It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Can any democrat win on national security?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The New York Times Sunday Magazine has an excellent interview dem candidate Howard Dean and analysis by reporter James Traub. It's clear that the donkeys have long had a history of national security "perception problems" as they put it, and will be hard pressed in the coming election.
 
www.NYTimes.com (Requires free online registration) The article by JAMES TRAUB is long (as are Sunday Magazine pieces) but well worth a read for anyone on either side of the fence. But especially for those of us struggling to straddle the often painful fence itself. [Edited on 4-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Outsider Dean will have problems on this issue, but I for one have been impressed with the real world efforts of Edwards on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Gephardt on Armed Services.

The main "perception problem" for the Democrats right now remains the one that "Dean is unstoppable."



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
In July of 2002, here is what Mr./Dr. Dean had to say on Bush and Cheney, as it matters to 'national security':

"Who would be your model as a vice president?

Dick Cheney. It sounds like an odd thing to say because I don't agree with almost anything he says, but he's incredibly competent. He knows how government works."


"Rate President Bush.

He's doing a fine job on the war on terrorism. I think he gets an F on domestic policy. I think the tax cut is irresponsible. His welfare proposal takes power away from the states and centralizes it in the federal government, as does his education bill. And he's done nothing on health care. So I find no redeeming social value in the president's domestic agenda."


Link:
www.gaypasg.org...


My, my.........how times change and now in Mr./Dr. Dean's zig-zag waffling road to the Democratic Nomination and a chance to be president, Dean has continually attacked and bashed Bush for his handling of the War on Terrorism.......
The only candidate that I see as having any type knowledge or capability of providing for this nation's, and its citizens, national security is Wesley Clark. I also believe, some what, that Wesley Clark is also the only one that will give Bush and camp any type of difficulty up to November 2004.

Dean is imploding and this implosion will surely envelope the Democratic Party if they are not careful and I believe that many within the Democratic Party know this....



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It doesn't matter who you vote for they are all the same, corrupt and greedy. The major corporations put them in power, not the people. You either shape up to what they want, or ship out.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The guy makes me laugh. I don't mean that hypothetically I mean it literally. Darn near every time I see him/hear him I bust out laughing at his goofiness.

Is it just me or does this guy come off like one of the three stooges to anybody else?

The way he carries himself and especially the way he waffles and fish tails on just about everything...

Then you have Clark who can't make up his mind on where he stands on anything... That IS a security problem.

PEACE...
m...



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I FORGOT about Clark!
Whoops. (Thanks Seek)

So, I'm seeing alot of Democratic experience on National Security and Defense. Practically any combination of candidates for Pres/VP will include some. Some more than others. And ALL more than just being the son of a President.

Yes Dean has Bush on the brain so much he's starting to talk like him. Yet the deck is stacked, any frontrunner in this Bush Bash environment will appear like a ranting malcontent. I like ranting malcontents though. They speak for me.


By the way...regarding all the quotes of democratic support for Bush and The War in Iraq pre-2003: Who wasn't frothing at the mouth to get Saddam then? Bush had me convinced we'd show those French a thing or two. Rumsfeld knew where the WMD's were. Powell had that snazzy powerpoint presentation. Bush would NEVER makes the US look bad over something like that. I shared the same 9/11 bloodlust as everyone else back then. Aren't we allowed to grow beyond our Bush fed perceptions of the world back in 2002? Those quotes are no crime. They're ancient history.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by RANT]

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
The guy makes me laugh. I don't mean that hypothetically I mean it literally. Darn near every time I see him/hear him I bust out laughing at his goofiness.

Is it just me or does this guy come off like one of the three stooges to anybody else?

The way he carries himself and especially the way he waffles and fish tails on just about everything...

Then you have Clark who can't make up his mind on where he stands on anything... That IS a security problem.

PEACE...
m...


Jeeezzzz Dean makes you laugh? Then as far as Dubya is concerned you must a sowing needle handy from your sides splitting so much with laughter!

You're right though, there's nothing funny about Dubya, he's a mass murderer and serial liar, but Dean is funny because he hasn't had his chance yet to be a mass murderer (serial liar is the first rule of any politician so he's had plenty of chances for that).



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well the sewing needle isn't necessary, like you said nothing much funny about shrub... It really makes me pretty sick if I think too long or too hard about our "choices" for Prez.... So I have decided to not think about them.

Bottom line for me is shrub is going to win by a landslide because the Dems have NOT put up a candidate that anyone beleives can lead America through this nightmare jungle the world is in at the moment.

The topic of this thread is exactly why GWB will be reelected.

Joe Liberman (sp?) makes sense to me but he is so far down in the numbers he doesn't stand a chance.

I also have suspicions that the Clintons are doing their best to make sure no Democrat gets elected for obvious reasons.

My whole deal on this is just like organized religion.The two parties are in it for ONE thing - CONTROL. He who CONTROLS the gold (whether he owns it or not is immaterial) makes the rules, he who makes the rules gets/does whatever he wants.

The poor folks who actually beleive either party is really concerned about THEM are walking through a minefield with iron boots on and a blind fold. They have been sold a bill of goods...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join