Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
My quibble is that, in a time of war, instead of critisizing the president's every move (and for some, almost celebrating every misjudgement), they should be offering support. This is not to say that there shouldn't be honest policy objections, but the manner in which they are voiced should be far different than today. Comparing the president to Hitler, saying that the war was hatched in Texas for political purposes, comparing him to a Nazi, demeaning our allies, etc. How can anyone take a party like that seriously. And (to anticipate Ty) it is not just the wingnuts. It is the leaders and nearly all of the DEM presidential nominees, except for Lieberman, who to me is a responsble politician (with the exception of when he had to whore for gore in the 2000 election).
This would not be happening to Roosevelt in 1943.
|
This is rich. Lemme get this straight. The incumbent can attack the challenger with all sorts of lowball tactics, engaging in the sleaziest of smear campaigns and personally attacking the challenger, but the challenger can't attack the incumbent back with similar smear which is BASED ON THE INCUMBENT'S RECORD? Are you seriously saying that?
Bush chose to take the risk of going to war in Iraq. Caveat emptor. To NOT attack bush's record and challenge the basis for his dubious decisions would be treasonous.
Comparing Bush to Roosevelt is like comparing Quayle to Kennedy. Roosevelt was a master at manipulating allies and creating strategic alliances, and he risked his health, and in fact died, because he worked around the clock to get this nation through one of its worst periods (he was on a plane to meet with Churchill late in the war when doctors told him his hypertension was so high he should be nowehere near a plane). Bush is not Roosevelt. Not by a long shot.
