Tuesday, August 22, 2006

The Bambozzlement Is Complete

Yes, Republicans really believe Democrats are soft on terror. They really bought into Rove's lie. Jonathan Chait has a great analysis of Republicans, normal lay members, as well as knowledgable pundits and bloggers (like Andrew Sullivan), truly believing in their hearts that only Republicans are strong on terror.

Oh when will they wake up?

4 Comments:

At 8/22/2006 11:36:00 PM, Blogger annegb said...

I'm disenchanted with the current president, although I think he's a good person. I think he made a terrible mistake going into Iraq. Until that point, I think he was on the right track.

However, had Bill Clinton done his job, 9/11 might never have happened. He certainly seems soft on terror in retrospect to me.

As an independent voter who votes Democratic as much as Republican, I'm nervous about all the doves in the Democratic party. I'm afraid there's no one out there who can bring this to a good conclusion. It's incredibly sad.

 
At 8/23/2006 09:58:00 AM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...

Thanks for the comments Anne. I agreed with Bush's actions in Afghanistan, back in 2001 (one of the few things I agreed with Bush on), because that is where our enemy was located, the ones who attacked us.

As a Democrat (and a moderate), Anne, let me say this: Don't believe Rove's lie. Democrats are not soft on terror. This is Rove's biggest lie. Ask yourself which Democrat right now is in a position to execute any part of Bush's war on terror. Is there any record of a Democrat fighting against terror since 2001? no. because Republicans own the US government right now. To say Democrats are soft on terror because of actions that occurred before 9/11 is not being historically accurate. Much blame for the strength of terrorism can go right to Ronald Reagan for his, what would be called today, "cutting and running" from Beirut after Hezbollah bombed and killed 241 American marines in their sleep. Reagan did nothing against Hezbollah for that.

Bush and his supporters claim that 9/11 changed the paradigm, and yet they charge Democrats are soft on terror for events that occurred before 9/11. Doesn't that seem disingenuous?

Trust me, as a Democrat, I am not soft on terror. I believe Bush's responses to terror have only further emboldened terrorists, and I actually have evidence of this. Meanwhile, Bush and his supporters have no evidence that Democrats are not strong on terror, because since 9/11 Republicans have had control of ALL aspects of American governance.

Who is failing the war on terror? Well, with Republicans in power, it can only be Republicans. Why not give Democrats a chance?

 
At 8/23/2006 10:44:00 AM, Blogger annegb said...

So who do you think is a viable candidate? I couldn't vote for Hilary Clinton. I just could not. I loved Pat Schroeder, but I think she's retired.

I tend to vote for who I "like." I trust my gut in this. I'm not always right, but sometimes.

 
At 8/23/2006 11:30:00 AM, Blogger nicolaepadigone said...

Anne,

yeah, Hilary turns me off too. She's taking a similar route as John McCain is right now, where both are attempting to pander to the right people at the right times so as to look like the perfect candidate, but alas not really be themselves as they both used to be.

There are three people I would recommend. One is a Republican. I recommend Mitt Romney. I've looked at him very critically (not being a Republican), but find that his way of dealing with a liberal Massachusetts and his handling of the Salt Lake Olympics shows he will govern well.

Bill Richardson, a Democrat, currently the governor of New Mexico, and a former UN ambassador, is a very practical and smart man, who knows his foreign policy very well. He's no weakling in managing the world. He's also not as extreme as Hilary is.

Joe Biden, a Democrat, and the Senator from Delaware. He has good foreign policy experience and analysis, is generally moderate and smart. He will have a hard time, like Kerry did in 2004 as a Senator. There is a reason so few Senators become Presidents. They actually have a voting record, unlike Governors, and even though the intrecacies of the Senate allow for many compromises, these compromise votes play badly on the airwaves. So Kerry was painted, very easily, as a flip-flopper (and his own words during the election period did not help), because his record has him voting one way and then another. But all Senators, both Democrat and Republican have the same kinds of voting records.

I fear though that these three candidates will not make the cut, and that it will come down to Hilary vs McCain. With McCain towing the Bush line, I don't think he will win, and Hilary will become America's first woman president in 2008. Both will be bad for America's future, because both are divisive. McCain used to be liked by liberals because he didn't tow the Republican line, but his pandering to Dobson and the Bob Jones University crowd has left a very bitter taste in liberals's mouths towards McCain. They are not going to trust him in 2008 unless he makes some serious conciliatory gestures, and actually tries to be the "uniter not the divider", unlike Bush who has divided this nation unlike any other time in this nation's history.

I'd like to see Wes Clark, a democrat, get the nomination. He was commander of NATO and ran the successful actions in Kosovo, but I don't think he will make it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home