Bad political move by Democrats

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 8, 2003, 11:52 am

Bad political move by Democrats to bitch about Bush's trip to that aircraft carrier in my opinion.

many democrats are being smart and distancing themselves from Byrd and others who are comng across as whiners.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 8, 2003, 11:57 am

The Democrats haven't been making very many good decisions lately.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 12:02 pm

Ari Fleischer wrote:The president wanted to go out somewhere to thank the men and women who made this possible in person, They deserve nothing less. These are the men and women who fought a war to keep us free , to protect us and to save us

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 12:14 pm

I can't say I blame them, it was nothing but a PR jippo with how he walked around in his flight suit etc. Lame to waste $1mill of taxpayer money on that.

Oh yeah and keep us free my ass.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 8, 2003, 12:17 pm

not the point though Kelshara.

They are going to lose and lose big on it. IN fact the more they gripe about it, the more the clip will get shown on the news, generating publicity and having people rally around the President for supporting the military etc.

I'm not saying they were wrong to be concerned. I dont have a problem with it personally, but i am saying it is bad politics and they are going to look foolish because of it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 12:36 pm

Thing is, they are right now in a no-win situation. War ended fast with relatively few coalition casualties, and history has shown that this always creates huge suport for the President. I sort of believe that they have to take a very unpopular stand right now and start working from there.

I might be wrong though.. been a busy week, and haven't had time to read news whatsoever.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 8, 2003, 12:50 pm

The Democrats also lack a charismatic candidate. Bob Grahm is prolly the most likable of the group, and he looks like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man had Ted Kennedy's love child.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 8, 2003, 1:12 pm

War ended fast with relatively few coalition casualties, and history has shown that this always creates huge suport for the President.

*cough* Gulf War *cough* Bush Sr. *cough*

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 8, 2003, 1:28 pm

Wulfran wrote:
War ended fast with relatively few coalition casualties, and history has shown that this always creates huge suport for the President.
*cough* Gulf War *cough* Bush Sr. *cough*

Bush, Sr. lost his bid for re-election when the economy went, and stayed, south.

It's a good thing for Bush, Jr. that the currnt lot of Democrats have noi fucking spines and are too afraid to stand apart from one another or the Republicans...it just might get America to forget the millions of jobs lost and the 20% decline in the stock market since Bush took office.

Wars tend to create support for a president because often times the production of goods and services during a war will help bring an economy out of the slumps, a la World War 2.

Presidential economic policies very rarely have anything to do with the true state of the economy. The fed has more power than the president with their ability to control interest rates and stimulate investment. For you good Americans out there, remember FDR's social programs during the Great Depression (WPA, TVA, etc) that created jobs for people - yet these orginizations were later struck down as being Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. How did FDR try to get around this?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 8, 2003, 1:29 pm

Americans have a short attention span. When election time rolls around 2 years from now, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be a distant memory for most.

The economy is usually the basis for electing or dumping a President. Hopefully this will hold true and Dubya will once again follow his father's lead and be limited to a single term.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 8, 2003, 1:50 pm

I won't pretend that I remember enough about US conditions when Clinton was eleceted,Toshira. I was merely pointing out the flawed logic from a previous poster, that a short, victorious war= presidential infallibilty.

From what I recall of the campagn, Bush Sr tied all his hopes against a very charismatic Slick Billy, on the Gulf War result, which was 2 years in the past by the time you guys went to the polls. All I really remember was Dana Carvey and Phil Hartman do impersonations of Sr and Clinton on SNL (which I used LOVE).

Post by **Xouqoa** » May 8, 2003, 1:58 pm

Phil Hartman.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 2:28 pm

Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » May 8, 2003, 2:39 pm

And let's not forget this Fucking Jackass

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/96 ... oHooktop50

#34 of the top 50 unethical acts of the Clinton Administration:
Not all of these acts are offical acts of office. Sometimes everyday actions can reveal a character flaw just as well as an illegal act. Take for instance President Clinton's $2,000.00 haircut aboard Airforce 1 at the Los Angeles Airport. While getting his haircut aboard the plane, countless airliners were forced to cicle LAX waiting for landing instructions. The airlines involved suffered financially, while travelers were inconvenienced. When asked about it the Presidents reply was I'm sorry I didn't know. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 8, 2003, 2:40 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.

How he got there and the manner it was organized was a publicity stunt paid for with tax dollars. Not a big deal in my mind but it is a misuse of public funds.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 8, 2003, 2:52 pm

Wars tend to create support for a president because often times the production of goods and services during a war will help bring an economy out of the slumps, a la World War 2.

WW2 is the last war that improved the economy. For starters our economy was LOTS smaller then. Secondly, we were more factory production based then as well. Thirdly the aftereffects of the Depression had the war at a good starting point.

Korea caused a small drain on the economy. Vietnam helped contribute to the inflation in the 1970s, and the Gulf War did not help the economy at all either (hence Bush's loss).

This war won't either. We are still hovering around where we were right after 9/11. Coming on 2 years from that with just about no growth in the stock market.

It is a myth that wars help the economy, mainly because we all learn in history class what WW2 did for the economy. Military spending accounts for less than 2% of our economy now.

my source for this info is a WSJ news item from january. can't tell you any more specifically than that =).

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 3:06 pm

Mort wrote:And let's not forget this Fucking Jackass

Uhhh, was he getting his hair cut as a publicity stunt to be shown on national tv?

Cameras and crews were all flown out to this aircraft carrier (which was docking in SD the next day) for a photo opportunity and a thinly veiled attempt at raising his popularity.

And please don't ever link a fucking geoshitties page here ever again.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 3:10 pm

Hmm. it's funny. When I was in the Navy under Clinton, we had the Dallas Cowgirls flown to our ship to our steal beach picnic onboard to boost morale....Pot and Kettle? Or appropriate use of funds for a bunch of horny sailors? You make the call.

-edit and oh, they were escorted with an entorage of news crew as well. This is ok to do, but the leader of our armed forces being flown onboard is not?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 8, 2003, 3:13 pm

exactly Krimson

i think both are OK.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 3:14 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Hmm. it's funny. When I was in the Navy under Clinton, we had the Dallas Cowgirls flown to our ship to our steal beach picnic onboard to boost morale....Pot and Kettle? Or appropriate use of funds for a bunch of horny sailors? You make the call.

-edit and oh, they were escorted with an entorage of news crew as well. This is ok to do, but the leader of our armed forces being flown onboard is not?

Taken at face value, there's nothing at all wrong with it.

I think the point is that there were (rather blatant) alterior motives behind it.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 8, 2003, 3:24 pm

miir wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Hmm. it's funny. When I was in the Navy under Clinton, we had the Dallas Cowgirls flown to our ship to our steal beach picnic onboard to boost morale....Pot and Kettle? Or appropriate use of funds for a bunch of horny sailors? You make the call.

-edit and oh, they were escorted with an entorage of news crew as well. This is ok to do, but the leader of our armed forces being flown onboard is not?
Taken at face value, there's nothing at all wrong with it.

I think the point is that there were (rather blatant) alterior motives behind it.

I like what Byrd had to say...

Tuesday, Sen. Robert Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat, delivered a sharply worded speech on the Senate floor, accusing Bush of "flamboyant showmanship."

OH GOD! NOT THAT!

miir · Post by **miir** » May 8, 2003, 3:54 pm

Hehe...

Flamboyant showmanship would be Dubya learning how to speak the english language properly.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 8, 2003, 5:14 pm

The President going to thank the troops is a good thing. The President getting there on a fighter jet and then parading around in a flight suit was just unnecessary. He could have just dressed the way he usually does at rallies and flown in on a helicopter like he usually does. Put plan and simply, he was there for himself and not the troops. He was trying to look like a warrior king...er president I mean and associate his image with the military. Overall I think it's insulting for a man who's military career involved flying missions over Texas while others went out and died for their country, but hey what do I know.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 5:26 pm

Crav wrote:The President going to thank the troops is a good thing. The President getting there on a fighter jet and then parading around in a flight suit was just unnecessary. He could have just dressed the way he usually does at rallies and flown in on a helicopter like he usually does. Put plan and simply, he was there for himself and not the troops. He was trying to look like a warrior king...er president I mean and associate his image with the military. Overall I think it's insulting for a man who's military career involved flying missions over Texas while others went out and died for their country, but hey what do I know.

I hate to break it to you, but most every guest that comes onto the flight deck of a carrier or LPD is given flight suits or coveralls while topside. Flight suits are specifically designed for flame retardation, 3 piece suits are not. Next.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 8, 2003, 5:32 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.

The point is something like that costs a lot of taxpayer money for what is 99% just so the president can grandstand and have some cool footage for the 2004 campaign.

But man, if I were in the armed forces I would be pretty fucking insulted. Here is a man that got his daddy to help him worm out of performing his duty in Vietnam so he could play pretend soldier in the national guard. THEN he fucking AWOLs out of that for a half a year and his daddy saves his ass again. Now here he is on the deck of an aircraft carrier grandstanding in a flight suit like he is mr. fucking hero ace combat pilot. It makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

Bush has really been showboating lately though. I guess his popularity is down a point or something. He had that photo op with the POWs (another insult) and then he was glad handing with Elizabeth Smart and now this.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 5:36 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.
The point is something like that costs a lot of taxpayer money for what is 99% just so the president can grandstand and have some cool footage for the 2004 campaign.

But man, if I were in the armed forces I would be pretty fucking insulted. Here is a man that got his daddy to help him worm out of performing his duty in Vietnam so he could play pretend soldier in the national guard. THEN he fucking AWOLs out of that for a half a year and his daddy saves his ass again. Now here he is on the deck of an aircraft carrier grandstanding in a flight suit like he is mr. fucking hero ace combat pilot. It makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

Bush has really been showboating lately though. I guess his popularity is down a point or something. He had that photo op with the POWs (another insult) and then he was glad handing with Elizabeth Smart and now this.

Insulted? Not in the least. When I came back from my 6 month Mediterranean deployment, we were met on the pier by Bill Clinton himself, I got to shake his hand etc. I am a republican, and yet I considered this an honor (despite his draft dodging) and a great show of support from Clinton.

-edit do you guys realize how silly you look even arguing about this?

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » May 8, 2003, 5:39 pm

Actually, what I have heard from my sources is that the Abraham Lincoln was originally supposed to be farther out at sea but made OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS better time. The distance was such that the helicopter would not be the best way to get there and they opted for the plane. However, the carrier ended up getting OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS closer to shore than expected and Bush opted to go ahead with the original plans as he wanted to see what "those boys see coming into the carrier". I dont think there is anything really wrong with that. It is commendable that he wants to know what those people he is directing have to do.

Also, Bush was a pilot way back when. Perhaps he still has dreams of doing it, like a lot of others do.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 8, 2003, 5:45 pm

Bush Sr lost because he flat out lied about taxes. Remember "Read my lips!"?

Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.

You missed the point. He was flown out in a fighter jet instead of the normal helicopter which they normally use (Bush insisted on the jet). Extra money. They kept the carrier out at sea a day more than scheduled so he could hold his speech there. Extra money. It cost tax payers $1 mill more than it should have had he used normal (as in, the way he would usually have done it) ways of getting there.

How he got there and the manner it was organized was a publicity stunt paid for with tax dollars. Not a big deal in my mind but it is a misuse of public funds.

Bingo.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 8, 2003, 5:48 pm

Again Krimson I said a President honoring the troops is a great things, but per your own example. President Clinton waited until you were on land to show his appreciation. He didn't fly over on a fighter jet then parade around the deck. President Bush was there to honor himself and not the sailors. He could have waited an extra day to show his appreciation for the troops and there families since they would have been at the docks. He choose to fly over on a jet and then grandstand like a petty military dictator in combat uniform. However, in the end it's just a point of view. I see his act as self serving and unnecessary, as I see many politically motivated actions whether they are done by Republicans or Democrats. Others choose to see it as an act by a man so devoted to his troops that he could not wait that extra day or even those extra couple of minutes(fighter jet as opposed to helicopter) to give his thanks.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 5:57 pm

Crav wrote:Again Krimson I said a President honoring the troops is a great things, but per your own example. President Clinton waited until you were on land to show his appreciation. He didn't fly over on a fighter jet then parade around the deck. President Bush was there to honor himself and not the sailors. He could have waited an extra day to show his appreciation for the troops and there families since they would have been at the docks. He choose to fly over on a jet and then grandstand like a petty military dictator in combat uniform. However, in the end it's just a point of view. I see his act as self serving and unnecessary, as I see many politically motivated actions whether they are done by Republicans or Democrats. Others choose to see it as an act by a man so devoted to his troops that he could not wait that extra day or even those extra couple of minutes(fighter jet as opposed to helicopter) to give his thanks.

Good post Crav, but perhaps re-read Adelrunes post. If Bush delayed the docking of the ship, I as a sailor onboard would have been peeved. If the Ship steamed faster and got ahead of time one day for the sole reason of getting Bush onboard, then I as a sailor lost nothing and would welcome his visit.

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 6:04 pm

Kelshara wrote:You missed the point. He was flown out in a fighter jet instead of the normal helicopter which they normally use (Bush insisted on the jet). Extra money. They kept the carrier out at sea a day more than scheduled so he could hold his speech there. Extra money. It cost tax payers $1 mill more than it should have had he used normal (as in, the way he would usually have done it) ways of getting there.

Where are your numbers for this? It cost $1 million dollars extra on the spot? Since there are many people on this board just aching to dump on anyone in the administration this shit is getting pretty thin. I'm all for whistle blowing but the cost of flying the CaC out on a jet to the Lincoln is something hardly worth conspiracy theorists to waste my time with.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 6:09 pm

Kaelye wrote:
Kelshara wrote:You missed the point. He was flown out in a fighter jet instead of the normal helicopter which they normally use (Bush insisted on the jet). Extra money. They kept the carrier out at sea a day more than scheduled so he could hold his speech there. Extra money. It cost tax payers $1 mill more than it should have had he used normal (as in, the way he would usually have done it) ways of getting there.
Where are your numbers for this? It cost $1 million dollars extra on the spot? Since there are many people on this board just aching to dump on anyone in the administration this shit is getting pretty thin. I'm all for whistle blowing but the cost of flying the CaC out on a jet to the Lincoln is something hardly worth conspiracy theorists to waste my time with.

Ok here it is. It costs 1 million bucks/day to keep a carrier out at sea (that's accounting for the fuel, food, supplies etc used per day). So, they are saying if Bush delayed the carrier from entering port by one day, then in essence he cost taxpayers 1 million dollars, and they would be totally correct.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 8, 2003, 6:11 pm

I didn't have a chance to read Adel's post before posting my last one. I still believe that he should have waited for the ship to get in to port. In this way he would have been able to give his thanks to the sailors and their families. Unless I'm mistaken this carrier had been out for more than a year, we owe not only the sailors but their families a great deal. Wouldn't it have been a better honor to allow the sailors to share the experience with their families? Again this is just my point of view, there could have been reasons for not being able to do this. On a lighter not, at least for me, if the President wanted to know what the soldiers he is directing have to go through won't it have been more realistic to open fire with the AA guns

.

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 8, 2003, 6:13 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Ok here it is. It costs 1 million bucks/day to keep a carrier out at sea (that's accounting for the fuel, food, supplies etc used per day). So, they are saying if Bush delayed the carrier from entering port by one day, then in essence he cost taxpayers 1 million dollars, and they would be totally correct.

Ok, I won't dispute that it costs that much to keep them maintained but who's to say that they were not on their way back? I don't know these answers myself. If it did cost and extra million it was already budgeted. My opinion in the matter makes no difference what-so-ever.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 8, 2003, 6:14 pm

hehe touche Crav.

Kaelye wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Ok here it is. It costs 1 million bucks/day to keep a carrier out at sea (that's accounting for the fuel, food, supplies etc used per day). So, they are saying if Bush delayed the carrier from entering port by one day, then in essence he cost taxpayers 1 million dollars, and they would be totally correct.
Ok, I won't dispute that it costs that much to keep them maintained but who's to say that they were not on their way back? I don't know these answers myself. If it did cost and extra million it was already budgeted. My opinion in the matter makes no difference what-so-ever.

Um, wow. Who's to say they were not on their way back? Lol. This is going way over your head I think. Lemme me explain, no time..lemme sum up. The carrier WAS on it's way back into port, the question at hand is did they steam ahead faster than normal to get one day ahead of schedule to accomodate Bush, or did they steam over the Pacific at normal speed, only to get near port and have Bush delay them an extra day so he could visit.

*gasp*

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 8, 2003, 7:31 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Yea, heaven forbid the Commander in Chief of all of Americas armed forces arrive on an aircraft carrier. Next they will want Admirals and Commandants to not visit carriers like they do either.
The point is something like that costs a lot of taxpayer money for what is 99% just so the president can grandstand and have some cool footage for the 2004 campaign.

But man, if I were in the armed forces I would be pretty fucking insulted. Here is a man that got his daddy to help him worm out of performing his duty in Vietnam so he could play pretend soldier in the national guard. THEN he fucking AWOLs out of that for a half a year and his daddy saves his ass again. Now here he is on the deck of an aircraft carrier grandstanding in a flight suit like he is mr. fucking hero ace combat pilot. It makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

Bush has really been showboating lately though. I guess his popularity is down a point or something. He had that photo op with the POWs (another insult) and then he was glad handing with Elizabeth Smart and now this.

Guess What I pay taxes and I dont have a problem with Bush flying on to the deck of a aircraft carrier. But hey your Canadian So why do you even care? It has nothing to do with your little country or your taxes.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 8, 2003, 7:37 pm

This thread is impotent. The small details don't really matter. The Democrats are wrong on this one. A president is supposed to show support for his troops, he is supposed to talk to them personally. To nitpick the details and the manner in which he goes about doing this is inconsequential and politically self-demoting. I hate Bush with a passion, but I'm not going to knock him for actually doing his job.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2003, 7:33 am

yeah it's a cheap shot and it makes the democrats involved look pretty dumb.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2003, 7:43 am

vn_Tanc wrote:yeah it's a cheap shot and it makes the democrats involved look pretty dumb.

who asked you, percy

go eat a crumpet

!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2003, 8:46 am

mmm crumpet

the cheekiness just makes you more desirable you minx

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 9, 2003, 10:07 am

Guess What I pay taxes and I dont have a problem with Bush flying on to the deck of a aircraft carrier.

You wouldn't have a problem if Bush wiped his ass with hundred dollar bills each and every day.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 9, 2003, 10:23 am

Kelshara wrote:
Guess What I pay taxes and I dont have a problem with Bush flying on to the deck of a aircraft carrier.
You wouldn't have a problem if Bush wiped his ass with hundred dollar bills each and every day.

umm, who would?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 9, 2003, 10:47 am

Kelshara wrote:
Guess What I pay taxes and I dont have a problem with Bush flying on to the deck of a aircraft carrier.
You wouldn't have a problem if Bush wiped his ass with hundred dollar bills each and every day.

Once again your combacks are not well thought out, You know as well as I Bush would not wipe his ass with 100 dollar bills, It would result in Paper Cuts.

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » May 9, 2003, 10:50 am

Hold the phone........

Clinton pushed to get gays in the military with out any questions, he came to Nofolk VA was taken out to the USS Roosevelt, several other people were sent out there with him, there was no war going on no conflict going on and no democrats complaining about that trip which I might add that his people took several items off the Carrier that were in their state rooms, they only returned them after it got press coverage.
I might add it was shortly after that trip that the Don't Ask Don't tell came about. Guess he didn't think he would feel comfortable with a known homosexual sleeping under or on top or his bunk.

Who was the female reporter, Diane Sawyer I think who went thru crash course training with navy pilots and was flown out to a Carrier on a fighter jet. No war going on no conflict going on and no Democrats complained about that.

Sorry but if the President (The militarys boss) wants to fly out to the carrier on a damn bird after a conflict or war or during them more power to him. The people serving on that ship deserve to see him come to them.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 9, 2003, 11:29 am

*chirp* cricket *chirp*

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 9, 2003, 9:23 pm

The Democrats get some advice...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ty__stupid

The lesson: besieged Americans want to be led by ass-kicking meanies, not mild-mannered milquetoast moderates.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 10, 2003, 7:04 am

besieged Americans

Lol besieged where exactly? Except inside your own paranoia and fear that is.

I know the US culture is one of overstating any and all slights and injuries just in case you can sue someone but this hysteria is getting a bit OTT.