U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[bush_cheney2004]

That along with some swift-boater style BS might work.

Just so nobody misuderstands, I am just talking about how something could be spun in a swift boater like attack.

OK...but I don't think it will work because McCain never testified to Congress about American "war criminals" or deposited his medals on the White House lawn. He also did not go to Paris and consort with the "enemy".

McCain also had the opportunity to take advantage of "special treatment" but refused it, deciding to stay at the Hanoi Hilton rather than go home early.

The other problem any McCain "swiftboaters" will have is the contrast with Bush Jr's assailed record as a member of the Texas Air Guard. If McCain's level of service is not good enough, then the only thing better would be a postumously awarded Medal of Honor, but dead people can't run for president.

[Black Dog]

If McCain's level of service is not good enough, then the only thing better would be a postumously awarded Medal of Honor,

Actually the only thing better would be to be awarded the Medal of Honor non-posthumously. All the benefits, none of the being dead.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually the only thing better would be to be awarded the Medal of Honor non-posthumously. All the benefits, none of the being dead.

No, if not dead, they would still be "swiftboated".

[peter_puck]

OK...but I don't think it will work because McCain never testified to Congress about American "war criminals" or deposited his medals on the White House lawn. He also did not go to Paris and consort with the "enemy".

McCain also had the opportunity to take advantage of "special treatment" but refused it, deciding to stay at the Hanoi Hilton rather than go home early.

The main swift boat attack was that he lied about the battles he fought in, thats what did the dammage. After that they would rehash slightly distorted old news like his testimony before congress and the Cambodia thing.

Also, although McCain didn't ask for special treatment, he did get it. In the world of Swift Boating, the fact that he got it is enough.

The other problem any McCain "swiftboaters" will have is the contrast with Bush Jr's assailed record as a member of the Texas Air Guard. If McCain's level of service is not good enough, then the only thing better would be a postumously awarded Medal of Honor, but dead people can't run for president.

The same thing can be said for Kerry - he was a war hero with two or three purple hearts. They got him.

[bush_cheney2004]

The main swift boat attack was that he lied about the battles he fought in, thats what did the dammage. After that they would rehash slightly distorted old news like his testimony before congress and the Cambodia thing.

True...Kerry was preening himself to be president at an early juncture.

Also, although McCain didn't ask for special treatment, he did get it. In the world of Swift Boating, the fact that he got it is enough.

The same thing can be said for Kerry - he was a war hero with two or three purple hearts. They got him.

Not even close....Purple Hearts (no matter how many), do not compare to the MOH.

McCain may have some Tailhook convention scandal lurking in some women's past....we'll have to wait and see. Then there is the Keating Five affair.

[jbg]

You are probably right...I don't think the Forrestal is a good choice - which is obvious by the fact that the guy with the link is clearly an amateur.

It's also not "a good choice" for one other glaring reason; despite the fact that McCain may have made a mistake in his youthful days the mere setting shows that he was willingly serving his country. What was Bill Clinton, for example, doing?

[bush_cheney2004]

What was Bill Clinton, for example, doing?

He was smoking dope at Oxford.

[Kingmaker]

I find it a curious artifact of republican thinking that serving in a frankly disasterous war is somehow indicative of your qualifications to run the country. Especially when you consider the relative danger and quality of service of Bush and his various chickenhawks vs Al Gore, or Kerry.

Apparently military service is only important so much as you can use it to slander the opponent.

Support our troops! (kinda)

[jbg]

I find it a curious artifact of republican thinking that serving in a frankly disasterous war is somehow indicative of your qualifications to run the country. Especially when you consider the relative danger and quality of service of Bush and his various chickenhawks vs Al Gore, or Kerry.

Apparently military service is only important so much as you can use it to slander the opponent.

Support our troops! (kinda)

I am not a Republican. I am a registered Democrat, and usually I vote for the Democrats. Not bloody likely this time.

My post had nothing to do with slandering an opponent; it had to do with the fact that making an issue of the Forrestal incident would be a very poor choice. Even if I were handling strategy for the Democrats I would not recommend pushing the Forrestal button since it highlights McCain's service more than any mistake.

For the record, I and most pro-Iraq war Americans agree that Vietnam was unnecessary and disastrous.

Edited June 11, 2008 by jbg

[Kingmaker]

I am not a Republican. I am a registered Democrat, and usually I vote for the Democrats. Not bloody likely this time.

My post had nothing to do with slandering an opponent; it had to do with the fact that making an issue of the Forrestal incident would be a very poor choice. Even if I were handling strategy for the Democrats I would not recommend pushing the Forrestal button since it highlights McCain's service more than any mistake.

For the record, I and most pro-Iraq war Americans agree that Vietnam was unnecessary and disastrous.

I'm not actually discussing the behavior of Republican voters, I'm discussing the perception of Republican candidates. Frankly I don't give a damn about your stated political affiliation ( I've seen too many pretend democrats who always seem to be claiming in perpetuity that they can't support the nominee of the day), or the Forrestal incident. I'm pointing out how the American population somehow manages to have a double standard in regards to military service. Somehow Kerry's military service was called into question when compared to Bush, some how it wasn't an issue at all when comparing Al Gore to Bush.

Suddenly we're supposed to give a damn about McCain's military service.

As for being pro Iraq war, that's your cross to bear, the original reasons for the invasion have all turned out to be untrue, the occupation is best described as a fiasco, and it's bankrupting your government. You've picked a hell of a time to decide to back the Republican party.

[bush_cheney2004]

Somehow Kerry's military service was called into question when compared to Bush, some how it wasn't an issue at all when comparing Al Gore to Bush.

Suddenly we're supposed to give a damn about McCain's military service.

Senator Kerry's service was questioned because he questioned and challenged the very notion of service itself, its goals, and foreign policy execution. He publicly cast disdain on his brothers in arms, assuming that all felt the same as he did even as they lay dying in 'Nam.

Al Gore knew better.

As for being pro Iraq war, that's your cross to bear, the original reasons for the invasion have all turned out to be untrue, the occupation is best described as a fiasco, and it's bankrupting your government. You've picked a hell of a time to decide to back the Republican party.

The original reason(s) had not changed one bit...just the sales job. Social programs are bankrupting the US government, not Iraq.

Edited June 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Social programs are bankrupting the US government, not Iraq.

omg. I almost choked on my lunch on that one. Have you really convinced yourself of that? Because here's a tip-- you sure won't convince anyone else.

[August1991]

omg. I almost choked on my lunch on that one. Have you really convinced yourself of that? Because here's a tip-- you sure won't convince anyone else.

If you have time some day, look up the amount the US federal government shuffles between Americans and compare that with the amount it spends on Iraq. In particular, consider how much time Americans devote to being on the "receiving end" rather than the "giving end" of the shuffle.

Somehow Kerry's military service was called into question when compared to Bush, some how it wasn't an issue at all when comparing Al Gore to Bush.

Suddenly we're supposed to give a damn about McCain's military service.

As for being pro Iraq war, that's your cross to bear, the original reasons for the invasion have all turned out to be untrue, the occupation is best described as a fiasco, and it's bankrupting your government. You've picked a hell of a time to decide to back the Republican party.

Kerry's military service became an issue because he made it one. But I'll agree that he served, as did Gore. Clinton and Obama didn't, all. Obama, pathetically, is left to make vague references to an uncle and WWII. Edited June 11, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

omg. I almost choked on my lunch on that one. Have you really convinced yourself of that? Because here's a tip-- you sure won't convince anyone else.

We covered this last year...complete with math....you lost.

[Guest American Woman]

If you have time some day, look up the amount the US federal government shuffles between Americans and compare that with the amount it spends on Iraq. In particular, consider how much time Americans devote to being on the "receiving end" rather than the "giving end" of the shuffle.

Give me a break. All anyone has to do is look at the record federal budget surplus when Clinton was president and look at the record federal budget deficit under Bush -- and we all know that Bush hasn't brought about more "social programs" than were present when Clinton was president (quite the opposite in fact)-- to see what bull the statement I was responding to is.

a thousand times over

[bush_cheney2004]

Give me a break. All anyone has to do is look at the record federal budget surplus when Clinton was president and look at the record federal budget deficit under Bush -- and we all know that Bush hasn't brought about more "social programs" than were present when Clinton was president (quite the opposite in fact)-- to see what bull the statement I was responding to is.

Wrong on both counts....the federal budget...and Medicare Part D.

[Guest American Woman]

Wrong on both counts....the federal budget...and Medicare Part D.

Keep trying. But as often as you repeat it, no one is buying it ..........

[bush_cheney2004]

Keep trying. But as often as you repeat it, no one is buying it ..........

They don't have to.....the US federal budget speaks for itself. Iraq is chump change in comparison.

[peter_puck]

As for being pro Iraq war, that's your cross to bear, the original reasons for the invasion have all turned out to be untrue, the occupation is best described as a fiasco, and it's bankrupting your government. You've picked a hell of a time to decide to back the Republican party.

Just because it was foolish to go in (and I said it from day 1) does not mean it is equally silly to leave. There are lots of people who opposed the war who feel the US should not cut and run.

[peter_puck]

Well, if you're going to stoop to your typical neocon of lies and innuendo and shoddy facts, don't forget John McCain killed hundreds:

http://judicial-inc.biz/82jjohn_mccain_and...ss_forresta.htm

Just as a post script to this forrestal crap, I have ran accross a few other pages laid out exactly like that one with pictures describing a major incident. Just like the Forrestal page, at the bottom there is a note explaining how the jews and marxists are responsible.

[Shady]

Keep trying. But as often as you repeat it, no one is buying it ..........

Sorry, but unfortunately you're wrong. Much to the dismay of many Conservatives, Bush has increased spending on social programs by a large amount. Education spending is up some 40% since 2001 (and yet you'll find Democrats who'll insist not enough money is being spent, I think they'll finally be satisfied when every student has a gold-plated pencil). Also, the prescription drug program was a huge increase in entitlement spending. And the vast majority of the American federal budget is taken up by spending on entitlement programs.

[jdobbin]

Latest poll on the Obama and McCain match-up.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080612/...olitics_poll_dc

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has opened the general election campaign with a six-point lead over Republican John McCain, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Obama, an Illinois senator, leads McCain among registered voters, 47 to 41 percent. In the previous NBC/Journal poll in late April, Obama was leading the Arizona senator by three points, 46 percent to 43 percent.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, but unfortunately you're wrong. Much to the dismay of many Conservatives, Bush has increased spending on social programs by a large amount. Education spending is up some 40% since 2001 (and yet you'll find Democrats who'll insist not enough money is being spent, I think they'll finally be satisfied when every student has a gold-plated pencil). Also, the prescription drug program was a huge increase in entitlement spending. And the vast majority of the American federal budget is taken up by spending on entitlement programs.

So true...but the anti-Bush crowd insists otherwise. Here is dramatic comparison of federal budget outlays between 1956 and 2006; social programs and entitlements have reversed roles with defense spending to become #1:

http://ozzie.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/14...et-1956-vs-2006

[vAin21]

The people that i am a fan of are.... John Mccain, even though he has toed the party line on the war in Iraq, he has shown himself to be an old time acutal CONSERVATIVE. As far as i know, hes much less religious then most conservative candidates which to me is a good thing. That old seperations of church and state thing...

Mayor Juliani, Im really curious about this man, he preformed brilliantly around 9/11, so we know he can handle a crisis on a large scale, but id be intrested to hear his thoughts on the war, and what direction he would take it.

On the liberal side, I think Hilary Clinton is really doing the right thing in sticking to her guns on the war. If shes anything like her husband, she will be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If you look at Bill clintons spending record, he actually surrounded himself with people who improved the economy. As for Baraka, i really cant speak intelligently on him, the only thing i heard of him is he had ties with chicago black panther. I dont know how true that is, so dont take that to heart.

Anyways, post away your opinions, if you would like to see someone else run, by all means, post a name.

Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches in http://pollclash.com , what do you think about what you hear?

[jbg]

Just as a post script to this forrestal crap, I have ran accross a few other pages laid out exactly like that one with pictures describing a major incident. Just like the Forrestal page, at the bottom there is a note explaining how the jews and marxists are responsible.

And I care what an anti-Jewish hate site says why?