Several questions for you, Senator

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jimnyc, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    David Limbaugh
    Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004

    One blessing likely to result from John Kerry's rapid clenching of the Democratic presidential nomination is that Democrats will finally be forced to give us their solutions for the nation's problems.
    Up to this point, most of their candidates have fueled their campaign engines only with high-octane anti-Bush. Once Kerry becomes the putative nominee -- assuming he isn't there already -- perhaps we'll begin to see a fleshing out of his alternative proposals, instead of merely his empty criticisms.

    A few questions that I'd like to see him answer are:

    -- Health Care: Your party acts like it owns this issue, lamenting that we have over 40 million uninsured. You tell us, essentially, that your highest economic aspiration is to restore the Clinton economy, at which point we'll be able to provide health insurance for nearly everyone.

    But if you'll recall, after Bill Clinton shamelessly exploited this issue against the first President Bush, he barely made a dent in the problem despite the considerable economic prosperity that coincided with his tenure. How will you be able to do more with a Clinton economy than the master himself could?

    -- National Defense: In your incessant complaints about Iraq, you seem long on process and short on substance. You talk about the president's failure to build a sufficient international coalition through "multilateralism."

    How many resolutions would Iraq have had to violate and for how long for you to believe American military action was warranted -- even without the participation of every nation whose blessings you seem to prefer over American security? Do you truly believe that any amount of persuasion would have convinced these intractable nations?

    Let's put it in terms you can better understand. Bush bent over backwards to set a new tone in trying to get along with your party, and you rebuffed him at every turn. If you Democrats won't go along with him, and often aren't even civil about it, what makes you think other nations with vastly different agendas would? And how in good conscience could you effectively entrust to other nations your constitutional duty of safeguarding America's interests?

    Stated more bluntly, do you believe America should ever act unilaterally to protect its strategic interests, or would your presidency defer those decisions to the United Nations, as you suggested in the '70s and seem to be repeating today?

    In retrospect, despite your bellyaching about multilateralism and weapons of mass destruction, can you bring yourself to admit Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein? Was ousting him a moral cause?

    -- War on Terror: You say that George Bush hasn't been effective in leading the war on terror and has diverted too many of our resources to Iraq. Do you base your claim on the fact that we routed the Taliban in short order despite your party's predictions of quagmire, that we've captured or killed some two-thirds of known al Qaeda members, or that we haven't been attacked again since Sept. 11, 2001? Or is it that you just have no confidence in our military and intelligence services?

    -- Tax Populism: George Bush's tax cuts, despite your rhetoric, were skewed against the rich -- that is, the rich got a lesser percentage reduction. Why, then, do you mischaracterize them as "tax cuts for the wealthy"?

    -- Budget: You complain about President Bush's budget imbalances, yet if your plans are implemented on "health care, education and the environment," not to mention others, Bush will look like a fiscal scrooge. Given that your tax increases are likely to retard the recovery, how are you going to balance the budget without dangerous reductions in defense spending?

    -- Education: Since we have proof that throwing ever-increasing federal dollars at education doesn't improve the quality of education, at what point will you quit demanding more? Is there any amount of domestic liberalism that Bush could implement that would satisfy you?

    -- Leadership: I've noticed a disturbing pattern in your approach to issues. You have not only flip-flopped on the most important ones. You have tried to "nuance" your way out of your reversals, always using the same template. You voted for: NAFTA, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq war resolution. On every one, you refuse to own up to your vote and insist it was not the legislation that was objectionable but the way it has been implemented.

    Doesn't presidential leadership require you to own up to your decisions? What part of Harry Truman's "the buck stops here" do you not understand?

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/17/110550.shtml
     
  2. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    like all the other political pundits out there, this is nothing more than dogged out political rhetoric.

    in other words, blah blah blah.....
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    Nice post jim!!!!:clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  4. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I think its time you moved on from David Limbaugh
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Well I would certainly like some specificity to what Kerry thinks he could do, actually do, about the problems he so bitterly charges Bush with. He speaks a lot but doesn't actually say anything.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Would you prefer I quote an article by someone who asks questions that can be answered? What does it matter who wrote the article when it's dead on?
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Could you maybe...just once, actually answer the questions instead using your tried and true "political rhetoric, blah, blah blah," cop out?

    I don't know about others that repond to your post, but when it is me responding to you I attempt respond seriously and actaully answere questions you may have or do you simply not think the question are ones that Kerry will need to answer if elected.

    If you will allow to me vent for a moment, I am getting really tired have every singal post on this board essentially boiling down to name calling. This applies to all who post on here as it occurs in people from all perspectives. If your intention in being here is to actual convince somebody of something you would think they would want to keep the discussion constructive.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    That one illicited quite a chuckle out of me. Unfortunately the answer is of course a resounding and unnanimous, "never."
     
  9. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    OK, Dk how about this if you can't stand poeple questioning a member of your ideolical belief than how about you answer some of these very fundamental questions.
    Taxes, Health Care, Education, War on Terroism, internationalism. I've heard a lot of thoughts on these issues from the right but on the left side all i hear is criticism on the imnplimintation of these policies.
    Do you have a better idea than the one were ussing now? Because I'm pretty sure that the ideas of this admistration are ideas that can be practcal and feasable. It's a Utopiaist who belives that through Govt. peace and prosparity can be achieved. THis is a detrimental view when you consider America.
    All the issues I've been hearing from the Pres. canadats has lead me to believe that these men acuttally think that Govt. should control every aspect of life. Do you feel the same? at what point does personal freedom become a hamper on the "utopiaist's" agenda. When does my right to live "my" life become detrimental to your cause?
    If you can address some of these questions it would be nice. Because mabey I'm stupid or something but it seems to me that all of the ideas coming from the left are unfeasable or unthinkable.

    Bush in 04
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    from bern80

    I have from time to time, not my fault if you don't like the answers

    I respect the fact that you do and most often times I answer seriously as well. I, for one, couldn't care less about kerry's answers because I'm not supporting kerry. My response, if it is read correctly, shows that my contempt for ALL political pundits doesn't stop at just colter and rush or franken and that other crazy moron michael moore, it includes david limbaugh as well.

    of course, i've never stopped anyone from doing it before.

    I don't see every single post boiling down to name calling, yes there are quite a few, but not the majority.

    that would be nice from both sides and all the people, but lets face it, there are some on here who care nothing for other views and ideas but their own and are quite happy being destructive instead of constructive.

    from kcmcdonald

    question kerry all you like, my 'blah blah blah' was about rhetorical BS from political pundits like limbaugh.

    The problem isn't that you hear nothing but criticism from the left, the problem is that you don't want to hear anything from the left. Only if an answer or solution is truly bad, and there have been some from both sides, do you suddenly pay attention and pounce on it for political value. There have been a handful of solutions presented that have sound reasoning and working out the differences to come up with something in between would make the situation better than it is today but most on the right won't give it the time of day because its not 'their' ideology.

    I'll just bet you do.

    It can't be achieved without some involvement from the government.

    absolutely not. In fact, if the government would get out of the pocket of big business we wouldn't have the profiteering going on right now. we wouldn't have some of the monopolistic approval happening right now. It could truly be a free market if the gov weren't supporting big business for kickbacks.

    only when it impedes my right to live my life, no matter the cause.

    I'm sure that it does seem that way, not because you're stupid, but because you simply refuse to examine it for ANY potentiality. It came from the left, therefore, its leftist and not feasible. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page