the ordinary soldiers do not want to be in Iraq and will do all they can to influence the Presidential election in favour of Kerry.
Then I could be wrong. Remember when many soldiers serving abroad had their votes discounted in the last election when the Florida result determined the outcome. i assume many will be voting from Iraq, will that be significant? |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
S Saines
| 04 May '04 17:32 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 04 May '04 17:33
Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!
Now in all fairness, that is not FOR Kerry so much as against Bush!
That is a very easy thing to write for a non-American, however, it appears Americans are doing the same! It is neck and neck, but Kerry has failed to make a case yet. People are not favouring Kerry so much as not supporting Bush.
Needless to say...LOL...I expect to see Cranky (2Brix) here shortly! |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
MonitorCM
| 04 May '04 17:14 : 0 recs
Welcome to the American Presidential election thread. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
|
|
|
