Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Our next round of candidates needs to be uniquely pro military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:07 PM
Original message
Our next round of candidates needs to be uniquely pro military
This will allow us to stop being painted as soft on terror, and our military leaders create an emotional response much like religion does.

Kerry had to much baggage to be elected, granted we found this out AFTER he was nominated, but if he had not made that testimony before congress, he would have been the incoming President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. no way....
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 11:10 PM by mike_c
Dems need candidates who do not pander to the pro-military right. The military is a tool for America's defense, not a political cause. We need candidates who can articulate this position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I consider myself pro-military LEFT
8 yrs. USAF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. I'm a leftist who's very much opposed to the influence...
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 11:24 PM by mike_c
...of the MIC in U.S. politics. I'm not specifically "anti-military." I do strongly oppose the notion that the military can do no wrong, and frankly, the misuse of the military as instruments of foreign policy-- a corrupt and greed-based foreign policy at that-- does little to give me confidence that military leadership is anything but a willing servant of the dark side.

on edit: I forgot to thank you for your service. My apologies. Thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. You're correct, I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Apologies if I implied as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. We need 2% more than we got
We will never get the right wing, para-military folks, but were it not for Kerry's testimony before the senate, there would have been no SBV, a Kerry would be president.

At some point we must become realist, if we refuse work with ALL Americans, we will not get the chance to lead any of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Would have been something else
That's what Republicans do. Smear and fear. That's all they do. Until people in this country engage their memories and being to think again, it'll be the same thing, on and on and on. Kerry's fighting the war didn't have anything to do with it anyway, it was lies told by the Scum Boat Vets and perpetuated by the Scum Media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticOhioLiberal Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. Well said! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticOhioLiberal Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
34. We had one
and the good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, Wes Clark will run in 2008.

Too bad the DNC had already decided who the nominee would be or we might not be having these conversations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peter Frank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. It wasn't the baggage...

The swiftvets and others told brazen lies. Remember how McCain was smeared in 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No,
the thugs are not supporting the troops just getting richer off war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. totally wrong direction
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 11:15 PM by Desertrose
in four more years folks are gonna be mighty damn tired of bush's never ending wars.


on edit: Kerry ain't president because of the voting fiasco and bush & co helping themselves to American votes.

PEACE
DR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I agree. NO way in hell I'm goin' pug lite next time....
It's the dem way or no way for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. As the primary miltary power in the world right now
I am pained to think that we need more of the same.

Our future would be far better served to spend the money on free scholarships for anyone who wanted to learn 2 or more foreign languages. We don't need smarter bombs. We need smarter strategists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. What does that mean?
How does one be "pro military"?

What is wrong with speaking the truth about a murderous, unjust, imperial war of aggression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kerry's not incoming president because of vote fraud
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. Don't be an idiot
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 11:27 PM by Gyre
This is the Democratic Underground. Democrats hang here. Not fascists, unless they're skulking around. You don't appear to be either.

Young Blue Dog's got to learn some manners and something about the culture or get booted the fuck outta here. We generally don't suffer fools gladly.

Gyre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. So exactly what culture do you promote?
Sounds to me your idea of culture is giving the right wing whacko all the ammo needed to make real democrats look like the anti-Christ.

Tell me then, is it traditional democratic political ideas you promote? Or some new social ones?

Maybe this is a good place to ask the question, did the middle class leave the democrats, or did the democrats leave the middle class. What does the Democratic Party now stand for? Do we have a coherent list of ideas and objectives we embrace, and ones we reject? Somehow our whole message got buried under some social issues mainstream America is not ready for.

For the record, I have been a registered and voting Democrat for almost 25 years, and my political views have changed very, very little. I also carried a union electrician card for 5 years, and was in the Navy 8. I think I have a pretty good idea of what the middle wants, and THAT is where elections are won.


You are probably right, I should not have posted here, my ideas are apparently way to extreme for this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticOhioLiberal Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
36. Gee
Sounds a lot like the DNC...you ain't been here long enough to open your mouth...gotta earn your stipes before you open your mouth.

Come to think of it, it actually sounds more like the Right Wingnuts...toe the line or shut the f up.

Have we really sunk that low?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. Why don't we just nominate a "moderate" Repug then?
The Repugs will paint us as soft on the military and soft on terror no matter who we nominate. And with the idiotic, mindless voters in this country it will work.

We should stand up for Democratic principles for a change. Then we might just win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laheina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kerry's testimony was honorable.
He told the truth. Nobody should ever be punished for telling the truth, but John O'neill was a Nixon flunky used to neutralize that truth, and quite frankly, Kerry made him look stupid on several occasions. He was a man with a vendetta.

However, voter fraud is what actually took the election from Kerry. It's what took the election from Gore. What we need to do is to keep that from happening again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. hmmmm kerry
a bunch of purple hearts,a bronze,and a SILVER STAR..bush-coward. what fuck`n baggage did he have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. His sound bites fro mhis senate testominy were brutal
You have to admit, the right did a very good job of taking the ammo we gave them and using it against us.

Would Dean have been a better messenger? What about Clark? As a vetran I really liked Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostalgicaboutmyfutr Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
19. Our next round of presidential candidates need to know
how to run a presidential campaign...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. What baggage didn't you know about?
Kerry's heroic service in Nam, then returning to help lead the opposition to end the war? He should have got more medals for saving 1000's more Americans and 100s of thousands of SE Asians from senseless deaths in continuing a war we couldn't win.

Maybe if the chickenhawk/war-profiteers who are creating the a new VietNam in Iraq had served their obligation like the John Kerry, perhaps they may have had a whole different perspective on using American blood to line their pockets and further their corporate/political agenda.

I love how people are so quick to say we are soft on terror when it was Bush and Co. who were totally clueless on 9/11/01. Your dog don't hunt Blue Dem.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. No one said we ARE soft on terror, but we APPEAR that way
Look, we have the same political agenda, so let us not make this personal....

This is not about Kerry, it is about our IDEAS, and they lost this round, and I believe it is because we allowed the right winders to define us in a way that made being elected impossible.

Remember, we needed to flip 2%, and I believe the SBV guys were responsible for that many. I could be wrong, but I would really like to prevent this from happening again. Having the idea we will be high and mighty and stick to some noble standard that is consistently voted down is a fools game. It is time we moved to a position we cac WIN elections and move our agenda forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. All we have to do is make sure our votes count.
Then our ideas win. Period. We will always lose by 2% if they control how the votes are counted. There is nothing we have to do to change our message, certainly not become more like them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. And don't forget they must be uniquely religious .....
I am kidding of course. But we need to run good candidates with character and intelligence and stand up for our own values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
23. Blue Dog Welcome to DU
...while these posts do not surprise me, they do offend my liberal love of inclusion. We do need a candidate who is not challenged by the reich on their appreciation of the military. Actually, Kerry was quite hawkish.

There are 56 million Americans in some way connected with the military. That's a lot of votes. Equating "pro-military" with "pro-endless" wars is a leap that some never fear to make. Do they intend to disband the army?

I supported General Clark because aside from Kucinich he was the one candidate who wanted to cut the military budget; however, he was the only candidate that could. Why? Because he knows how much waste there is in the military budget, and even better, he knew where it was buried. He called it the "make want" budget.

Only a military person will ever be able to reclaim that money and convince the American public that he would never do such a thing to weaken our defense. Only Nixon could go to China; only Ike could call out the military industrial complex.

It's all a matter of psychology.

Clinton's greatest weakness was the distrust he raised in the military. It made him vulnerable to attack by the right.

I am truly sorry for my party that so many do not "get" that. I honor people of great intellect and honor like General Shali, and Zinni. Are there others whom we should distrust? Yes, Myers, Sheldon and there ilk.

But the military is a military of families, and I weep for what is happening to them now that they are being transformed into a military of empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrewerJohn Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
25. Look, we have to stand for what is right
not just what is calculated to win the spin sweepstakes.

The Vietnam war was wrong. Period. John Kerry served with honor and heroism in that war, then displayed far more heroism by coming back and standing with his brother vets who had been hurt by that unjust war, demanding an end to that war before any more would die for nothing.

If anyone still doesn't get that, then they need to be educated, not have the issue finessed for them so their prejudices can be affirmed.

Kerry was only about my third choice for the nomination, and in retrospect I think he could have handled the campaign much better, but once he got the nom I supported him wholeheartedly, in part because his story clearly shines the spotlight on what went wrong with our military policy in the '60s, and by extension what's wrong with it today.

And that swift boat crap about his Senate testimony was nothing but a cheap smear, simply designed to push the buttons of those who still don't get it. You don't suppose the Rove machine didn't have something of the like ready to deploy against any of the other possible nominees, do you?

That's what they do. There is no candidate who can't have a lie made up against them. What we need, and what Kerry unfortunately failed to be, is a candidate who would call them on their lies and punch back without mercy with the truth about what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
26. Bullshit.
Kerry served in the military & his testimony was honorable.

You prefer the little AWOL chickenhawk, strutting around with his "mission accomplished" hardon. The fool who ignored terror warnings & sat at a photo op while our country was under attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. Can you see our own faults?
THis had nothing to do with anyone but ourselves, we nominated kerry, and everyone I know called him unelectable. He lost, we are the fools, and this had NOTHING to do with Bush, Bush was a weak canidate, but we nominated an extremist, we have to nominate and govern frm the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. No Way!
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 11:30 PM by G_j
and you can count me and most of the people I know OUT if that happens.

**edit: this was supposed to be a response to the original post.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. er, Kerry was an "extremist"?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 11:37 PM by brentspeak
An extremist in what sense? I'd be interested to know what you consider a "moderate".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
28. Part of what you say is correct, but there are people
here who equate the word "military" with facism, and are intellectually unable to break out of the loop. Unfortunately for the rest of us, most Americans know this, and so will not trust Democrats with national security.


Oddly enough, this is a recent development in history.
Carter was a hawk. Hubert Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Wilson -- hawks all. Historically, in fact, it was the Republicans who were doves. Yet you have people-- some have posted in this thread -- who assume the Democratic Party stands for some kind of kneee jerk anti-militarism, and anyone who thinks otherwise is advocating "Republican-lite."

There's a reason people laugh at the far left of this party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Such stereotypical BS...
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 08:57 AM by Q
...The 'far left'...as you put it...is no different than any other political ideology pushing their ideas. But perhaps they're a bit more honest when they say that there is a difference between a 'just' and 'unjust' war?

- The Right loves to equate being against a particular war with being against all wars. It seems you've fallen into the same trap. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie...as was the Vietnam 'police action'. Certainly you're not suggesting that people of conscience should support any and all wars simply because the opposition suggests it's UnAmerican to do otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Unfortunately,
"the far left," (as I put it) has been against pretty much every war, and is innately hostile to the military as an institution. Your own rather foolish post below this one, in which you talk about "two pro-military parties" and imply that would be a bad thing, is emblamatic of the kind of thinking that alienates the general public. The general public likes and respects the military, and is suspicious of those who don't. With good reason, I might add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewenotdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
47. Uh, Carter was such a hawk, in fact
that he allowed his popularity at home to circle the shitter rather than take his frustration out on the Iranians, as even Rosalyn suggested.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JSJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
29. you mean become... fascists!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baltodemvet Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
30. Kerry didn't have too much baggage
but he sure didn't handle it well. I agree that some basic credibility on national security is important but certainly not the only consideration. And the thugs will try to paint any democratic nominee as soft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
31. If you have TWO 'pro-military' parties...
...is the only choice left to vote for the most militant? The most pro-war?

- The Republians aren't better at national security and military issues. The media has helped create that illusion. Giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors doesn't equate with a strong stance on national security. Neither does attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or refusing to protect our country's ports and other security weak spots.

- Your idea offers Americans LESS choice. America doesn't need another GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. strongly disagree...
Kerry served honorably, but was trashed by AWOL George.

methinks you have been drinking a lot of koolaid recently.

Kerry's testimony before congress was courageous, truthful, and what the country needed to hear. Unless, of course, you're suggesting Vietnam was a GOOD war, and that atrocities were never committed?

geez, you should try harder to blend in next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. Unlike Vietnam war hero Kerry?
The GOP is going to smear any dem who runs. I think we need someone who connects -- whatever that means. Hopefully we'll get someone as charasmatic and plain spoken as Clinton to run in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewenotdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #38
49. They will smear any and all opponents
They did such a job on McCain that one has to wonder whether he grew to like it or was in it for the twins.

The only way Pukes would have been happy with Kerry's service is if he had returned in a box, then they'd have no complaints.

Maybe Clark will have learned from Kerry's hesitance to counter-attack and will be ready in 2008. We can only hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. McCain is a piece of work
Shilling for Bush for 2004 after he got roved in 2000. McCain has no dignity in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
39. How about Darth Vader?
Maybe Sauron? Should we clone Rommel? How much more "pro-military" can we be than we were this year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
43. Hey! I'm a Taoist (even though I'm Anglo), and no one is
more pacifist than Taoists. Well, except for TRUE Christians who actually "turn the other cheek," but obviously those don't exist anymore. Anyway, one of the great Taoist writings is the Art of War. Bottom line, there are some who "glory" in battle - these are not true warriors. A True Warrior sees the pain and agony that War brings. No one appreciates Peace more than a True Warrior. A True Warrior will avoid the devastion of war whenever possible because of the horror it brings, he does not rush to War, but he understands that sometimes the horror of the results of not fighting is greater than the horror of the fighting.

Personally, I think Powell was a True Warrior. Too bad George II already has his agenda set and was too stupid to listen to him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberteToujours Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
44. What we really need to do
Is stop appealing to the right-wing by trying to come up with candidates that please them. They're going to find some way to smear WHOEVER we send up there. Seriously, it doesn't matter who. No one is immune. If they have nothing, they'll make stuff up.

What we need is to send someone who WE LIKE. When we like the candidate, everything else will fall into place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
45. What do you think this is, Prussia?
Should we have military bands march down the street to attract candidates? Perhaps we need an American Hermann Goering? Goering was a war hero during WWI. Goering replaced the Red Baron when he was shot down.

Enough of this militarism and love of the war machine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
48. You mean like all our candidates ever? Clinton was the least apparently
pro-military candidate, but didn't have a problem using the military, wasn't soft on defense, and won twice. Kerry and Gore were veterans. Carter went to the Naval Academy. McGovern was a war hero. Kennedy was a war hero. LBJ was a hawk.

When have Democrats ever been relentlessly or even mildly anti-military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. I don't understand your thesis...
Kerry went to Vietnam;
Kerry earned five medals;
Kerry received three Purple Hearts;
Kerry served honorably...

Compare that with:

Bush used daddy to get him in the TANG;
Bush refused orders to get a physical;
Bush went AWOL and deserted;
Bush's "honorable discharge" is a product of what can be done if your daddy is a former Congressman; present head of the RNC and US Ambassador to the UN; and your granddaddy was a US Senator...

Bush "won" because of a complacent media willing to do the bidding of BushCo, and Diebold (not to mention a few ignorant Christians who voted based on a single issue).

How the hell can any other Democrat strike a greater contrast to aWol and the anti-military GOP???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Zug Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
53. And maybe . . .
. . . they should be anti-abortion, bigoted, intolerant, and for the dismantling of Social Security. That way we're a shoo-in!

NO.

Read this:

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 29th 2014, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC