Convention Watch

I've heard it said before that the best leader isn't the biggest or the strongest, but the one who cares the most.

 

Never heard back from you – Wasn’t it John Adams and Thomas Jefferson? Seems like Bill was in pretty good company, not to mention FDR and Abraham Lincoln being on that list.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26565127

The above is for the people who scoffed and said more people watched/voted for American Idol than they did political races. NOT! More people watched the conventions that the Idol finale. :mrgreen:

 

And more people watched John McCain's acceptance speech than Obama's acceptance speech. :mrgreen:

 

I couldn't find the original link I had, but those with no military experience were:

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Grover Cleveland
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Bill Clinton

I wasn't really implying a person who had not served in the military couldn't be president, however to me I have a greater appreciation for a Commander In Chief who before putting troops in harm's way, knows what its like to have been there. Right there is another difference between GWB and McCain.

McCain was in active combat and was a POW. I'm not so sure that any U.S. President having served in the military, has ever been a POW. To me, I like the attitude of finishing what we start. The Iraqi liberation has been for the most part, completed with very few incidences now. There was an obvious problem with leadership that was fixed. If Senator Biden's scenario had been fulfilled, we would have split Iraq into three providences and that would have done nothing for a unified democratic Iraqi which looks to be on a set path now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The removal of Saddam was the right thing to do, however the U.N did not step up like they should have done. He [Saddam] violated and flaunted his disregard for sanctions and inspections. There was a legitmate reason for his removal, and it shouldn't have been up to just the U.S., U.K, and Australia to go it alone. Critics tend to leave out the fact that despite the findings of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam was incooperative with inspectors and was constantly in violation of sanctions due to his actions from '91. Additional strain was placed on us militarily when there should have been a coalition. Of course, there are situations where the UN doesn't seem interested such as Darfur.

 

I think fact checkers are great, but I think your comment was meant more as an insult than a factual statement. I think it is great to check facts for all the candidates. Unfortunately most politicians are a little loose with the facts and that's why so many hate politics.

I wasn't spinning, just rambling and being long winded. I apologize for my lack of brevity.

I didn't say that or anything even close to it.

I don't see how debating issues is "stooping to any depths," but you are entitled to your opinion.

Obviously the problem in communicating is that I don't think the comment about not funding the troops is limited to that one bill.

Please look back at my responses to that first comment. I never said he didn't vote a particular way on the funding bill Annenberg cited. My point was that to vote against the surge was to deny funding to troops on the battlefield and Obama not only voted against the surge, but he was very vocal about his opposition to the surge. If you are making the point that since the vote against the surge was not the same vote that Annenberg cited, it proves that Obama never voted against giving troops on the battlefield what they need, then we just disagree. I don't see how his vote on one bill negates the vote against the surge. My point was that a vote against the surge was a vote against giving the troops on the battlefield what they needed to win. The troops were there. They needed reinforcements to win. Obama wanted to deny them those reinforcements because he said they could not win. Reid said they had already lost.

In both of my responses I explained at length that I was talking about the surge vote, rather than that vote on the version of the funding bill Annenberg cited, but in your responses you did not mention the surge. I thought the problem communicating was that I was not explaining myself well enough, but looking back at the entire back and forth between us it appears the real problem is that while I talked at length about how I thought voting against the surge was a vote against funding the troops, you didn't acknowledge the reference to the surge at all. Those long winded, rambling comments I made were all completely about the surge, yet you were referring to a vote on a different bill.

It all makes perfect sense now. No need to accuse anyone of not liking fact checkers or stooping low. We just fundamentally disagree. That's part of what makes America great, although sometimes confusing!

 

I think everyone can agree that is a great thing. Except maybe the American Idol producers.