Right Wing! Who Are Your Candidates For 2016?

[Anti-Party]

Voting for someone who has no shot in hell of winning is no better than voting for Mickey Mouse. Idealism doesn't get you anywhere in reality. Reality is all that matters.

I'll assume you voted Romney and are a hypocrit.

 

[Anti-Party]

Interesting, I campaigned for John McCain in 2000, but he lost me with his over the top hawkishness. I honestly never thought a war veteran, much less a tortured POW would be so gung-ho to send young Americans into combat when it was so unnecessary. Prior to McCain, I voted for Dole and GWH Bush. The first Democratic Presidential candidate I ever voted for was Al Gore, and I came to Gore in the process of trying to defend GW Bush. I did some research on internet stories that were going around about both candidates, and though I favored Bush, it turned out that the negative stories about Bush turned out to be far more accurate than the Gore stories. I came to view GWB as a purely political animal with little interest in actual policy and the effects of actual policy, as well as little interest in the nation. Obviously I felt Gore was better public servant.

Since then, the GOP has just marginalized itself so much that they rarely field a candidate I could support.

This is NOT the party of Ronald Reagan, in fact, Ronald Reagan could not come close to surviving a GOP primary battle and would likely be a blue dog Dem in today's environment.

I love this post.

I was drawn to McCain also because of his war background. Yet I coulnd't get past his fixation on war and the necessity of more war. He is clearly sponsored by Lockheed Martin or the similar.

 

[Cephus]

I'll assume you voted Romney and are a hypocrit.

Romney is one of the two candidates that had any shot in hell of getting into office, so how is that hypocritical?

 

[Perotista]

Interesting, I campaigned for John McCain in 2000, but he lost me with his over the top hawkishness. I honestly never thought a war veteran, much less a tortured POW would be so gung-ho to send young Americans into combat when it was so unnecessary. Prior to McCain, I voted for Dole and GWH Bush. The first Democratic Presidential candidate I ever voted for was Al Gore, and I came to Gore in the process of trying to defend GW Bush. I did some research on internet stories that were going around about both candidates, and though I favored Bush, it turned out that the negative stories about Bush turned out to be far more accurate than the Gore stories. I came to view GWB as a purely political animal with little interest in actual policy and the effects of actual policy, as well as little interest in the nation. Obviously I felt Gore was better public servant.

Since then, the GOP has just marginalized itself so much that they rarely field a candidate I could support.

This is NOT the party of Ronald Reagan, in fact, Ronald Reagan could not come close to surviving a GOP primary battle and would likely be a blue dog Dem in today's environment.

Interesting, my first presidential vote went to Barry Goldwater. He use to be known as the father of modern day conservatism, but today’s Republicans do not claim him anymore, calling him more a Libertarian. I suppose that is because of his social views of keeping government out of them. His support for Gays in the military and leaving abortion up to the individual.

Most of my presidential vote has gone to Republicans up to 1992, the exception was Jimmy Carter in 1976. I dumped Jimmy for Ronnie in 1980, but from the beginning all state and local votes were for Democrats. But when Sam Nunn retired and Max Cleland retired, I sort of jumped to the GOP locally.

In 1992 I was a Paul Tsongus man, but when it became apparent he didn’t have a chance I switched to Perot and backed him both in 92 and 96. There was something about Gore I didn’t like and I didn’t trust Bush, so I went with Browne, the Libertarian in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008 and Johnson last year.

I grew up with Eisenhower and JFK, it is candidates like that I look for. But today, none is to be had.

 

[Perotista]

Voting for someone who has no shot in hell of winning is no better than voting for Mickey Mouse. Idealism doesn't get you anywhere in reality. Reality is all that matters.

If reality means the only choices I have is between bad and bad, I will continue to live in my world of fantasy. It isn't idealism, it is all about choosing a candidate that in ones own opinion would be good for America. Voting for the two established major party candidates, sure has gotten this country into one heck of a mess. So if you want this mess to continue, continue to vote for the two major parties candidates. Nothing is going to change by doing that.

 

[Cephus]

If reality means the only choices I have is between bad and bad, I will continue to live in my world of fantasy. It isn't idealism, it is all about choosing a candidate that in ones own opinion would be good for America. Voting for the two established major party candidates, sure has gotten this country into one heck of a mess. So if you want this mess to continue, continue to vote for the two major parties candidates. Nothing is going to change by doing that.

No, reality is, one of these two people are going to win. You are going to spend the next four years of your life living under the rule of one of these two people. You don't get a "get out of being screwed" card because you voted for someone else. While I will completely agree that the system is screwed up and needs massive reform, the fact remains that voting for a third party candidate does nothing to contribute to the race that's actually being run. You have done nothing better than had you just stayed home.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Interesting, my first presidential vote went to Barry Goldwater. He use to be known as the father of modern day conservatism, but today’s Republicans do not claim him anymore, calling him more a Libertarian. I suppose that is because of his social views of keeping government out of them. His support for Gays in the military and leaving abortion up to the individual.

Most of my presidential vote has gone to Republicans up to 1992, the exception was Jimmy Carter in 1976. I dumped Jimmy for Ronnie in 1980, but from the beginning all state and local votes were for Democrats. But when Sam Nunn retired and Max Cleland retired, I sort of jumped to the GOP locally.

In 1992 I was a Paul Tsongus man, but when it became apparent he didn’t have a chance I switched to Perot and backed him both in 92 and 96. There was something about Gore I didn’t like and I didn’t trust Bush, so I went with Browne, the Libertarian in 2000 and 2004. McCain in 2008 and Johnson last year.

I grew up with Eisenhower and JFK, it is candidates like that I look for. But today, none is to be had.

I don't necessarily (but this is completely unverifiable without a view into alternate history) think the candidates are that bad on the Democratic side but rather the increased politicization of everything makes it impossible for a candidate to be good. Consider Ike, he ran his campaign, he won, and he worked with a Democratic Congress to get some great things done. If the Democrats of that time behaved as the GOP of today, they would simply prevented him from doing anything he supported, all the while calling him a failure for not getting anything done.

Once upon a time, politics was more reserved for campaign season, and once a person was elected, there was some attempt to make serious policy. Now there is no honeymoon, there is simply politics. If a guy gets elected, the other side immediately begins the campaign to make him look like a failure. The Reps began their intransigence with Clinton, the Dems were pretty obstinate with GW Bush, and it has become a comic tragedy with Obama. But is it Obama that is the bad leader, or is simply politics that prevents him from being a good leader?

I find it hard to disagree with folks that believe that the GOP wants so badly for Obama to fail, that they are willing to do anything they can to make it happen at all of our expense.

Once upon a time, a split government was the most effective government because they made rational policy based in practical concerns while one party rule, either party, simply looted the treasury. Now we seem to have ongoing policy leftover from the treasury looting of one party rule that can't be changed by a split government because one side is simply intrasigent. We won't see a Republican President for quite a while, we won't get anything done with a GOP Congress, and if Dems win all the pieces, they will go crazy.

I don't see any good options except one, change the campaign finance system to get the funded toadies out and allow actual normal concerned citizens in. The biggest obstacle is of course that the funded toadies will do everything in their power (and they have the power) to prevent this from happening.

 

[Mycroft]

But is it Obama that is the bad leader, or is simply politics that prevents him from being a good leader?

I know you make a lot of points in your post...some I agree with...some I don't, but I want to focus on this question.

I think the answer can be found by looking at Obama's first two years or so in Office. When he held the majority in every part of the government.

It is my opinion he did very little to lead. In fact, I saw him as being led by the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

So, yes....I would say that Obama is a bad leader.

 

[joko104]

This country needs another Eisenhower.

 

[joko104]

I prefer to wait and see.

Noting you don't vote for major party candidates, I'll take that as a no.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I know you make a lot of points in your post...some I agree with...some I don't, but I want to focus on this question.

I think the answer can be found by looking at Obama's first two years or so in Office. When he held the majority in every part of the government.

It is my opinion he did very little to lead. In fact, I saw him as being led by the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

So, yes....I would say that Obama is a bad leader.

What would you have had Obama do differently in the first two years, and mind you, although Obama had a majority in the Senate, the period of time where even if Obama had 100% of the Democrats he could overcome a GOP filibuster lasted less than 5 months spread out over three different portions of two years.

I would agree that the two signature pieces of legislation, the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, were far too messy and took too long and were not very good legislation (too much tax reduction and not enough spending in the stimulus, the lack of a public option in the Healthcare bill), but I think reflects intransigence far more than it reflects bad leadership.

 

[Perotista]

No, reality is, one of these two people are going to win. You are going to spend the next four years of your life living under the rule of one of these two people. You don't get a "get out of being screwed" card because you voted for someone else. While I will completely agree that the system is screwed up and needs massive reform, the fact remains that voting for a third party candidate does nothing to contribute to the race that's actually being run. You have done nothing better than had you just stayed home.

I disagree. When I campaigned and voted for Barry Goldwater back in 64, he had a campaign slogan, "In your heart, you know he is right." I know I voted for the right candidate that would have made the best president, Gary Johnson. I did my part during the last election in trying to give this great country the best leader possible. What I didn't do was try to give this nation the least worst leader. I can see the difference whether you can or not.

I agree, the system is rigged. Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act. But those are the cards that are dealt us. To change the system, it has to start at the grass roots level. Elect someone else to the state legislatures besides Republicans and Democrats who will be able to write fairer election laws that will giver anyone who runs a fair chance. I am not worried about results, just a fair chance. This has to start at the state levels where the election laws are written for each state.

In the mean time, I will vote for the best candidate regardless of party.

 

[Fisher]

Portman is probably the presumptive nominee of the GOP at this point--maybe Rubio as VP. The dems would not have a good answer to that combination.

 

[penn1954]

What would you have had Obama do differently in the first two years, and mind you, although Obama had a majority in the Senate, the period of time where even if Obama had 100% of the Democrats he could overcome a GOP filibuster lasted less than 5 months spread out over three different portions of two years.

I would agree that the two signature pieces of legislation, the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, were far too messy and took too long and were not very good legislation (too much tax reduction and not enough spending in the stimulus, the lack of a public option in the Healthcare bill), but I think reflects intransigence far more than it reflects bad leadership.

This to me was bad leadership !!

If he had pursued improving the economy

by using the bully pulpit etc he probably

could have gotten what he wanted,and kept the house.

IMO had he been able to get the economy going he

probably could have gotten much better Obamacare.

 

[Perotista]

I don't necessarily (but this is completely unverifiable without a view into alternate history) think the candidates are that bad on the Democratic side but rather the increased politicization of everything makes it impossible for a candidate to be good. Consider Ike, he ran his campaign, he won, and he worked with a Democratic Congress to get some great things done. If the Democrats of that time behaved as the GOP of today, they would simply prevented him from doing anything he supported, all the while calling him a failure for not getting anything done.

Once upon a time, politics was more reserved for campaign season, and once a person was elected, there was some attempt to make serious policy. Now there is no honeymoon, there is simply politics. If a guy gets elected, the other side immediately begins the campaign to make him look like a failure. The Reps began their intransigence with Clinton, the Dems were pretty obstinate with GW Bush, and it has become a comic tragedy with Obama. But is it Obama that is the bad leader, or is simply politics that prevents him from being a good leader?

I find it hard to disagree with folks that believe that the GOP wants so badly for Obama to fail, that they are willing to do anything they can to make it happen at all of our expense.

Once upon a time, a split government was the most effective government because they made rational policy based in practical concerns while one party rule, either party, simply looted the treasury. Now we seem to have ongoing policy leftover from the treasury looting of one party rule that can't be changed by a split government because one side is simply intrasigent. We won't see a Republican President for quite a while, we won't get anything done with a GOP Congress, and if Dems win all the pieces, they will go crazy.

I don't see any good options except one, change the campaign finance system to get the funded toadies out and allow actual normal concerned citizens in. The biggest obstacle is of course that the funded toadies will do everything in their power (and they have the power) to prevent this from happening.

Yes, I agree. Things have gotten so polarized that it is pathetic. But I don’t blame one party for it. Both parties have dirty hands. It use to be when a bill passed the house, the senate would take it up, make their additions, changes and deletions and then the two versions would go to a conference committee, reconciliation committee to work out the differences. It seems today, Senator Reid tables almost every bill coming from the house instead of using the senate’s power to add, change and delete. Dole and Mitchell did this a lot with bills coming from the house, Lott and Daschel also, but not as much. I blame much of what is known as gridlock, the my way or the highway attitude on Reid and McConnell personally. Boehner and Obama seems they might be able to work together, but there are problems within the ranks, like the tea party.

I’m not sure the Republicans began their intransigents with Clinton. After all the GOP congress and Clinton got the budget balanced, passed welfare reform, NAFTA, and a bunch more. Both were able to get things done where most of us look back on the Clinton era with fondness, minus Lewinski of course.

I am not sure the GOP is the only party at fault. I think a lot of the problem was the almost super majority President Obama entered his term with. A huge majority in the house and 59 Senators and for around 6 month a filibuster proof senate with 60 democrats. He didn’t need the Republicans and for two years govern as such. Then as a result of the 2010 election all of a sudden he needed them. Perhaps it took the president two years to finally figure that out. Time will tell, but I am hopeful. If you are right, once I see that I will come back to you and admit it. But right now, it is both parties at fault to me.

I agree, at one time divided government was very effective. That is because we had leaders in Washington more worried about the country than party. For me Reid and McConnell, party is all they worry about. I would like to see a John Tester and Lamar Alexander replace these two or a Tom Udall and Susan Collins. The House I don’t worry too much about because of the different rules.

Personally I thought McCain would have been a better president than Obama, although I didn’t vote Obama, I voted for Johnson last year, I would much rather have him than Romney. I never trusted Romney and still don’t. Yes the system needs changing, but outside a constitutional amendment there will be no way to get all the big money out of politics. Especially since the SCOTUS ruled money is speech. I think that is baloney, but what I think doesn’t hold water with them. Gerrymandering must go too. As long as we have gerrymandering which is no more than jury rigging an election, there will be no fair elections in this country.

 

[Perotista]

This country needs another Eisenhower.

This I agree with you 100%

 

[polgara]

This I agree with you 100%

Good afternoon, Pero.

Ditto my agreement. :thumbs:

I'm going to paraphrase here because I don't remember who, or the exact phrase, but didn't someone write that conditions will always provide the leader needed at that time? Maybe another Eisenhower will be found to unite this country again. I just hope we have the moxie to recognize him if and when he shows up!

 

[Gipper]

It's still too far from 2016 to make accurate guesses. We need to see how Obamacare affects things before we can guess on candidates.

Then you have to wonder, when it fails, how and who the Dems will pile on and blame for it - thus ending that career. Every idiot who voted for Obama and contributed to the further demise of the nation will have to listen to MSNBC to find out who to blame.

Then the Republicans can nominate someone else.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

This I agree with you 100%

Ike was not special because of who he was, he was special because of what he did before becoming President. He had a degree of immunity from criticism because of his accomplishments in WW2. How could someone with that kind of gravitas even come to exist in our country today? Heroes and warriors (and good men) from subsequent wars were cast aside like partisan trash once they entered politics and declared a side.

Max Cleland, John McCain, John Kerry, Wes Clark, all great men, but once they entered politics, there were no rules on what people would say about them.

Imagine if major media outlets questioned JFK's WW2 Purple Heart citation? At that time, the questioners would have been crucified, not because they were attacking JFK, but by questioning one Purple Heart, you question them all. But now, if it is in the interest of political destruction, people that should have been disgusted by such a tactic jumped right on the bandwagon, and of course Vietnam wasn't WW2, so heroes weren't the victorious heroes.

Ike would tolerate a single day as a candidate today, and I would not blame him.

We have the choices we have because we allow the system to work as it does. We get the government we deserve.

 

[Mycroft]

What would you have had Obama do differently in the first two years, and mind you, although Obama had a majority in the Senate, the period of time where even if Obama had 100% of the Democrats he could overcome a GOP filibuster lasted less than 5 months spread out over three different portions of two years.

I would agree that the two signature pieces of legislation, the stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, were far too messy and took too long and were not very good legislation (too much tax reduction and not enough spending in the stimulus, the lack of a public option in the Healthcare bill), but I think reflects intransigence far more than it reflects bad leadership.

The People didn't want Obamacare...but Pelosi and Reid did. He should have told them to drop it. He had more pressing matters to worry about, like the economy and unemployment. Which brings us to the Stimulus. That was exactly the wrong way to go about it...but it's the liberal way. He blew it.

He doesn't understand the economy. He doesn't care about what the People want. He is incapable of standing up to the members of his own Party. Heck, since 2010, he's hardly TALKED to his own party members in Congress. These are all signs of a bad leader.

The only good thing about our government since 2010 is that the Republicans in the House and Senate have been able to prevent Obama, Pelosi and Reid from making matters worse...even though he has tried.

 

[radioman]

Voting for someone who has no shot in hell of winning is no better than voting for Mickey Mouse. Idealism doesn't get you anywhere in reality. Reality is all that matters.

------------------
What is with this pervasive, irrational dismissal of Mickey Mouse?
Sure, he could use a speech coach, but so could Bachmann.
The guy has carved out a stellar career in spite of being nothing more than a humongous rat.
He doesn't flaunt his wealth, no car elevators or dressage stables. Unlike Mitt.
He has worked side by side with the tempestuous Donald Duck for years. He could probably deal with that cranky McCain.
MM is friends with Clarabelle. He'd probably do well with the LGBT community. Unlike Santorum. (Seriously, what species is Clarabelle?)
He has been loyal to his girl, Minnie, for decades. Unlike Newt.
He's even friends with Goofy. He'd have no problem with Mitch McConnell.
He had as good a chance as Mitt in 2012.
Mickey Mouse 2016 !!!

 

[Perotista]

Good afternoon, Pero.

Ditto my agreement. :thumbs:

I'm going to paraphrase here because I don't remember who, or the exact phrase, but didn't someone write that conditions will always provide the leader needed at that time? Maybe another Eisenhower will be found to unite this country again. I just hope we have the moxie to recognize him if and when he shows up!

Howdy Polgara, I don’t remember the exact quote either, but you are close. Perhaps it was some like “A great leader always rises to the situation.”

I do not think we would recognize him if one did arise. Most of our great leaders where chosen in smoke filled rooms and not through the exhausting primary seasons where on has to be either extreme left or right. Ike couldn’t win the GOP primaries today and neither could FDR or JFK win the democratic ones.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Yes, I agree. Things have gotten so polarized that it is pathetic. But I don’t blame one party for it. Both parties have dirty hands. It use to be when a bill passed the house, the senate would take it up, make their additions, changes and deletions and then the two versions would go to a conference committee, reconciliation committee to work out the differences. It seems today, Senator Reid tables almost every bill coming from the house instead of using the senate’s power to add, change and delete. Dole and Mitchell did this a lot with bills coming from the house, Lott and Daschel also, but not as much. I blame much of what is known as gridlock, the my way or the highway attitude on Reid and McConnell personally. Boehner and Obama seems they might be able to work together, but there are problems within the ranks, like the tea party.

I’m not sure the Republicans began their intransigents with Clinton. After all the GOP congress and Clinton got the budget balanced, passed welfare reform, NAFTA, and a bunch more. Both were able to get things done where most of us look back on the Clinton era with fondness, minus Lewinski of course.

I am not sure the GOP is the only party at fault. I think a lot of the problem was the almost super majority President Obama entered his term with. A huge majority in the house and 59 Senators and for around 6 month a filibuster proof senate with 60 democrats. He didn’t need the Republicans and for two years govern as such. Then as a result of the 2010 election all of a sudden he needed them. Perhaps it took the president two years to finally figure that out. Time will tell, but I am hopeful. If you are right, once I see that I will come back to you and admit it. But right now, it is both parties at fault to me.

I agree, at one time divided government was very effective. That is because we had leaders in Washington more worried about the country than party. For me Reid and McConnell, party is all they worry about. I would like to see a John Tester and Lamar Alexander replace these two or a Tom Udall and Susan Collins. The House I don’t worry too much about because of the different rules.

Personally I thought McCain would have been a better president than Obama, although I didn’t vote Obama, I voted for Johnson last year, I would much rather have him than Romney. I never trusted Romney and still don’t. Yes the system needs changing, but outside a constitutional amendment there will be no way to get all the big money out of politics. Especially since the SCOTUS ruled money is speech. I think that is baloney, but what I think doesn’t hold water with them. Gerrymandering must go too. As long as we have gerrymandering which is no more than jury rigging an election, there will be no fair elections in this country.

While Republicans were working with Clinton (who was right of center anyway) they were also actively trying to remove him from office on specious grounds. It was also absolutely necessary to work together as the GOP had both the Senate and House for most of his two terms.

But I don't blame only one party, as I said previously, both have been intrasigent, I just happen to perceive that the GOP is more instransigent, perhaps because they have only the House, so have no real power to DO anything, only to obstruct anything from being done.

As to campaign finance, I have read and pondered on this, and I think we can make a difference without a Constitutional Amendment or a ruling change by SCOTUS. My suggestion is not that we ban financing elections, but that we make public financing so good that it renders campaign contributions meaningless. When a contributor can't get something from an elected official they help elect, they will stop doing it. Our problem is that in public financing, we step over trillion dollar bills to pick up dimes. we allow a few billion in private campaign spending determine the course of a 4 trillion dollar budget. We would be better served spending $5 billion ever few years to marginalize private contributions. Here is my rationale on the spending increase. I guarantee the 4 billion private contributors donate puts FAR more than $5 billion of costs on the taxpayers, so ultimately, it would save us a ton of money.

If we gave the nominees in the general election a billion dollars to spend as long as they took in no private money, they would take it, and it would free them from fundraising and from the quid-pro-quo. Oh, and any third party advocacy ads, no problem, we would just subtract the estimated cost of those ads from the billion, marginalizing those contributions.

Don't try to make funding elections illegal, just make it pointless.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

The People didn't want Obamacare...but Pelosi and Reid did. He should have told them to drop it. He had more pressing matters to worry about, like the economy and unemployment. Which brings us to the Stimulus. That was exactly the wrong way to go about it...but it's the liberal way. He blew it.

He doesn't understand the economy. He doesn't care about what the People want. He is incapable of standing up to the members of his own Party. Heck, since 2010, he's hardly TALKED to his own party members in Congress. These are all signs of a bad leader.

The only good thing about our government since 2010 is that the Republicans in the House and Senate have been able to prevent Obama, Pelosi and Reid from making matters worse...even though he has tried.

Actually, the Affordable Care Act only took so much time and attention because of the minority opposition and the $102 Million that the health insurers spent to kill it. There was a huge majority in favor of reform, the polling changed because tens of millions were spent on PR firms to change opinions, to protect the profits of health insurers. I suppose you can blame Obama, if you want, but I think we would have called him weak and ineffectual if he gave it up. The opposition pretty much made it a lose, lose.

As to the stimulus, it was ABSOLUTELY not a liberal stimulus bill. A liberal stimulus bill would have put 100% of the money on short term spending for infrastructure, education, and relief. As it was, over 40% of the stimulus bill was spent on tax cuts. Moreover, the money should not have been delivered to states in the way in was, allowing states to use the funds to cover their budget shortfalls but without increasing stimulative spending. It was a conservative stimulus.

 

[Perotista]

Ike was not special because of who he was, he was special because of what he did before becoming President. He had a degree of immunity from criticism because of his accomplishments in WW2. How could someone with that kind of gravitas even come to exist in our country today? Heroes and warriors (and good men) from subsequent wars were cast aside like partisan trash once they entered politics and declared a side.

Max Cleland, John McCain, John Kerry, Wes Clark, all great men, but once they entered politics, there were no rules on what people would say about them.

Imagine if major media outlets questioned JFK's WW2 Purple Heart citation? At that time, the questioners would have been crucified, not because they were attacking JFK, but by questioning one Purple Heart, you question them all. But now, if it is in the interest of political destruction, people that should have been disgusted by such a tactic jumped right on the bandwagon, and of course Vietnam wasn't WW2, so heroes weren't the victorious heroes.

Ike would tolerate a single day as a candidate today, and I would not blame him.

We have the choices we have because we allow the system to work as it does. We get the government we deserve.

Sad, but very true. Partisan politics have went beyond the pale in this win at any cost atmosphere. Max Cleland was my senator, a fine man and a darn good senator. Both of us served in Vietnam and I had an affinity with him that is hard to explain if not impossible. The same with John McCain. Pillaring John Kerry for his Vietnam service was also beyond the pale, I hated it. But bringing up his post Vietnam service going before congress and tossing medals if he did that. I have never heard him say yea or nay, but I would have taken his word. To this day I am not sure, that turned a lot of us old vets off. I followed Wes Clark and if he had won the nomination, I probably would have voted for him. I didn’t vote for Kerry, but my decision there had nothing to do with his Vietnam service, it was post Vietnam.

Very true, we do get the government we deserve.