It’s not new information, but the New York Times has a chart of all the presidential candidates (which no longer include Tom Vilsack) and their positions on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the troop surge and whether to withdraw. For example, here is Sam Brownback’s withdrawal position, such as it is: “While we cannot make a precipitous withdrawal, we can transfer more security responsibility to the Iraqis and reduce the threat to American troops.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
15 Comments
“While we cannot make a precipitous withdrawal, we can transfer more security responsibility to the Iraqis and reduce the threat to American troops.”
What kind of wishful perception is that?Hellooo! – Is anybody at home in that numbskull?
Tom Vilsack was a two-term governor of Iowa, a Democrat, and I believe a successful political leader in Iowa. I think under a different selection system, he might have been a viable candidate for President.
After dropping out of the Presidential race in the past few days, he blamed raising money as the insurmountable problem. He also said the current “publicly funded” system by our government creates problems and reduces the incentive for candidates to raise their own political funds.
I AGREE AND THINK THIS IS WHY WE ARE GETTING THE EXHORTERS, EDWARDS, BROWNBACK AND OBAMA, three candidates with law degrees but minimal leadership experience out on the firing line.
Brownback sure knows how to use a lot of words to say nothing. Or, a lot of words that allow him to contend the words meant ______ (fill in blank with WHATEVER). Is that a qualification for POTUS?
Linda: There is an old adage that states, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!” Obvious, the former is not an option open to Brownjerk, and he’s not even marginally good at the latter. He’s literally a legend in his own mind.
Clearly, no one cares much about this thread.
At the meetup, the editors told us that Brownback’s staff makes a habit of monitoring this blog. I guess they will find unhappy news here.
Well, since no one else is using this thread? I want to play a game. It’s called “out the nuts”
Here is how it works:
The GOP has NO viable candidate for President right?
SO I want to ask those on the right, if I wave my wand and adjust the Constitution, would you vote for george w bush in 08?
Let’s see who the REAL kooks are!
Taking Iraq as the most defining issue of the 2008 election, Obama, Gravel and Kucinich would be the only viable candidates.They are the only 3 who voted against it (and if you believe the war is a disaster and unwinable and should have never been fought) and the only one’s who have been right on Iraq from the start.If I was a Democrat I certainly wouldn’t cast my vote for someone who was stupid enough to be fooled by a lying liar I believe to be mentally retarded.
There are Lies; Damned Lies: and Bush!
So Obama, Gravel or Kucinich Steve?
I thought the article today in the Eagle about the GOP candidates meeting with Dobson, Fallwell etal was very revealing. I would have thought in advance that they would fall all over themselves to support Brownback – but no. What do they know about Brownback that we don’t?
Kelly–
What rapture right leaders know about Brownback is that he’s not going to win.
Though they say the worship God, they really worship power.
Hence, bye bye Brownback.
JWink–
The last two candidates the Dems ran for Pres. had as much experience as one could possibly hope for–Kerry, 30 years in the Senate & Gore, Senator and Vice President.
They both were beaten (kinda) by a one-term Governor from Texas.
Experience has been shown to be a LIABILITY once the Republican mud-slinging machine fires up.
Bring on Obama, the only candidate without ties to Clinton.
Do voters see being a U.S. Senator as a plus or minus for running for president or vice president? Its a really plush, high paying job with no supervision — hard to give up to run for President. I notice that Obama, Brownback and Edwards (is Edwards still a Senator??) are being paid their Senator’s salary while running for president.
Personally, I think being a SUCCESSFUL governor is better experience for the presidency. Although some governors pitch into their state’s political fray, others, such as Sebelius, remain on the edges of the action.
I guess I would have to go back and look at each president since Franklin Roosevelt to see if my theory holds water.
Of course, FDR was governor of New York, AFTER CONTRACTING POLIO AND LOSING USE OF HIS LEGS.
On the other hand, his successor, Harry S Truman, was not a governor. But he was a county commissioner (known as county judge) in Jackson County, Missouri. There he built a network of concrete roads in the early 1930’s and was supported by Tom Pendergast. Amazingly, Truman always got way more than he wanted in politics … mostly thanks to Big Tom Pendergast.
Eisenhower, of course, was a war hero, not a governor nor Senator.
Kennedy was a charismatic U.S. Senator.
L.B.J. inherited the position but was overwhelmed by the Viet Nam War. Don’t think he was a governor but was a U.S. Senator.
Nixon was Vice President under Eisenhower and governor of California before becoming President.
Gerald Ford was a Congressman but never a Governor. Inherited the presidency and was never elected to the office.
Carter was governor of Georgia but not a Senator/Congressman.
Reagan was governor of California.
George H.W. Bush was vice president and CIA director.
Bill Clinton — where did he come from? Don’t think he was a governor nor a Senator/congressman.
George Bush Jr. — Governor of Texas and baseball owner.
I didn’t plan to list these but got carried away.
Wink: LBJ was both a member of the House of Representatives and a Senator from Texas.
Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. And this is actually true. While he was Governor the Governor’s Mansion was being remodeled, and much of his tenure was spent living in a trailer nearby. A popular joke at the time was, “Did you know they are remodeling the Governor’s Mansion?” “Yeah, I heard they were taking the wheels off!”
Nixon never was Gov of California. He lost in 1962 and delivered the famous “now you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” speech.
Nixon lost to Pat Brown, father of Jerry Brown.
Unfortunately, Nixon did come back.
Damn it.
Regarding errors in my quick list of backgrounds of various Presidents — as poli sci students would say, “Excuse me, I knew that!”