Quote:Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, called this afternoon for troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next year and negotiations with Iran and Syria over the war-torn country's future.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=252128
Do I have to remind you Democrats that one of these two nations is on record as saying they wanted to destroy another nation? That their leader denied the Holocaust?
Thanks Dem Voters.
RebelKev Wrote:Quote:Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, called this afternoon for troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next year and negotiations with Iran and Syria over the war-torn country's future.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=252128
Do I have to remind you Democrats that one of these two nations is on record as saying they wanted to destroy another nation? That their leader denied the Holocaust?
Thanks Dem Voters.
He's trying to set up for the next presidential election run, which he has no chance in he!! of winning. He's trying to capitalize on the low opinion numbers for the Iraq war that helped democrats take the congress. Remember that some of your republicans came over and voted for democrats for them to win.
No chance for this to become reality in the near future.
JTiger Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Quote:Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, called this afternoon for troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next year and negotiations with Iran and Syria over the war-torn country's future.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=252128
Do I have to remind you Democrats that one of these two nations is on record as saying they wanted to destroy another nation? That their leader denied the Holocaust?
Thanks Dem Voters.
He's trying to set up for the next presidential election run, which he has no chance in he!! of winning. He's trying to capitalize on the low opinion numbers for the Iraq war that helped democrats take the congress. Remember that some of your republicans came over and voted for democrats for them to win.
No chance for this to become reality in the near future.
Which just illustrates my point that some of our "leaders" are more concerned about the next election than about the future of our country.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Quote:Which just illustrates my point that some of our "leaders" are more concerned about the next election than about the future of our country.
Some!?
Yes, some. Bush could have averted the Democratic takeover if he had pandered to the election instead of working for the long range safety of this country.
It was easy for the opposition to say "let's get out" to get elected. But is it in the best interests of our country long range? I've already expressed my opinions on this, but I will reiterate: Within ten years after we leave, we will be back, this time in a much more difficult situation. We're leaving the field at the end of the first quarter, and when we return after halftime the game may be out of reach.
That revisionist history if I ever heard it.
From what I remember, many Republicans were telling Bush to stay out of their races.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:That revisionist history if I ever heard it.
From what I remember, many Republicans were telling Bush to stay out of their races.
And they would have been welcoming him if he had altered his stances on some things just in order to win elections. He chose to do the right thing for the country at the expense of his party.
I think you didn't understand what i said.
Had he been less concerned with the long term safety of this country, he could have changed some things, done a few things that would help the election chances of Republicans. would an announcement that he would start phased troop reductions have been an aid to Republicans retaining seats? hell yes. Think it would have shifted a few thousand votes in Virginia or Montana? You bet. Would it have been good for the country long term? Hell no. I'm glad he takes his job seriously. I'm glad he chooses to do the right thing instead of the most politically advantageous thing.
I have no idea of what historical changes you are accusing me.
My whole statement is based on on what could have been. That's like the discussion we had here a few weeks ago about what might, or probably, would have happened if the US had not used the A-bomb on Japan. Thats not revisionist history. Revisionist history would be saying the A-bombs never happened.
So tell me, what history have I revised?
Revising the idea that Bush didn't do things merely for helping the campaign.
You talk like Bush didn't even know that elections were going on. His party told him to sit down and shut up, so he did. Specifically, Bush did everything they wanted him to, stay out of their campaigns.
Besides my statement still stands, Some!?
Go to any state and you'll see "hot button" issues on the ballots in order to draw out voters. Issues that are really minor and (in my opinion) the government shouldn't be concerned about. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Revising the idea that Bush didn't do things merely for helping the campaign.
You talk like Bush didn't even know that elections were going on. His party told him to sit down and shut up, so he did. Specifically, Bush did everything they wanted him to, stay out of their campaigns.
Besides my statement still stands, Some!?
Go to any state and you'll see "hot button" issues on the ballots in order to draw out voters. Issues that are really minor and (in my opinion) the government shouldn't be concerned about. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
I see your point, although I think it a weak one. I was talking of policy changes, designed to appease voters who might otherwise drift away, like when Sen. Clinton modified her stance on the Iraq war to become a bit more prowithdrawal. Don't want to alienate the base, they might vote the other way. To the best of my knowledge, Bush didn't make any policy changes just to retain Republican votes. Staying home is not a policy change, and it has no effect on the long term future of the country.
Lieberman is another. Like Bush, he stuck to what he thought was right, even though it endangered his reelection. It would have been easy to insure his primary victory by just making a few concesions toward retreat, but he stuck to his guns. I respect that. I trust Lieberman and Bush both to do what they think is right and best for the country, even if they do not agree with me or even each other on what is right. I trust Clinton and many, many others, of all parties, to worry more about what gets votes than what is right. so in answer to your "Some?", I answer yes, there are some, but not nearly as many as I would like, and some of those paid the price in losing elections.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:To the best of my knowledge, Bush didn't make any policy changes just to retain Republican votes.
Stay the course
Maybe not an out and out policy change, but definitely PR.
Look, I don't say that all politicians are liars, but I find it funny how certain issues only seem to get every talking around elections time (Gay Marriage, stem cell research, etc). Or how about this absurd resolutions to "support the troops" or whatever with riders that everybody knows won't pass just to get the other party on record voting against something that is obviously wildly popular.
Political positioning is constantly going on in Washington and elsewhere, whether it is sending Pork back home or appealing to emotion.
I'll give it to Bush he sticks to his guns, probably to a fault.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:To the best of my knowledge, Bush didn't make any policy changes just to retain Republican votes.
Stay the course
Maybe not an out and out policy change, but definitely PR.
Look, I don't say that all politicians are liars, but I find it funny how certain issues only seem to get every talking around elections time (Gay Marriage, stem cell research, etc). Or how about this absurd resolutions to "support the troops" or whatever with riders that everybody knows won't pass just to get the other party on record voting against something that is obviously wildly popular.
Political positioning is constantly going on in Washington and elsewhere, whether it is sending Pork back home or appealing to emotion.
I'll give it to Bush he sticks to his guns, probably to a fault.
Definitely not a policy change. "A rose by any other name..." Call it stay the course or call it trying to win, still the same policy.
I was speaking of those who change their positions are the drop of a poll, rather than sticking to a chourse of action or policy they believe correct, even if unpopular. I was not referring to the window dressing, changing a hairstyle, throwing a coat over one's shoulder, going goose hunting, etc. Heck. even Lincoln grew a beard to be more electable, but growing beards is not changing positions on issues in order to get or retain votes, and for no other reason.
If a pro-choice candidate suddenly becomes pro-life because he is 12 points down in the polls, that is a policy change against the candidate's beliefs. If the same candidate decides not to be photographed in front of an abortion clinic, that is not a policy change. He is still pro-choice, and will vote that way if elected.