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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chowder who wrote (21055)	8/6/2004 4:25:16 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

DB, I think this assault (getting into the mud over Vietnam) is potentially very dangerous to the country (as I view an election of Kerry to be, if not outright dangerous, then "anti-beneficial" to this place), inasmuch as it lowers the dialogue to the mud. What the Republicans (isn't there anybody left in the party who knows how to run a campaign?) need to do is show a very centrist and somewhat conservative America what it might be like to have, as President, one of the most liberal legislators we have. Of course, that could be ameliorated, as a senator from Massachusetts, representing his constituency, might be defacto a lot more liberal than the same guy as president. Clinton wasn't really all that liberal in terms of the results he got (economy, fiscal policy), whereas he was very liberal in terms of the results he didn't get (social policy, universal health). Where Clinton was most dangerous and did the most damage, imo, was the way he wrecked the military in numbers, equipment and morale, and completely let us down in terms of national security and intelligence work. In those two areas (and we see it in 9/11, the intelligence mess, the lack of discipline in a lot of non front line soldiers--Abu Greib, from the national guards from Maryland right up to that "commanding" 3 star general in charge of the prisons) we have really been hurt and it's going to take all of 2 terms to restore what we need. In this last regard, a Kerry presidency, with its contempt for the military and its "Democrat" approach to intelligence (think Frank Church, Jimmy Carter, Slick Willie) could be incredibly dangerous. Physically, to our citizens at home and overseas. The real question of this election should be: are we going to be tough enough to be Americans about this new enemy (think WWII) or are we just going to be Spaniards about this whole mess? Kb

To: chowder who wrote (21055)	8/6/2004 4:28:08 PM
From: Libbyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

..happened so long ago, it shouldn't even be an issue in today's politics I agree with your thoughts that Kerry has made the Viet Nam war issues part of his campaign by declaring himself a hero, and using that as a major platform for his election. This is only an issue because of Kerry has made it an issue. When you look at his record, it seems once again that there is a situation of: I was for the war (enlisted), before I was against the war (protests, throwing away his medals), but now I'm for the war since I was a hero. (Viet Nam hero/medals) the more he talks, the more trouble he gets into. Very true, and Kerry seems to be causing the most damage to his campaign by his own actions.