Security moms

[PeachMonkey]

Okkk... that article said the same thing that the NPR report said...

Why did you ignore the part where it said that Kerry had voted *for* a bill that included the money for the troops while cutting the tax breaks for the wealthy in order to pay for it?

Or the part which explained that the body-armor you referred to was 1/2 of 1% of the total expenditures of the bill? Or how it was the "Bush Administration" that sent the troops over without sufficient body armor?

 

[Cryozombie]

Why did you ignore the part where it said that Kerry had voted *for* a bill that included the money for the troops while cutting the tax breaks for the wealthy in order to pay for it?

Mainly because I missed it... I went with their (the site you sent me) "Summary"

Or the part which explained that the body-armor you referred to was 1/2 of 1% of the total expenditures of the bill? Or how it was the "Bush Administration" that sent the troops over without sufficient body armor?

I think the guilt of the Bush administration speaks for itself... My comments were specifically geared twords the fact that they (the Bush administration) acknowlaged them, attempted to correct them, and, from what they reported on the radio Kerry voted against in "Protest" of the troops being there...

Overall the situation reads to me "Since I dont believe they should be there, I will not give them the equipment they need, F- Them, let em die."

I know those were not his words... but that is what his comment about it being a Protest made me feel.

 

[Marginal]

So the fact that Kerry supported another bill that would've accomplished essentially the same thing minus the whopping debt does nothing to indicate that Kerry wasn't trying to flip the bird at the millitary, but rather at the bill Bush wanted?

 

[kenpo tiger]

So the fact that Kerry supported another bill that would've accomplished essentially the same thing minus the whopping debt does nothing to indicate that Kerry wasn't trying to flip the bird at the millitary, but rather at the bill Bush wanted?

You (that's a collective you) can read anything you wish into each and every Congressional and Senatorial vote. If Mr. Kerry came out solidly for either bill, there would be screams of "why did he...", as illustrated in our little lab experiment here. We can argue and go around and around in circles. The fact of the matter is that, as I posted in the electoral college thread, we'll all vote and I'm afraid that Mr. Bush will still be there.

I'd like to know what both plan to do for NY. The aid promised us after 9/11 is nowhere.

 

[loki09789]

On NPR today I heard a story about the Kerry campaign's problem getting Women's votes. It said that Women, typically Dem. voters, are polling out as Bush supporters solely on the security issue. What do you think is the reasoning behind this viewpoint, which (from what I read in the paper) is being called the reason Bushes Poll #'s are so strong?

And before we get into it, lets just skip all the "spin control", "ignorant masses", "media manipulated" yadda yadda arguements. There has to be a more basic human behavior and/or psychological reason that this is happening, even in spite of widespread dissatisfaction over the reasons we went to war and the prosecution of it.

Clinton was being interviewed by "The National" (Canadian news) and basically said that Bush has a fighting chance because people have a tendency to go with "Strong but wrong" leaders when their in fear of their safety/stability because the 'strong' part is comforting and they can sink their teeth into that at least. The "wrong" part might not be great, but at least it gets them what they want...security. Or, at least that is the logic that he outlined in the interview.

I can see it. On a smaller scale, how many times do we hear in action films, real life or what ever "I don't care what you have to do, just KILL THAT BUG!" type of comments. They might complain and criticise after the fact about methodology, but in the moment, they just want something done.

 

[kenpo tiger]

And who says the new guy wouldn't do 'something'? Sometimes you have to take risks in life. That's why I'm not a "security mom" (or a soccer mom).

 

[loki09789]

And who says the new guy wouldn't do 'something'? Sometimes you have to take risks in life. That's why I'm not a "security mom" (or a soccer mom).

Well that is the point. THe 'security moms' as they have been coined have found the line of risk they are not willing to cross because they are afraid of that 'something' (that is unknown and scarier than the known to them) making this situation worse.

Think about it in terms of abused spouses who stay in the situation because leaving and risking the 'unknown' is a bigger fear than staying in a bad situation. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" as the saying goes.

I, personally, think that ANY decision primarily motivated by fear is not the best way to go at all. It is A way to go, but not the best one IMO. Voting from fear is not a good thing.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Paul,

Could also be that those 'security moms' are good, Republican cloth-coat-wearing women anyway.

To paraphrase Tess:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, Champagne in one hand - strawberries in the other, body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!"

I agree with you that voting from fear isn't a viable alternative to my way of thinking.

 

[Cryozombie]

So the fact that Kerry supported another bill that would've accomplished essentially the same thing minus the whopping debt does nothing to indicate that Kerry wasn't trying to flip the bird at the millitary, but rather at the bill Bush wanted?

No.

If he had shut up, not spoken about "Protest" and done that, then Yes.

Lets face it... Politics is Marketing... and any good marketing exec will tell you:

"Perception IS Reality"

Coming from a family that served in several wars... That is my Perception of his comments.

 

[Tgace]

Heres the NPR story I heard when I started this thread...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4048537

 

[Phoenix44]

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

Perhaps, but that is a piss poor excuse for intellectual laziness. Anyone who is even remotely interested can discover the important issues, the candidates' voting records, the candidates' plans, the candidates' actual statements, and the candidates' qualifications--all within a few moments time.

I am amazed that some of our MT colleagues will do intensive research on an arcane martial art, but can't spare the few seconds it would take to do a google search on an election issue. Instead of actually considering the issues which will shape their future, they prefer instead to spout sound bites like, "security mom," "flip-flop," or "feminazi." If they only knew how idiotic they sound.

Who knows? Maybe if they took the few minutes to look into the facts, the "devil you don't know" might turn out not to be a devil at all.

 

[loki09789]

Perhaps, but that is a piss poor excuse for intellectual laziness. Anyone who is even remotely interested can discover the important issues, the candidates' voting records, the candidates' plans, the candidates' actual statements, and the candidates' qualifications--all within a few moments time.

.

And there is no excuse for claiming to have an opinion based on research when the search process was targeted to find, retain and apply only things that will support a previously created opinion....

These women as "security moms" may have done research, may have found evidence, but could quite possibly (consciously or unconsciously) only kept/remembered those bits that justified their position, as many are apt to do at times.

As I said before, whether politics or persona decisions of anykind. If you are 'working from fear' when you decide something, it isn't the best possible way to form decisions. Of course, neither is hate or prejudice.

 

[Phoenix44]

These women as "security moms" may have done research, may have found evidence, but could quite possibly (consciously or unconsciously) only kept/remembered those bits that justified their position, as many are apt to do at times.

...which is, of course, exactly what the President did to justify his war in Iraq. That doesn't make the process intelligent or honest.

However, the term "security mom," as I understand it, applies to mothers whose primary worry is the security of their family. It isn't a partisan term. A so-called "security mom" could be a Bush supporter OR a Kerry supporter, depending on which candidate is better on that issue. "Security moms" are an electoral interest group, similar to "labor" or "big business."

 

[Fortis]

First of all, there is not going to be a draft in anyone living's near future so all the "security moms" can relax about that. The military has gone beyond needing sheer numbers into a much more specialized affair.

I heard the same NPR story and my general thought is that it's just another voter label (i.e. NASCAR dads, soccer moms) that are picked up as key groups that can make or break an election that becomes a popular catch-phrase to throw around. I'm not saying that certain groups aren't particularly sought after but after a time, I feel most of these analyses just become self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why people think Bush is going to protect them in their backyard better than Kerry or anyone else is beyond me. It was Bush who dropped the ball on Al-Qaeda (ugh, spelling) in the first place when he first came into office and immediately started talking about Iraq.

 

[Phoenix44]

First of all, there is not going to be a draft in anyone living's near future.

You sure about that? And you're aware of the Congressional Bills, S.89 and H.R.163?

 

[Fortis]

Official Title as Introduced: 'A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.'I wasn't aware of the exact number, but yes I've heard about this bill. I'm not necessarily against this but I would be very surprised if this went through. The "period of civilian service" automatically makes this far from a draft.