Patriotism will be an issue in '04

[quinnox]

Yes, it will be made an issue by the Repubs, and any candidate with strong national security credentials will be in a good position. Weak candidates who appear like pacifists will go down badly, and Bush will win a landslide. The most important priority for the Dems is to win the White House, so it is essential to nominate a candidate with clear national security experience. Like it or not, patriotism will be an important part of the '04 campaign. Candidates who appear weak on defense will be a complete disaster for the Democratic party.

[Prodemsouth]

1. This is true

The Admin can always make national security and defense an issue. You control the white house you can always pull this rabbit out of a hat.

[Terwilliger]

2. so...what happens when Bush starts another war

and Clark and Kerry aren't able to articulate enough military greasing to get those types to vote for Dems

Then who will you blame?

[quinnox]

4. If Bush starts another conflict

Then unless it is necessary and a last resort, I don't see Clark and Kerry supporting it.

[Terwilliger]

30. . . .

:wow:

[redeye]

39. Like Iraq for example?

Kerry voted for the war.

[DeathvadeR]

6. Damn bro...

Don't say that!!! That might be a viable option for Shrub. Fuck bro just don't even mention that to anyone.

[DeathvadeR]

3. Thats so true....

And so Sad. I personally will vote for the candidate that will focus on spending money securing the nation and its borders without taking away ours and outside foriegners civil rights. If there is a way?
Not trying to take over the world like the repukes have been doing. O too late I forgot that we are currently have troops stationed in 200+ nations outside the US... All a bipartisan effort....

Join the Military see the world(The world we are policeing that is)

[newsguyatl]

5. quinnox

you seem to be on a mission tonight toboth directly and subtly attack dean... :shrug:

any reason why?

[quinnox]

8. I didn't mention any candidates in this post

And in my other two I was just comparing Clark and Dean's record. If that is an attack on Dean, then it is Dean's record that is the cause of it.

[newsguyatl]

10. if you say so

i just know that i, for one, can't think of a candidate i fear enough to continually bring up in threads to compare and contrast...

guess that just shows my faith in dean... (and others' fear in him)

[DeathvadeR]

7. Delete this thread!!!!!!

Before anyone else sees it. I'm serious.

[quinnox]

9. I'm not saying anything that isn't known

to GOP operatives and strategists. I'm sure they have all kinds of nasty scenarios cooked up, but I still think they can and will be beaten!

[DeathvadeR]

13. It just never occured to me.

Thats an awful scenerio. It's like throwing dirt in your opponents eyes.

[nini]

11. If we weren't patriotic we wouldn't be so upset.

people that really love this country for what it stands for and hate to see it being ruined.

so bring it on..

[redeye]

40. Why?

I'm not patriotic, thus I'm upset that Bush thinks that people should serve the USA instead of vice versa.

People that really love the country know that the leader is the country and thus thinking for themselves is unpatriotic.

[BurtWorm]

12. It was supposedly an issue in 1992, as well.

Bush I tried to smear Clinton as being a draft-dodging Soviet-coddling anti-war protester. Bush II will try to smear whoever he's running against similarly. But in the next two years, the American people could easily become weary of Bushes rush to war or to terror alerts whenever his poll numbers sink or criticism gets turned up too high.

But you are right that "national security" will probably be an issue. I would hope the Democrats can frame it as they like, rationally, and devastate the Bushists by showing what fuck-ups they are in that area. It's not too much to ask.

[Wonk]

14. US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/8.html
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.



Bush signs American flags for workers at Beaver Aerospace and Defense after speaking about jobs and economic growth in Livonia, Michigan, Thursday, July 23, 2003.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030725/168/4s8z4.html

[foo_bar]

23. ibid

Sec. 10. - Modification of rules and customs by President

Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of America, set forth herein, may be altered, modified, or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable; and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/10.html

[Wonk]

32. Did * make such a proclamation that it's now cool to write on flags?

Maybe I missed that.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/flagburning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws

Michigan
The State of Michigan makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to publicly mutilate, deface, defile or show contempt for the U.S. flag or the Michigan state flag.

LBN thread on this, too.

[foo_bar]

33. he signed an executive order

on a flag ;)

[CMT]

15. I reject the idea that only someone who voted for Iraqi resolution

is strong on Defense and able to compete with these White House Bums. Sometimes the most patriotic thing to do is not to go to war. I think our country is waking up to this. Dean is as patriotic as any Democrat and he will take there "soft on defense" arguements and spit it back in their faces.

[newsguyatl]

16. AMEN brotha!

[quinnox]

17. Ok, you said one thing that is good

Yes, sometimes it is more patriotic not to go to war. But, in the Iraq case, I think a majority of American's believe it was a just and good action, and unless something dramatic happens between now and campaign season next year, candidates who try to play on the idea the Iraq war wasn't a good thing will be perceived as weak in my view by the greater public.

[wuushew]

19. Same thing with Vietnam

many people supported it until the body count got too high. Same thing now except today's unjust war is alot less bloodly.

[Prodemsouth]

25. Dean didn't vote for it because he didn't have to.

Graham is the one who voted nay on it. The only one so far to mention the I word. Don't worry still haven't made up my mind, not convinced yet that Dean could not go all the way, seems smart, don't change his position on Guns it is perfect. (If you are a liberal and you still support gun control you haven't been paying attention). only know I don't support Lieberman (because he is a theocrat) or Kuchnich (because Cleveland was the butt of jokes when he was mayor.)

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Should we be guided by the jokes told by right wing nuts?

The country was in better shape during the Clinton presidency than during Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II yet Clinton was and is the butt of jokes from right wingers. Therefore, why pay attention to wing nuts who joke about Kucinich? Their jokes about him mean no more than their jokes about Clinton, indicating only their hatred for all who are not with them.

[lkinsale]

18. I know this isn't a popular idea around here

But I believe it's the truth. We MUST have a candidate who appears to the public to give our national security the highest priority, and is bulletproof on the issue.

People can argue and argue that this is not true, but I think they have their heads in the sand.

More than one candidate was against the war, but their reasons were different. Their reasons will be crucial.

[quinnox]

20. Yes indeed

Agree 100%.

[BurtWorm]

21. Please be more specific.

What do you mean by national security? Are you talking about something real, or something do with perception?

[lkinsale]

26. Both

I think the successful candidate will have to have a specific, convincing security platform regarding terrorism, and I think he/she will have to be bulletproof against the charge of being a wimp or inexperienced regarding security and defense.

[BurtWorm]

29. Still too vague for me. It sounds like you're talking all perception

all the time.

[lkinsale]

31. Well, it's an election, you know

So it's about 99% perception.

But if you want my opinion on the facts, I think Graham has the position that makes sense on security. We need to get serious about al-Queda, in this country and with "foreign governments," and stop this pussy-footing around like the censorship in the 9/11 report. We need to concentrate on protecting our ports and our vulnerable targets. We need to demand that the CIA and FBI and all intelligence communities work together instead of trying to protect their own backs. We need put the bucks where they will do some good in preventing another 9/11, instead of haring off on this expensive (financially and militarily) misadventure in Iraq.

Those are specific security issues. Our homeland efforts are ridiculously underfunded and slapdash. This is Bush's screw-up, and it should be highlighted and attacked by the winning Dem candidate. Iraq is a mess, but there is another side to the story, and that's the mess homeland security and our intelligence is in.

See INTELLIGENCE FAILURES PBS July 24, 2003, with Graham and Shelby for what I'm talking about.


"Osama bin Forgotten," as Graham said on Maher tonight (to considerable applause.)

[BurtWorm]

34. I would support Dems talking about international cooperation

rather than this half-assed Bushist isolationist approach. We can't win talking about building fortress America. That's the dim-witted Bushist "idea." I can't support Dems playing along with the Republican game of pretending its US against the world.

[lkinsale]

36. Well, since I didn't suggest any of that, I guess we agree

Maybe you misunderstood my reference to "foreign governments." I was talking about the censored parts of the 9/11 report, where we allare supposed to talk about a "foreign government" directly supporting the hijackers, instead of saying outright that it was the Saudis.

The homeland security issues are always going to be problematic in an open society. However, things like port security are not really difficult in terms of civil rights. They just cost money, and Bush should be attacked for trying to do them on the cheap.

Interesting convo, but I'm off to bed.

[BurtWorm]

37. Didn't mean to imply that's what you were talking about

My antennae go up when the phrase "national security" goes up, because I think it's essentially empty.

It is an interesting conversation. I'm sure it will be continued.

[Kurovski]

22. No one is worse than Bush on defense

9/11 happened under his watch. A young American dies nearly every day because HE LIED.

Americans are directly displeased with the one billion dollars a week spent in Iraq that the LIARS in the WH bamboozled out of them.

[DieboldMustDie]

24. What's patriotic...

about impoverishing America for one's own personal gain? That's what Bush and his cronies are doing you know!

Starting another war to boost his support first crossed my mind quite a while ago, but the way things are going, we could still be too bogged down in Iraq.

[leesa]

28. Patriotism, apparently, is blind support for The Party

[leesa]

27. Why? Bush is weak on defense.

Ya know, maybe it's time for Americans to grow up.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Achtung! Achtung! Let's pledge our loyalty to the Fatherland!

And let us dedicate ourselves to God's Annointed One, George W. Bush!

[redeye]

41. Yeah. that's what I thought, too, I guess

I don't want in the WH a patriotic apologist like Kerry who thinks that progressivism and patriotism are reconcilable. I want someone who isn't afraid to tell people that the country is their servant, and he is the chief public servant.

Too bad Dean tried to enlist but was turned down. I wish he were a draft dodger or something like that; I hold Clinton's draft dodging past as a positive point, for example.

[indigo32]

38. Hmmmm

are you saying that only Dems who supported the war can have strong National Security Credentials or are you speaking more generally in terms of National Security.

Cuz the way I see it... those that did support the war could be made to be seen as FOLLOWING that great leader * :puke:

We DO need to look strong on national security, your damn right, and frankly I think that * is EXTREMELY WEAK on this issue. We need someone who can articulate that and frame it correctly.

At any rate I'm going to vote for any dem running against him.