Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (137103)	6/19/2004 11:39:25 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<There are a lot of people who don't like Kerry because he is too liberal (among other things). I'll probably vote for Bush, but I really don't care about Bush's political survival. What I'm more worried about is the Republican party, and Rasmussen's tracking poll consistently shows us being beat by the Democrats by 43 to 38%:>>> I had to look this up but there seems to be 48 Democrats, 1 independant, and 51 Republicans in the Senate. Although jobs are coming back, they do not have the prestige, pay, accumulated benefits they once enjoyed. So I would guess the working class Democrats are not too happy, especially since unions are having to fight for benefits today. And Republicans will need to fight to keep the Senate. IMO the Presidents job is too complicated for a mere Senator. He should have had the experience of running a major State, dealing with billions, with all kinds of organizations including the greenies, and crooked corporations like the energy and utility people in California. Without that kind of experience, Kerry will have to count on others to supply the useful ideas and will have to chose his cabinet with great skill and be great leader. So far, he seems to have a heck of a problem even in picking a running mate and his leadership ability is questionable. Sig

To: Bilow who wrote (137103)	6/20/2004 7:42:31 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'll probably vote for Bush, but I really don't care about Bush's political survival. What I'm more worried about is the Republican party, and Rasmussen's tracking poll consistently shows us being beat by the Democrats by 43 to 38% I find that an intriguing statement. On the one hand you clearly have the ability to see how damaging and doomed the Bush Administrations machinations were in Iraq. You didn't buy into the "open arms and flowers," you didn't buy into the "critical threat to our security" justification, and you didn't buy into the argument that the insurgency was from a handful of "dead enders, terrorists and Saddam lovers." You don't seem to feel that history will treat us gently on this war; based on either its justifications or its outcome. You don't seem to underestimate the long term problems we're facing with a destabilized Gulf region and with more potential terrorists who seem to be more passionately opposed to America. If I'm correct then you must believe that this administration is, at best, incompetent in foreign affairs yet, in spite of this, you say you will "probably vote for Bush." Is it because when you refer to the Republicans you say "us?" Is your party loyalty so great that you'd vote to ratify the unilateral and rash actions of Bush in the eyes of the world as "American approved?" Is that loyalty so great that you're unwilling to give a non-republican administration a chance to prove it's not incompetent or, if it is, that it's not dangerously dogmatic? Or are there other factors that you see as balancing the dangerous and bloody incompetency that this administration has revealed at the core of its being? Or maybe I am mistaken about your beliefs. Do you, in fact, think the Bush administration has performed well in foreign affairs? I'm genuinely curious.