On Military Spending:
1. 'Democrats undermine the military' - Not true. The defense budget in 1986 (note the cold war was still in effect) was $273 billion. Clinton's budget in 1996? $266 billion. A whopping 2% percent less. It was however, larger than outgoing Bush Sr.'s budget, which was masterminded by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Go ahead, look it up.
That being said, who do you think developed the super-advanced military that we qued and up and rolled through Afghanistan and Iraq with? We headed into Afghanistan about a year into Bush's first term with the most advanced and powerful military in the world, an army far more sophisticated and equipped than the one we used in the first Iraq war (10% of our bombs dropped in Iraq #1 were smart bombs, some 70% this time around). Was this enough time for the triumphant patriotic republican to overhaul a weak democratic military and create the rock solid hi-tech fighting force currently serving us? Short answer: No. This is Cinton's military.
Director of national security studies at the Council of Foreign Relations Lawrence J. Korb on the the success of the Iraq war: "The military forces that executed the plan so boldy and bravely were for the most part recruited, trained, and equipped by the Clinton administration." He goes on to say, regarding our swift victory in Iraq, "The fact of the matter is, most of the credit for the successful military operation should go to the Clinton administration."
But if Mr. Korb doesn't convince you, here's a quote from Dick Cheney: "A commander in chief leads a military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy." Eight years of Clinton created a strong, battle ready military, despite Bush's very interesting post 9/11 claim that our military was "hollowed out." It was, in fact, quite strong, but has since been undercut by poor funding from Bush.
For instance, many might find it interesting that wounded soldiers are made to pay for their meals in Iraq while in recovery. Many soldiers are unfortunately spending their own money in order to fully equip themselves for conflict (entry level enlisted pay is a whopping $16,000 a year by the way, including their signing bonus) and a good deal of this talk about Bush's 'pay raises for the troops' is actually a decree saying that a $150 dollar a month pay raise will no longer count against food stamp benefits for soldier's families (there are about 25,000 enlisted men whose families currently collect food stamps). Also, the re-sign bonus for another tour of duty has been amped up considerably, for obvious reasons. Never mind that Bush introduced an effort to cut military pay in 2003, but I believe somebody snapped awake and remembered an election was on the horizon, and the measure was quickly retracted (amidst a rising flurry of bad press).
But that's beside the point; soldiers haven't had comprable pay to the private sector since the early 80s. The important thing here is that Bush, the great supporter of our military and troops, isn't doing enough to fund them in a time of war (which has some even more serious implications when you consider that this isn't a defensive war or a war in response to aggression - it is a voluntary operation that is placing our military people in harm's way). Food for thought.
On race and the political parties:
Sephin, you're badly misinformed here, which makes me question why or how you hold an opinion on the issue. And just to begin, if you don't believe in the race card, what's the use of criticizing democratic adminstrations for not having prominent black figures? Should race matter? Should it be necessary to have different ethnicities mixed in? Should it not just be the best people for the job (I doubt you're an affirmative action supporter). Well that's buying into the race card argument if you want to take a pot shot at Clinton for not having as many minorities in his cabinet. Didn't know you were a closet liberl, but moving on . . .
Here's a famous old happening: When LBJ (democrat, just to be clear) signed the civil rights act he turned to an aide and said "We've just lost the South for a generation." And indeed, the once solidly democratic South turned solidly republican just like that, in response to legislation at long last enshrining the belief that we are all equal under the law. Unfortunately it has lasted more than a generation, but I'd say that has more to do with people not liking change rather than overt racism, as was the case back then.
So there's one thing a democrat did for minorities. I guess it's not a coincidence that the NAACP and the Urban League are vocal supporters of the democratic party. Or here's something interesting - During the Trent Lott scandal a while back a reporter from the Washington Post named Gene Weingarten attempted to contact the African American Republican Leadership Council for comment. Upon investigation of the council's leadership, he found that 14 of the 15 members where white, the 15th being an actual black man, Edward W. Brooke III. Weingarten called the man to enquire about the lack of actual African Americans on the board, and discovered the man was unaware that he was even on the board or that it existed. A spokesman for the board, Kevin L. Martin, when asked about the lack of actual black people reprsented on the board said "I'd like there to be more, but let's be honest, right now the Republican Party and African Americans have a large rift." I just find this rather funny. This ought to be available online if anybody is would like to check it out. Point: The Repblican's are depserate to appear as if they have black support - but they don't.
Bush has Condi Rice in there? So what? African Americans across the nation believe that democrats better support their interests and goals, and there and have been exponentially more black democrats in party and elected positions. Clinton didn't need a black female security adviser (now Sec. of State) because he didn't need to prove to anybody he didn't belong to a party that largely stands against the interests of minorities.
The stuff about the economy, well, I don't even have the time or desire to pull that apart. But it is the most facile, rehashed, skin-deep reasoned explanation I've already heard a million times, fromthe same people that have never really done any serious investigation of study of the matter. That's damn close to conservativefolk tradition at this point, and even the most conservative economic scholar (see Milton Friedman) would brush it off as crass. Democrats give handouts, this makes poor people need more handouts and bankrupts the country . . . well yes sir, you've really got the inside track on social policy and national economics. How did you come by such a monumentally sophisticated and irrefutable opinion? Well that's a bit mean spirited, but when I see such trite statements the hackles go up . . . Honestly that sort of tit-for-tat type response with the attitude of "you're foolish, ha-ha" attached, when you have little or no depth to your comments, well, it's just not cool I suppose.
