Replies

Not only did it waste time and money, it cost lives. Because Clinton was unable to act with credibility, he could not strike when and where he wanted to. Not that he would have, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

Lewinsky affair was dangerous because it was such a huge distraction that HAD to be dealt with. It was a major concern for national security.

So, what have the Dems tried to do??

They have taken every opportunity to undermine the credibility of this President. From the moment the election was lost, they fought the war on credibility. From the minute Bush decided to act against terrorism, the Dems sought to undermine the credibility of this President abroad and at home. Now, with successful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a recovering economy, and an improving outlook, the Dems once again seek to undermine the credibility of the President.

Paying no attention to the other miseries that come with attempting to take a sitting President down, the Dems lie about the war on terror, lie about Iraq, lie about pre-war intelligence, lie about judicial appointments and continue to lie about the improving economy. They've attempted to damage the credibility of the President by calling into question his National Guard service. They've attempted to aid the enemy by painting the picture that John Kerry will be friendly with our enemies...as opposed to GWBush.

Make no mistake, this election, as will all future elections, will be about the CREDIBILITY of the Candidate. and what a dangerous precedent it is. Once you start questioning the credibility of a candidate, you tend to throw many other things under the bus.

The Dems attacks are damaging the economy, damaging our troops, hindering the democratic process in Iraq, damaging our foreign relationships, giving comfort to those who seek to destroy us, and causing further division within this country. They do so without inhibition...nor without true cause. The rest of the world be damned as long as the Dems win an election.

This is McAuliffe's strategy...and right now...it seems to be working. Sad sad sad...

We've had six weeks of nonstop RAT Bush-bashing, then preposterous polls trumpeted on the nightly news by the lib. media that Dean or Kerry or Edwards (whatever dwarf of the moment), is leading Bush! Anyone with half a brain can see through this nonsense. It'd be funny if it weren't so dangerous. Kerry is congenitally incapable of telling the truth about anything, but the press never calls him on it. We'll get the same, sleazy, liberal spin until the cows come home. People at work don't think in global terms, frankly. It's bread and butter issues and wondering if we'll get blown up tomorrow. So I intend to mention the disappearing tax cuts(if Kerry or any other RAT gets in), to every parent of my acquaintance. And after that, we'll talk about how Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a simple law and order problem. Strengthen the UN, admit we're wrong about everything, crawl on our knees, raise our taxes, and we're all set. That ought to cook Kerry's goose.

This is McAuliffe's strategy...and right now...it seems to be working. Sad sad sad...

It won't work. You are correct that it is intensely damaging to American interests, but it won't work. Consider the history.

Incumbent Presidents subjected to "hate campaigns" (and/or extreme credibility attacks) by the opposition: Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Clinton -- ALL REELECTED.

Last incumbent denied reelection because the electorate voted AGAINST him, rather than for his opponent: Herbert Hoover, 1932.

This is McAuliffe's strategy...and right now...it seems to be working. Sad sad sad...

It won't work. You are correct that it is intensely damaging to American interests, but it won't work. Consider the history.

Incumbent Presidents subjected to "hate campaigns" (and/or extreme credibility attacks) by the opposition: Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Clinton -- ALL REELECTED.

Last incumbent denied reelection because the electorate voted AGAINST him, rather than for his opponent: Herbert Hoover, 1932.