Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:P4QDb.410361$275.1287518@attbi_s53...
Maybe I was unclear. I said there was some skepticism, which there
certainly
is. I believe if you look at my previous post I was supporting Bush,
which,
by the way, I almost never do on any other issue. If that wasn't clear I
wrote it poorly. Given that I never served in the military I am in no
position, nor am I questioning Bush's service. Or anyone else's.


Especially since Bob's post is a blatent non-sequitur.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, "Michael 182"
wrote:

Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did
server
in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence
the
skepticism.

Several of my uncles joined rather than waiting to be drafted.
I guess you want to question their motives...

--
Bob Noel

in article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, Michael 182 at
wrote on 12/16/03 9:40 AM:


As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a war
hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to Nixon's.

I highly doubt it would have swayed very many voters even if they'd known of
McGovern's war record. Much is made during campaigns of whether a candidate
served or avoided service, but voters have usually already made up their
minds regardless.

Besides, if service in wartime were the benchmark for being an electable
candidate, we'd have a pitifully small pool to draw from.

If I remember correctly, McGovern lost 49 or 50 states, or something like
that. His military record would have made no difference. I just think the
irony is interesting.

Michael

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, Michael 182 at
wrote on 12/16/03 9:40 AM:


As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a
war
hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to
Nixon's.

I highly doubt it would have swayed very many voters even if they'd known
of
McGovern's war record. Much is made during campaigns of whether a
candidate
served or avoided service, but voters have usually already made up their
minds regardless.

Besides, if service in wartime were the benchmark for being an electable
candidate, we'd have a pitifully small pool to draw from.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:47QDb.410971$ao4.1343638@attbi_s51...
If I remember correctly, McGovern lost 49 or 50 states, or something like
that. His military record would have made no difference. I just think the
irony is interesting.


McGovern's war record was known, he just choose not to trade on it (to his
credit).

While McGovern lost badly (he only carried DC) he also had a political
program similar to Howard Dean's today.

Interestingly, when he quit politics, he owned and operated a hotel back
East, which went bankrupt. He later said, to effect, that "If knew when in
office what I know now, my voting would have been very different.", (he had
a very anti-business voting record).

Tom
-----
F33A @ 00V

Could you not expect the President of the United States
to show up to the centennial of one of the most
important American inventions in all of human history?

I emailed him yesterday, "as a pilot and as a Republican," asking him
to stay home.

Sheez. All he has to do is say that if he goes, the Secret Service
will require the airspace to be closed, and that he doesn't want to do
that. He can be there in spirit.

Personally, I'd rather have him working on Iraq than schmoozing in
Kittyhawk.

(I didn't dare use "Kill Devil Hill" in my email. Figured it would be
intercepted.)





all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Richard Russell wrote:

Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
2,000 square miles of airspace?

Bush is an IDIOT!

("MikeM" wrote)
Bush is an IDIOT!


Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:

1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
had.

That said, IMHO, history will not be kind to Billary. Bush 43? Too early to
tell....

BTW, I've been on the planet since "Ike" was President. That's 10
presidents!!

(I'm claiming the Eisenhower administration too, even though I was only in
diapers in 1960)

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

BTW, I've been on the planet since "Ike" was President. That's 10
presidents!!

I've been on the planet since George VI was King. That's two sovereigns!

Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
had a lot of help from his PM.

-- David Brooks

In a previous article, "David Brooks" said:
I've been on the planet since George VI was King. That's two sovereigns!

Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
had a lot of help from his PM.

At least, thank God, it wasn't his brother.


--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

Paul Tomblin wrote:

Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
had a lot of help from his PM.

At least, thank God, it wasn't his brother.

Given his brother's political sympathies, there would have been no conflict
between Britain and Germany, and thus, no need for the U.S. to go to war in
Europe. It's a scary thought that Europe probably owes its freedom to
Wallace Simpson.


All the best,


David