Couple of Memphis Commies Talk Bad About the President

I got yer back, brothah!

BUCK TURGIDSON FOR PRESIDENT - 2004

It's a new day for America

 

It is more like your zero tolerance for non-right media coverage.

 

bama, do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's because he's running as "the War President", as he'd described himself, and has taken every opportunity portray himself as that? And that he never, until this week, showed even a little of his Guard records, after saying he would 4 years ago? As I've said, if he had been up front about it, who should care? The fact is, he's keep those records secret and now are letting them out in drips and drabs. Why? Why on earth does he act like he has something to hide? I don't get it. But you and basso and some others obviously see it different, which is your privilege.

 

My question is this: how come that during the 1992 election, war service was not a major requirement for president (since they were running a draft-dodging coward), but now, that's all we hear about Kerry (how he served with honor) and how GWB is a draft dodger.

Perhaps because in 1992, the world looked to be a peaceful place, with the U.S. having no significant enemies after the end of the cold war. In 2004, we KNOW we're going to be involved in military conflicts around the world and that the President's biggest responsibilities will be on the world stage.

But no, it couldn't be the realities of the world - better to blame the media!

 

How do you explain the liberal media completely ignoring this story in 2000? Or spreading the RNC lie that Gore said he invented the internet? Or railing on Al Gore for exaggerating about anecdotes in the debate?

When you're out of things to whine about, like the liberal bent on this board and when you can't handle that the best the Republicans can produce are either racist majority leaders or idiot presidents, let's complain, complain, complain about the liberal media.

Not that I necessarily believe the last paragraph above, but that's exactly what some of you sound like...

 

Uhhhh...yeah. Kinda forgot the "for Edwards" thing there.

But, hell, vote for me. "A chicken in every pot, some pot for every chicken." Or something like that.

 

Buck, how do you type chicken clucking sounds?

 

My cell phone clucks like a chicken -- I am already spreading the Buck message!

Cluck for Buck in 2004

 

Signature addition.

 

Hell, just call me Foghorn Leghorn!

 

To add to that, though, who knows if GWB's military record vs. Kerry's military record is going to be an issue that resonates with people. People tried to make an issue of Clinton's lack of military experience (and the things related to that) during the '92 campaign, but it didn't resonate with a whole lot of people in the end.

It may well be that all this military stuff doesn't end up amounting to much of anything come election time.

 

Good point. Actually, the RNC would love to have an issue they can attack with that would take the voter's mind off of Bush's horrible record. Something to think about.

 

Except Clinton didn't hem and haw and keep changing his story like the Bushies. The guys backing the Bushies can't even keep their stories straight - they don't match the only records released by the Bushies.

 

Exactly why, unless there was out and our lying on Bush's part, I hope this doesn't become a central issue, whatever way it plays.

Keep it on the real issues, where Bush is clearly in the wrong.

 

You're right. I forgot that Clinton was the paragon of honesty throughout his campaign and administration.

The Clinton story did change over time as more and more came out. He didn't come clean on day one and admit to everything he'd done or hadn't done (and the same was true with the infidelity stories).

And, in the end, it didn't matter because there were issues that were far more important to the electorate than whether the candidate cheated on his wife or dodged some long ago draft.

All I'm saying is that 32 year-old military records may not be all that relevant to a large enough part of the electorate to swing the election. Some people have things that are more important to them.

This sort of thing (just like it was in 1992) is "gotcha" politics. It has nothing to do with policy and has no relevance to my life. If anything, it just distracts from the things that are important. I wouldn't care if Bush spent the time he was supposed to be in the National Guard working for Fidel Castro. It's ancient history, and the details don't matter.

What matters to me is why we continue to have stagnant hiring even with relatively large economic growth or other things that are happening now. What Bush or Kerry or Edwards was doing during the Nixon Administration makes no difference to me even if they would choose to lie about it now.

But if you guys think what happened in the early 1970s is more important than what's happening now, I guess that's your perogotive.

I would think that the President's record as President would be a more important issue to debate, but apparently people are more interested in dusty old National Guard records. I would think that the plan to change the country from what we're seeing today would be a more important issue to talk about rather than what did or did not happen in Alabama in 1972.

I guess I'd just rather hear about potential solutions to our problems now than talk about a time of which I have no memory. The past is the past, I'm more interested in the future.

 

I should have written

Didn't hem and haw his story *on what he did during Vietnam*.


Now that you changed the subject slightly to a metasubject, I'll agree with what you said on the new metasubject.

Bush is worse than Clinton on the lying issue - he's continually condoned it every step of the way to the presidency and continued it on major policy issues and policy *intiatives* that sound like one thing but work another - unfunded mandates appear to be their main motto.


That still doesn't change the fact that the POTUS said something on national TV last weekend, and has failed to back up what he said with actions. Either his words are not to be trusted or he's so stupid he forgot what he said. In fact he already lied about "released all records in 2000" in the same interview. By releasing new records this week he contradicted himself.


Back to the original topic:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040212/APN/402120980


.
.
.
Associates have differing memories of Bush's Alabama stay

By JAY REEVES
Associated Press Writer

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. --
Contrasting images emerged Thursday of President Bush during his time in Alabama 32 years ago: One of a hardworking campaigner who did his National Guard duty, the other a hard-drinking partier who didn't care about the military.

Jean Sullivan, an Alabama GOP leader who worked with Bush in the Senate campaign of the late Winton "Red" Blount in 1972, said Bush "worked like a dog" and did his Guard service in Montgomery when he could.

But Sullivan recalled hearing questions even then about whether Bush was fulfilling his National Guard obligations, an issue that recently resurfaced. She said she complained to a Guard commander about it and got an apology.

"He didn't do anything wrong," said Sullivan, who said Bush at times stayed at her Selma home.

But a relative of Blount recalled Bush as a heavy drinker who was more interested in talking about his alcohol consumption than discussing his service with the Guard.

"He wouldn't come in until midday usually," said C. Murphy Archibald, Blount's nephew and an attorney in Charlotte, N.C. "He didn't seem to have any particular political interest in the campaign."

Blount lost badly to Democratic incumbent John Sparkman, and Blount's son, Thomas Blount, said Bush "got pretty drunk" the night of the vote. Thomas Blount described the president-to-be as "personable," but with a swagger.

"He was sort of playing the Texas dude," said Blount, a Democratic donor who described himself as "very much" opposed to the administration.

But another Blount son, Winton Blount III of Montgomery, remembered the young Bush of 1972 as "good, aggressive, smart." He said Bush came back to Montgomery after the November vote to finish his Guard duty for the year.

"There was no reason for him to come back after the campaign was over with. But he came back specifically to finish his obligation, and then left," he said.

Questions about Bush's time in Alabama came up in 2000 and again recently as Democrats questioned whether he performed his Texas National Guard duty in Alabama while working on the Blount campaign.

Bush has said he performed the duty in Alabama, but he cannot recall what he did. The unit commander and members have said they did not recall Bush ever showing up for work, but that did not necessarily mean he didn't.

Sullivan, a former Republican national committeewoman, said Bush sometimes wore his military uniform and talked about serving with the Air National Guard.

Some within the Alabama Guard were resentful because Bush was from Texas and was spending only the minimum amount of required time on duty, said Sullivan. "It was just some idiots," said Sullivan.
.
.
.

Apparently there was already a conspiracy in the 70's to discredit Bush by partisans.

 

Unfunded mandates were an issue before this administration. There are a good many people who think that Clinton rarely told the truth during his administration and campaigns, and pointed to it on several occassions.

Okay, well good luck with that in the campaign. The whole "He's a liar" has shown to work really well in recent years in getting candidates defeated and never, ever runs the risk of looking like an attack that causes people to come to the candidate's defense.

There's just so much available to run against that Bush has done since he was elected and continues to do now that has relevance to today that I can't believe people want to make this a huge issue in a campaign, especially when the whole "he's a liar" worked so poorly against the last guy.

Sure, it's important to you because everything this President does that you disagree with is important to you. Just like every time Clinton did something wrong, it was a huge deal to some people. But I don't know that you can win an election on that.

You think it's worse, but do enough other people think it's worse? Or is it just other people who weren't going to vote for Bush even if he had gone overseas and served three tours in Viet Nam?

To me, it just seems like latching on to everything you can, which is exactly what the Clinton haters did. And it didn't work for them. In many ways, it backfired because they were so willing to latch on to everything, it came across as nothing more than sour grapes and politics.

If this is going to be the campaign, I guess we can look forward to four more years of George W. Bush.

 

I think you have a good point about me versus others opinion.

I would disagree about the Clinton haters though. This strategy of he's a liar worked for the Clinton haters and Gore haters, even when none of the common allegations against Gore are true. They took up much of the time of the Clinton presidency with defense against weird investigations and they sparked numerous false rumors about all sorts of wacky things. The Democrats have just laid back and just taken it. The Clinton haters are the ones who are now in power and just continue the same policy. This comes from the top of the RNC.

 

Great post, mrpaige.

Democrats need to remember why it's so important to defeat Bush. It's not whether or not he served in the Guard in a way he could be proud of... and I have a feeling he's not proud of it, why else do so much to cover it up? What's important, as mrpaige, MacBeth and I have said, is what he's doing as President. It's a record so abysmal and so dangerous to this country that he must be defeated. If he's not, then god help us.

 

you're right, clinton was a paragon of clarity:
"that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is" is...[insert rolleyes here]