I was stunned today when I learned that former Oregon Governor and Senator Mark O. Hatfield was endorsing George W. Bush for President. It’s all in the article, but this is a gentleman who has been an avowed peacemaker all of his professional life. Consider:
[ul]
He was the only Governor who refused to sign a statement supporting Johnson’s Vietnam War policy.
He actively worked with McGovern to end the Vietnam War
He opposed Clinton’s committing troops to Bosnia.
He voted against both the Republican and Democrat resolutions authorizing force in Gulf War I.
In over 30 years in the Senate, he never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.
[/ul]
And yet he still comes out in support of Bush over Kerry, even after Kerry has taken up the mantle of opposing Bush’s Iraq war policy as one of the cornerstones of his campaign, going so far as to claim that his vote in support of the war was misguided. If Kerry can’t get the support of someone such as Hatfield, is it time to conclude that his appeal is too marginal to ensure victory in November?
You know, I bet a lot of the usual suspects are going to jump down my throat for this thread, claiming I am “crowing” about bad news for Kerry, but honestly, I am not. I am simply amazed. When I read the article, my reaction was about what it would have been if I’d seen that Ronald Reagan was coming out in support of Kerry. I know that Hatfield is a Republican, but I honestly thought he would be the last person (except for 'luce, DtC and Reeder ) to support Bush. I thought Hatfield might be a guy who would cross party lines for Kerry, something the Kerry campaign could use to appeal to moderate Republicans. Apparently, it isn’t so.
9/11 changed a lot of people, when it came to their views onthe appropriateness of the use of military force, and apparently, as his statement says, Hatfield was one of the people it changed. And it looks like Hatfield supported the war in Iraq. In fact, Senator Hatfield came out in favor of the war in Iraq last year. So, in spite of his past beliefs, supporting Bush is consistant with his recent views on the war.
I think you are overblowing the conclusions from this one event. Mark Hatfield has always been something of a maverick. The country is not going to live or die on the decision of this one man. He does not speak for moderate Republicans everywhere.
And, I heard rumor that the home paper in Crawford, TX has endorsed Kerry after endorsing Bush 4 years ago. But, I am not concluding from this that it might be “time to stick a fork in Bush.”
There are a number of strange alignments in this election.
I would also say that I don’t tend to trust people who undergo “sea changes” in their general opinions or outlook. It is not like Hatfield is privy to special knowledge that I don’t have. He is looking at the same events as me and reaching very different conclusions. His arguments (such as he presents) are weak as hell. And, I would honestly have to say I think he is kind of whacked on this…Americans aren’t chosing between “action and inaction,” they are choosing between a stupid action incredibly poorly executed and more intelligent action.
Well, what really impresses me about Bush is not so much his steadfastness and resolve in the face of critics but his steadfastness and resolve in the face of facts!
Kerry never voted for an Iraq invasion, but voted to give Bush the power to effectively threaten Iraq with armed force. Don’t propagate this false meme. And I’d like a cite for any claim from Kerry that his vote was misguided, please.
He was a REPUBLICAN senator. It might be news if he was a Democrat. But I sincerely hope the Republicans get cocky because that’s when W. makes his worst mistakes.
With erroneous and broadbrushed statements like these, it’s no wonder their circulation is only 425.
disable the SS System???
deteriorating economy???
What basic freedom have we lost???
There have been mistakes in Iraq, but continuous is probably not the best word to use in describing them (if you want to be taken seriously that is).
Well, I have had trouble linking to the website with the full editorial. (This has been true since last night so their editorial must have attracted too many hits for their small server or perhaps there is a denial-of-service attack going on). So, I must rely on what was given in the SFGate article about it. From what they quoted that you requote here, I admit that it is a bit broadbrushed but perhaps they spelled them out in more detail.
Well, he has proposed funneling a certain amount of money out of the SS system by allowing folks to put some money into private accounts. He hasn’t explained how he will make up the difference since social security is a pay-as-you-go system. The claims that SS is in financial trouble are highly exaggerated (actually Medicare is the more worrisome one) but Bush seems to be encouraging a course that would actually put it into more financial trouble (perhaps considerably more) not less.
Well, the economy goes in cycles and we are currently recovering from a recession; however, the recovery has been very weak especially from a jobs point-of-view. What has undoubtably deteriorated…to put it mildly…is the federal government’s fiscal situation. In fact, Bush has created; large structural deficits that will likely lead to a fiscal train-wreck for the future, particularly once the baby-boomers retire and the government can no longer borrow from the large surplusses in social security to fund the rest of the budget.
There are lots of examples. Obviously, the most compelling ones are for those who are held in detention for long periods of time without being charged. There are also issues involving the Patriot Act (searching of library records, …)
In a related vein, this administration has been highly secretive and restricted information to an unprecedented degree. (Look up Senator Waxman’s recent report on the subject.) This is restricting our abilities as citizens to understand what our government is doing.
And, then there are Bush’s various attempts to add constitutional amendments to specifically restrict rights (e.g., of gays, of freedom of expression by burning the flag, …).
I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves if “continuous” is the right word or not. In my view, one fuck up after another pretty much qualifies as continuous.
Am I missing something or has the OP forgotten that Hatfield is, after all, a Republican?
There seems to be a good number of Republicans who have thrown their support to Bush when examining their beliefs strictly on the policy positions Bush has taken, one might have otherwise thought they were Democrats – John McCain, Colin Powell, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudolph Giuliani, George Pataki (heck, almost identical to the convention’s featured speakers list).
I just saw several “Kerry-Edwards” bumper stickers on cars in the Air Force base parking lot across the street. Looks like it’s back to Crawford for W.
There is also the HUGE deficit budgets, which GWB wants only to make bigger by more tax cuts.
You have read the Patriot Act II?
A. Going in in the first place, and then it goes downhill from there.
But this is one of several “Kerry’s done for” threads started by Bush supporters. I mean, the election is so damn close that no one will be able to call it before Election day- if then. However, despite that, several GOPers are willing to call it now. Sounds to me like the GOP is scared. One % point, and Kerry wins it. That’s scary, I’ll bet. But if they make some of the fence sitters decide to stay home, then that’s a GOOD thing for the GOP. :rolleyes:
I dunno if these threads are so much a “Great debate” as a sneaky way to campaign for the Re-election. :dubious:
Hey, congratulations, it took you less than a day to come out with the accusation that this thread was exactly the opposite of what I specifically said it was in the OP, exactly as I predicted someone would. You wanna try reading for content and not for knee jerk? Also, I am in the record more than once on these boards as being someone who is planning on voting for Kerry, so the accusation that I am a Bush supporter is pretty much bullshit too. You’re 0 for 2, good job!
) to support Bush. I thought Hatfield might be a guy who would cross party lines for Kerry, something the Kerry campaign could use to appeal to moderate Republicans. Apparently, it isn’t so.