You do realize the Bill Clinton isn't going to be running in this election, right?
Too sad.
Dan
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
You do realize the Bill Clinton isn't going to be running in this election, right?
Too sad.
Dan
Bush ran against Clinton in 2000 and won, no reason why he shouldn't do it again.![]()
why complain when you are reminded what your last guy did when he had the chance.
one guy has nothing to do with it and the other guy does. It's obvious.
Dan
Clinton isn't running is correct.
However don't know if can say he has nothing to do with it. Seems to me I've heard on the network news, read in newspapers and magazines, and even seen links here that at least 4 of the original Democratic candidates were contacting him regularly for advice on how to run and what to say. I doubt this will stop with the primaries.
Nothing wrong with it, but I bet he certainly does still have a lot of input in the Democratic position, even if an out of work house hubby
.
anything to do with honor?
Hi, Dan.
Let them keep on beathing up Clinton -- that dog won't hunt any more except with those who are already 100% Bushites, so the time and money they waste doing so won't be used more productively!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Hi, KP.
Nice try at deflecting the topic. One of the major themes in this election will be the "two Americas," and Bush is clearly identified with the America that represents the rich and powerful, and is disdainful of the little people. Every opportunity to drive that message home is another nail in his coffin (figuratively speaking, of course! One never knows when the SS [Secret Service] may be listening in).
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
"One of the major themes in this election will be the "two Americas," and Bush is clearly identified with the America that represents the rich and powerful, and is disdainful of the little people. "
Will be a major theme if the Democratic political machine can do their job. Maybe will, maybe won't, who knows what will happen next few months.
But let's be honest now, how many of those in Congress you think have been within 3 generations (at the closest) of not being in the group you chose to create and place Bush.
I'll grant you there is a rich group, a fast becoming broke middle class, and the poorer. Some of the poor are truly desparate, and some live better than so middle class off the government programs.
But I will not grant that all conservatives are rich, or that all rich are conservatives, in the political speech sense. Most of those Dems are just as weathly and just as uncaring of the welfare of the vast majority as any group of Republicans are. Very few of them give a rats' *** about anything but power. The money is only an end to the power.
roger
Hi, Roger.
It's not just a matter of being rich -- it's a matter of whether your positions FAVOR the rich to the detriment of the majority. The Kennedy's may be rich, but they have a long tradition of public service and favor the majority of Americans, not just those of their own class. As for conservatives who are poor, I frankly can't understand them any more than I can the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans. They remind me of the joke about the world's first self-destructing mynah bird, whose owner taught it to say "here, kitty, kitty, kitty!"
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
"The Kennedy's may be rich, but they have a long tradition of public service and favor the majority of Americans, not just those of their own class."
I disagree to a point. I'll limit it to the present Kennedy king, Ted. I don't care what speeches he makes, I don't trust him, I don't believe he cares for anything but power and fame. His speeches for the poor are to bring them under his power and his programs for the poor are to keep them under his power.
There certainly has been collateral benefits, but they're the main object as much as collateral damage during a bombing run.
He's a power broker, a orator of stature that uses his voice to entice too many to actually believe he helps for their benefit when he's just enslaving them to build his base.
"for conservatives who are poor, I frankly can't understand them any more than I can the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans."
Hmm at least you admit you can't understand them, not give some glib failing of theirs to not agree with you.
BTW, where did the term Log Cabin Republicans for gay Republicans come from, that's a new one on me, guess I'm a bit out of the loop on that one. Hmmm, stereotyping Dave?
roger
Against anyone the ABB people pick.
.
Hi, Roger.
Here's their web site Log Cabin Republicans. They've been around for at least two previous election cycles -- were excluded from the Convention when Dole ran, allowed a small role by Bush.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
.
I heard the story of a woman who lives on Nantucket, and saw Kerry waiting at the airport. She approached him with a compliment, and he turned his back on her telling her to leave him alone.
requested an early return from Vietnam based on three wounds (two of which most of us slapped a dressing on and continued the mission musc as you would a paper cut).
He took advantage of position and influence.
pot/kettle ==same same
One guy wants to get out of cushy stateside commitments nine months early so he can pack for college, the other wants to get out of a hellacious war zone after getting two minor wounds and only one serious injury so that he might not die an agonizing death in battle.
Yeah, that's about the same.
You're kidding, right?
Dan
HMmm, interesting point.
The desire to get out of the battle zone certainly may be seen as understandable, even sympathetic.
On the other hand, if it was such a 'cush stateside' position, with the implication it was do nothing IMO, what difference did it make if he got out? as long as the legal technicalities were observed. Can't see any point to the debate really.
The debate about influence to obtain such positions was short lived, mostly because many (not all, but majority) of people that had any influence probably used it back then to get stateside positions. So that isn't a subject for the PTB to bring up, since too many of them have something to hide I bet.
roger
Roger, let's look at that "interesting point" in another light. An officer applied for and got a stateside assignment as an admiral's aide and left his men in harm's way. A report that I saw said that his "serious wound" resulted in two days off duty.
I wasn't in the military, all I know about Vietnam is second, third, and maybe fourth hand including cousins, friends, and public news. And those I met in community college later that had served years before.
Sorry, but while he may have taken advantage of the loopholes, if Kerry followed the letter of regulations and law, it's not valid to use it against him when so many other with any influence probably done the same thing.
I know my opinon on military matters and views on when and how civilian protest crosses the line to unpatroitic isn't as hard line as many, you and Ed for example. Shrug, that's the way things are I guess.
roger
Roger, what you say is fair, 'while he may have taken advantage of the loopholes, if Kerry followed the letter of regulations and law, it's not valid to use it against him'. Now, if the Bush haters would take the same attitude, we could drop this topic.
and it was ambulatory. Didn't actually need to spend any time away from his assignment but appeared to have been laying the groundwork for his early return to CONUS.
I do have to admit that he was not the only one who took advantage of this but few if any of the rest allow themselves to be billed as "war heros" (especially considering the actual circumstances regarding his Silver Star).
was that the two service records were being compared as equal when they cannot be.
Dan
They both performed their service.
They both had outside influences working for them.
They both requested and received early release from assignments for personal reasons.
They both operated within the constraints of Military Regulations.
Pretty much comparable across the board.
as I recall, also requested an early release from the service. The 'tough' guys volunteered for additional tours, and didn't head for the hills when they met the minimum criteria.
BTW, it sounds like you think that Bush's reserve duty was less honorable than Kerry's. Where and when did you serve? Did you place yourself at risk at all?