Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What a candidate!!!

I heard on the news that Kerry may not accept the Democrat nomination at the convention. He will wait until later so that he can circumvent the rules about spending personal money. Sure shows his mind-set. miles

Yeah, it shows that the election costs giant dollars and Kerry is using his head and knows that he can ill afford to give Bush 5 more weeks lead in money raising on him, since Bush started with a much larger war chest to begin with AND didn't have to spend his in primaries, like Kerry did.

Fed Election Committee rules state that as soon as a candidate accepts the nomination of his party he is bound to raise no more privat money and for this he gets to spend roughly $75 million tax payer contributed dollars. Same rules apply to the Republicans but since their convention is later, it gives them a substantial time advantage in raising money. What the FEC should do, not that they've asked my advice <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, is to stop all major candidates party fund raising when the first one is nominated, or wait until both are nominated to start the fund raising freeze. The latter is probably more sensible.

I hate Bush and detest Kerry, but it is a fact that most of the "campaign" rules including the free speech infringements that Bush signed in the Campaign Finance Reform Act (or whatever its official title was) favor the incumbents. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure our why. The incumbents design and pass the bills, they are not going to pass something if they can possibly help it, that helps their political opponents, current or otherwise.

Flies--

Sounds like you are going have a tough descision come Nov. Or is it Nader by default?

GDV

Here's a wild question - what happens if Kerry says no to the nomination , thinking he is gonna do it later with more $$, but Hillary stands up and says "I'll do it?"

What would the procedure be then?

goodnews:

I detest Nader worse than Kerry. But.....No problem <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, I'll vote libertarian or something. I might even vote for Kerry, if I hold my nose. Be the first time ever for a Dem Presidential candidate and that covers ummmmm, about 9 elections. It won't matter tho, Bush has a firm hold on Texas.

teal:

It will all be prearranged, if it happens, which is unlikely. The only reason it comes up is because of politicians, thinking they knew better than the public and interfering with the election process via the Fed Election Commission and the taxpayer "dollar" checkoff. I NEVER give them a checkoff anymore BTW. It thrills me to see Reverend Sharpton spending taxpayer dollars for his $1000 dollar a night plus hotel bills, etc. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of the law to comment, but it might be possible for Kerry to refuse the federal funds, but I doubt it, both for practical and legal reasons. Hillary won't be drafted AND to have any real future chance, she both has to go along with the Kerry scheme AND hope that he loses. Otherwise, assuming nothing happens to Pres. Kerry, she won't have a chance until 2012 when she would be pretty long in the tooth. Puts her and Billy Boy in a tough spot. Not that that breaks my heart. Another SOB that was President. Matter of fact, the only President I've really liked in the last 25 years or so was Bush I and he was an idiot to lose to Clinton, running the one of the worse campaigns in modern politics and having no clue until just before the election that he was in deep kimchi. I hope his son follows in his footsteps, just like he did in Iraq, but Shrub is a better politician than his father, he knows he is in deep kimchi, I think, or at least Rove does. That fact alone will cost more lives in Iraq, bet on it.

The reason, since I knew you would ask: among others, he won't send the numbers of troops needed to control post turnover Iraq, just as he hasn't up until now, because he knows that would sink his diminishing chances in the election.

I don't know that sending more troops would signal the end.

I was watching a show last night (can't remember the name) - guy said there were 2 questions on Iraq

1. Should we have gone in the first place - said forget it minds are already made up on this one, can't see anybody changing them now.

2. Are we fighting the war correctly? Interresting - I would think that of those who aren't going to just get all crazy and emotional about #1 and are willing to discuss #2 it seems that a lot of people feel we don't have enough assets on the ground to just get the job done over and done with.

It seems to me that those who would want to bring our guys home (and thats everybody just differences on when or how) would want us to put as many people in country as possible and FIX it right now - a soldier on every street corner to make sure nobody is planind an IED. It may look like a massive occupation but what would you rather have 300k for 6 months or 150k for 3 years?

I know there are some flaws in the logic but just what are we doing with all our assets in Europe? I don't see a major threat there - why not use them in Iraq and get it over with?


Just some thoughts

If It Flies It Dies, This paragraph annoys me greatly. Not that you wrote it but because you had to write it. Our government is out of control and there is nothing we can do. If we vote new people into office, they are corrupted by the ones there already. If someone passes a reasonable law, the courts overturn it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

teal:

If you support the Bush premises on Iraq, sending significantly more troops is the ONLY real option that gives it any chance. However, that equals more targets, more unadjusted personnel on the ground initially, and almost certainly more US casualties in the short term AND de facto admitting that you have screwed the pooch up until now. An unacceptable political cost for Bush in an election runup. It is very hard to control an enemy who are willing to blow themselves up to kill some of you.
Bush hasn't sent more troops up until now, possibly because Rumsfeld was trying to disprove the Powell doctrine of "overwhelming force" (he hasn't), possibly because of the costs and lead times involved, possibly because of bad advice from his military commanders, possibly because of real troop manpower availibility, or probably, at this time, because of the political costs. I certainly agree that most of the troops and most of the bases in Europe should probably be moved and abandoned with some few exceptions. Let the Euries pay for their defense.

No, we aren't fighting the war correctly because it was an incorrect war. To repeat myself, you start off stupid, it is hard to get smart along the way. Bush did and he hasn't.

The real problem is, we, in fact, had a controllable situation in Saddam's Iraq (I'm not going to argue this ad nauseum AGAIN, but we did, and who cares how much the UN and its minions were stealing, they can't steal fast enough to make up for our war costs, not to mention, it wasn't US taxpayer money) but now we've got "our" tiger by the tail and have no clue how to turn loose. If it wasn't so tragic, it would have been somewhat humorous watching the various entities in our government stammer as they tried to answer the question, "Well, we're turning it over to the Iraqis on 6/30, what if they ask us to leave?"

As I said before it happened, and it is now happening, Bush is seeking political cover, both with Nato and the UN, to make the very probable eventual failure of nation building in Iraq to look less like his fault. Being as objective as I can be about the situation, politically as far as the Mid East goes and as far as terrorism against the US goes, Iraq has made both situations worse, not better. Bush certainly didn't help matters any when he paid off Sharon and Israel recently. One screw up leads to another.

sending significantly more troops is the ONLY real option that gives it any chance. However, that equals more targets, more unadjusted personnel on the ground initially, and almost certainly more US casualties in the short term AND de facto admitting that you have screwed the pooch up until now.

I certainly agree that most of the troops and most of the bases in Europe should probably be moved and abandoned with some few exceptions. Let the Euries pay for their defense.


On those to points I agree. I hadn't really thought about the admission of screwing the pooch.

On the side tho-- how could Bush come out and say "Guess what we have adjust our plan/ course of action, things are not how we thought, we are gonna re adjust and come at it from this angle" You know the excrement storm that would set off from the libs- " wasn't planned correctly - big probs est" I know it is a bad question but why is it in this day and age a person in the public eye namely members of government admit to a mistake and be left alone for doing so?

I am not talking bout the politico saying he made the mistake just the flack that would come from sayin he did. Our press would skin them alive !

How many times have you set down to a project - get 1/2 way through and have to run to the hardware store to get things you didn't realize you needed? Does anybody chastize you for it?

I'm just saying it is a shame that a president can't say "hey we need to try again differently" in any situation. I think we don't expect enough from our leaders moraly but expect perfection on all else - seems to be a little backward - after all these are PEOPLE we elect not robots.

teal:

But then again, when we are halfway thru a home project, we don't pause with a hammer in our hand for a photo op, and declare "this project is over" and later say, "anyone who doesn't like our project, come try to kick it over". That's why he can't do it.

Now, what he should have done (probably too late now anyway), and didn't and won't, is sit down in a "fireside" chat with the American people and say something to the effect of, "We were attacked on 9/11, as a result I attacked the bases of the people who attacked us in Afghanistan hoping to capture or kill OBL. I then chose to attack Iraq base on intelligence that has since proven to be mostly incorrect. In that action, I was wrong and I deeply regret that my actions have cost American lives, but they died for a just cause, the defense of America. I truly believed that I was acting in the best interests of the US. We are now engaged in a war that I would prefer not to be in, but we have removed one of the world's worst dictators and did negate the possibility that he might have harmed us in the future. We must now try to stabilize Iraq. In order to do that, we must send more troops." (BTW, my small effort at speech writing above doesn't mean I would believe all of that tripe, but it would have made him a man of respect.)

He should have done that, it might have cost him the election, but he would have my respect. As is, he is a lying POS and I sure as hell hope he pays for it in November.

quote] This paragraph annoys me greatly. Not that you wrote it but because you had to write it. Our government is out of control and there is nothing we can do. If we vote new people into office, they are corrupted by the ones there already. If someone passes a reasonable law, the courts overturn it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> [/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely why there is a 2nd Ammendment. IF corruption has diminished democracy to an unacceptable level and IF agendas that are being driven nationally (gay marriage, partial birth abortions, et al) don't reflect the will of the people, perhaps it is time to discuss meaningful alternatives. OR we can engage the political process and try to make a difference. You may be surrised at the number of people that are trying to reestablish constitutional laws. Importantly, I believe, is that we stop the easy part, the whinning and bitching, and engage the issues actively.

In our area there are candidates that have excellent qualifications reflecting constitutional values. They need all the help and assistance possible from the like minded and supporters. I believe such candidates will be found in most areas. Engage.

While it may be colorful and it may vent some rage to post to a forum there is an obligation to carry that thinking into meaningful action. I believe there are many that post to this list that are actively engaged in promoting their ideas and sentiments. The rest of us should follow that lead.

Teal,

I do not remember the military asking for more troops and not getting them. In fact, I think the military has recevied just about everything they have asked for. While I have no problems with sending more troops--even though one of them might be me--it seems that the cry for more troops is coming primarily from the politicians.

The way this should work is the NCA should update the objectives--like ending this incremental approach and just killing terrorists wherever we find them--then the field commanders should decide what they need in terms of people and resources.

Having politicians decide what the troops level should be--especially when many seem to be hoping we fail in Iraq--strikes me as a very bad idea.

Blaine

Both President Bush and Rumsfeld has stated that if the commanders ask for more troops, they will get them. I know that bashing the President has become fashionable, but at least get some of the facts out. miles

Why didn't kerry use his head when they were concocting all of this finance reform. Now that he has helped make the rules, he does not want to play by them. Shows that he is just another corrupt politician. miles

Teal:

I just read this tonight. It is amazing how similar my thoughts are to his. Of course, he knows a helluva lot more about it than I ever will. Contrary to what our self vaunted village idiot keeps claiming, his commander when he was reading all those WMD intelligence reports (yeah, right) seems to see it otherwise. Containment was working. There were NO current reports of WMDs in his intelligence when he was head of Centcom. I repeat NONE.

Read it if you're interested. I'm sure this guy doesn't know as much as our village idiot, he is only a 4 star Marine General who commanded Centcom before Franks. This is a fairly long read, but worth it. Drum roll..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I give you Zinni.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> here

Blaine, that sure sounds like how Vietnam was managed and look what that got us.

Bullwnkl.

Bulwnkl,

Vietnam was different. Not only did the NCA define the overall objectives--as they should--they dictated how the war was to be fought. This is where the error was in Vietnam.

It is the job of the NCA to provide overall guidance and set overall objectives. If that job is given to the military, we become just "another two-bit military dictatorship".

It is the job of the field commanders to achieve the given objectives as they see fit. In their efforts to achieve those objectives they will determine the amount of people, equipment, etc they need to accomplish the given objective.

What we don't want is politicians deciding how much stuff we need to accomplish the task, as they keep trying to do. Let the field commanders decide what they need.

I guess I'll wade in. Excuse me if I step on anyones toes. Should we have gone to war in the first place?
We've been at war with these terrorists for years. But prior to 9/11 we have not defended our selves. We've treated it as a criminal matter and let the courts take care of it. And we all know how usless the judicial system is. Be it our courts or international courts.
Enter George W Bush a man with enough guts to say we are not going to take anymore. So he takes us into the fight , and we take the fight to the enemy on their soil not ours.
To answer the question Yes we made the right choice to go to war, albeit several years and lots of dead Ameriicans late .

Are we fighting the war correctly?
Not at the moment. We've got pollitician spouting all kinds of crap that has undermind the war effort indangered our Troops aided our enemies. The press is just as bad or worse. This should be considered treason. We are fighting a war on two fronts. Hopefully voters this November will clean out this rat nest of treasonous vermin here. So we can consentrate on the war over seas. As long as we have pollitical skunks like kerry and kennedy making the war a pollitcal issue . We are screwed. Who in their right mind cares what international community thinks of us this is a fight for survival if we dont win this thing, they'll be back over here killing Americans our loved ones our neighbors.
Iraq is a damn mess because of all PC bs being thrown around by polliticians who if you took what they know about fighting a war shoved up a knats butt it'ld rattle like a bb in a boxcar. If I here one more moron say we should'nt be in Iraq because they had nothing to do with 9/11 I may not have any hair left on my head. This not the 9/11 War it is a war against terrorism. Iraq is the soft under belly of the terrorist world. We need to build up our Troops both in numbers and in moral and destroy the the pockets of resistance and show the world the might of our awsome Dogs of War. If we have to step on some toes along the way or pound a few cities into rubble so be it. The time for apeasment is over. Unleash the DOGS
Pat

Don't get me wron - i firmly believe we should be there. I also believe we should be using more force thats all, little more daisy cutter less m16 if you know what I mean.

Hooker, I agree with you 100 percent. We have a much more serious issue than our TV mindset can deal with. This is the real deal, and we had better toughen up, and be up for the task at hand, if not, lord help us.