George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 5stringJeff, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The fact that Zell Miller is not even voting for a Dem this year is quite telling. I wonder how many other Democrats will be jumping ship this election cycle.


    ----------------------------------
    George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

    BY ZELL MILLER , Former Georgia Governor, retiring US Senator

    If I live and breathe, and if--as Hank Williams used to say--the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do
    in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president. I have come to believe George Bush is the right man, in the right place, at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat, who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952, and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

    Why George Bush? First, the personal,then, the political. I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

    I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady, and, the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

    I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

    That's the personal. Now, the political.

    This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands leaders, throughout history, often had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. and, the choice they make may reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

    This is also a president who understands tax cuts are not just something all taxpayers deserve, but, also, the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

    I have just described George W. Bush. Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was the Democratic candidates who want to be president, in the worst way, are running for office, in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run, with our shirttails at half mast.

    I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. They are not exactly role models, when it comes to how to get elected, or, for that matter, how to run a country.

    So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And, my own party's candidates made it even easier.
     
  2. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Zell may very well take a great number of democrats with him, especially in the South.
     
  3. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I doubt that seriously. Zell comes from Georgia, a state that went to Bush in '04. Here is his recent resume:
    Funny thing about old Zell. As far as I can see, he's been a state employee all his adult life. From his stint in the marines at 21 to this day, and yet he sits on several boards of directors. The down and dirty is he's done as a US senator, says he wants to spend more time with his family. Reality is he belongs to the wrong masters, so he wont be winning anymore elections as a Dem., at least until the fiscal conservatives push back the corporatists in the Republican party. You can assume he is a little peeved about it. He would consider a position in the Bush administration and if re-elected GWB will probably give it to him, the Bushs' reward loyalty (arguably over merit), just ask Ollie North.
     
  4. green lantern
    Offline

    green lantern Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    127
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    michigan
    Ratings:
    +4
    zell brings up a few good points. it is hard not to like a man who lets you know up front that he loves his wife,daughters, parents,country, and definitely not least, god himself. another point made was that the next five to ten yrs could define how the rest of this century will go. we have a choice, stand up to these dictators and terrorists now and try to nip them in the bud, or wait and bury our heads in the sand, and let the problem get totally out of hand and be dealing with bombings and terrorist strikes in our country on a daily basis. ask the state of israel how much fun this is. i guess the big question remains, what kind of country do you want to live in, what kind of country do you want your kids and grandkids living in? do you want to be worried that your kids or grandkids could be the victims of a terrorist action? in my opinion, for a longtime,we were to soft on these terrorists, and it emboldened them. they thought they could strike at us with impunity. no more, like it or not, george w. bush has let it be known that we will not tolerate it anymore, and we will hunt you down, keep you on the run to such time as we catch or kill you, or you drop dead from exhaustion. one way or another, no matter how long it takes, we will get you. george bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. quite frankly, if one of the current crop of democrats gets into office, in my opinion, the terrorists will feel that the heat is off and it will be terrorist business as usual. think about it america, your vote will mean somthing next year, think about it long and hard, stay and stick it out and keep these sorry bastards on the run and kill them when we can, or sit on our hands and let them come after us. the best defense is a potent and overwhelming offense.
     
  5. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Hey green lantern, welcome to the board.
    We ave a lot of other options between military domination of the Middle East and burying our heads in the sand. Terrorism is not a new problem. Dealing with it effectively has more to do with draining the swamp than it has to do with killing every alligator.
    Your Isreal reference is very telling. We, like them, are following a policy of military occupation to accomplish a political goal. The Irealis have met with no success in resolving their problems with the palestinians, why do you feel the same strategy will yeild better results for us?
     
  6. green lantern
    Offline

    green lantern Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    127
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    michigan
    Ratings:
    +4
    dijetlo, thank you for the welcome. i feel we need to keep pursuing those that would do us harm, and not to let them get comftorable. i believe we have not seen a subsequent attack on these shores due to this policy since 9-11. you made a valid point on my israel reference. it has not done them every thing they had hoped by retailiating. the situation with them is a little different than it is for us though. they fight for their very existance, with a huge chunk of the arab world wishing for their demise. several things need to happen for peace in that area of the world, one, the suicide bombings have to stop. two, the israelis need to stop building settlements in the disputed territories, three. the rest of the arab-muslim world needs to follow the example of anwar sadat of egypt and make peace with israel. and yassar arafat and his minions need to go. as far as the united states goes, we need to develop other sources of fuel for ourselves, that way our foreign policy can call out those that support the terrorists read into this saudi arabia. kind of hard to do much with them when we buy so much oil from them, and are so dependent on them for our lifestyle. you have to wonder,how long are the muslims, and i dont mean all muslims, not all of them support terrorism, how long are they willing to sacrafice there children, their very future, in suicide bombings before they realize it is not accomplishing anything but killing the future.
     
  7. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I think we could have done much more damage to Islamic terrorism by maintaining the sanction. They survive on visceral unthinking hate of the west in general and the US in particular. Whatever we do to spread that sentiment makes our enemy stronger. Recent events indicate islamic terrorists are increasingly active in the ME, with terrorist organizations now springing up in Turkey. I don't think this strategy is going to be successful in the long term. Lets' bring in the UN and internationalize this before we end up occupying half the ME.
     
  8. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    04' cool, what other states went to Bush in 04?:D
     
  9. Dan
    Offline

    Dan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    3,928
    Thanks Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Aiken, SC
    Ratings:
    +157
    Even though I'm not a fan of his, if I were to vote this election, I'd probably vote for Bush. Fact is, we've done what we did in Iraq, like it or not, and as I've said before, I think we need to stay there and finish up the job. At this point, leaving before the thing is 100% done would make us look very bad. I don't see anyone seeing it through other than Bush.
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    That's it, Dan, come to the dark side! :D
     

Share This Page