Kerry would have been against nominating: Clinton, Carter and FDR

[jeter]

Recently John F. Kerry (I love that, by the way - trying to be JFK) said that Dean would lose the election because he didn't have any foreign policy experience.

Some candidates that "didn't have foreign policy experience" that won:

2000: George W. Bush.
1992: Bill Clinton.
1980: Ronald Reagan.
1976: Jimmy Carter.
1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt.
1924: Calvin Coolage.
1912: Woodrow Wilson.
1900: Theodore Roosevelt.
1896: William McKinnley.

Eight of the last 17 elected Presidents have had NO (that means NONE, ZERO, ZILTCH) foreign policy experience before successfully running for US President.

You could probably include JFK on that list. Although he was a member of the Senate, Nixon had far more experience than he did in 1960. Truman, Ford, Johnson were "accidental presidents."

So using Kerry's logic. None of these people should have "won" their elections either.

Well you'll say, Sept 11 changes things. Well were there not hostages in 1980? Hadn't the Russians invaded Afghanistan? That didn't stop Reagan from winning.

In 1976, hadn't we just lost Vietnam? Cambodia? Didn't stop Carter from winning?

In 1992, hadn't the Cold War ended? Hadn't Bush I successfully fought a war with Iraq? Didn't stop Clinton from winning.

Thoughts.

[mzmolly]

1. Kerry's foreign policy experience let him to vote for the IWR...

Yee haw!

[sandnsea]

11. And Dean agreed!!

Yee haw!

[mzmolly]

39. Nope, Biden Lugar is not the IWR... just ask Kerry ~ Then...

:hi:

[Scott Lee]

43. No matter how often you repeat this, it's still wrong.

Dean did not agree with the IWR. But then again this has been explained a thousand times here on DU.

Anybody wanna guess how many more times it's going to have to be said?

[Raya]

54. THIS POST IS PHONY -- JUST LIKE "ANGRY-MAN" DEAN

[Democrats unite]

2. Your title is very misleading

Understandable though reading your last post that you did.

[Raya]

53. MISLEADING!!! DEAN PROPAGANDA. TRUTH IS DISPENSABLE.

Almost every part of the post is FALSE or misleading. Is this typical DEAN PROPAGANDA. TRUTH IS DISPENSABLE.

To start with:

2000: George W. Bush (R). TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD
1992: Bill Clinton (D). NONE
1980: Ronald Reagan (R). IN MOVIES
1976: Jimmy Carter (D), NAVAL ACADEMY GRAD, NUCLEAR SUB WARFARE SPECIALIST
1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
1924: Calvin Coolidge. (R) NONE
1912: Woodrow Wilson (D) NONE
1900: Theodore Roosevelt, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
1896: William McKinnley. (R) LAST PRESIDENT WHO FOUGHT IN CIVIL WAR.

As for John Kennedy, he ran as a war hero in World War 2 pacific engagements.

AND THIS IS THE DEAN CAMPAIGN LIST OF THOSES WITH "NO" MILITARY OR FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE. AMAZING!!!!

I THOUGHT BUSH WAS THE MISLEADER.

This post is so filled with falsehoods and half-truths I could believe it was prepared by
Dr. Dean himself.

[Padraig18]

3. Don't confuse them with facts.

Using facts to debunk this pseudo-issue is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[slinkerwink]

5. lol

;-)

[Padraig18]

8. *grin*

:hi:

[eileen_d]

10. But the thing is, I'm not voting in 1992.

I realize that other presidents have been elected with no foreign policy experience. As you probably know, I think Dean could be elected with no foreign policy experience against "miserable failure" Bush.

As a voter in 2004, I *want* to vote for somebody with foreign policy experience. Which is why I would like to see Kerry or Clark get the nomination.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. What facts? Carter graduated from the Naval Academy, worked under Admiral

Rickover in the development of the nuclear submarine and did other post graduate studies in nuclear physics. His prior training in nuclear physics and military background as well as his background as governor were ALL relevant to the concerns of the era i.e. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION.


That is why Carter actually SHOWED up at Three Mile Island when to do so was a danger. He had knowledge of the issue and could have made a difference in the outcome.

The concerns of THIS era, likewise, point to a candidate's preparation to deal with them.

Although Viet Nam was a mess, America had no where near suffered the foreign policy damage done by the current administration that will require repair.


This requires a statesman that can engender the confidence of other national leaders.

If you believe your candidate to be that person, state why...but the relevance of the question does indeed exist currently.

[eileen_d]

4. Nice try.

You might have some credibility if you didn't put words into Kerry's mouth.

[jeter]

7. Kerry did say that.

He said "Dean couldn't win because he didn't have foreign policy experience." Not putting words in anyones mouth.

Using that logic, the others should not have won either.

[eileen_d]

13. I know that Kerry said that.

But Kerry is talking about the 2004 election, not the ones in the past. And think your statement "Kerry would have been against nominating: Clinton, Carter and FDR" is basically equivalent to putting words in Kerry's mouth. I guess my turn of phrase is poor, but I stand by my point.

By the way, I think Dean could win in 2004 - but I would rather vote for Kerry or Clark.

[salin]

12. sad but a title rework - could have made this a discussion

rather than a slam on a particular candidate (and making a leap in logic that does not necessarily follow...)

Instead wording along the way... Would Clinton, Carter and FDR have been disqualified from the nomination due to lack of fp experience?

The title would have fit the content and could have spurred a conversation. Without reading a bit... misleadingly taunting.

BTW wasn't FDR Secretary of the Navy? Would that not count?

[Jerseycoa]

17. FDR

I think that would have prepared him for commander in chief more than it can be considered foreign policy experience. But I was wondering the same thing before you posted it.


:dem:

[DemOutWest]

18. However,

John Kerry is the best candidate on every other issue, PLUS, he has the best Foreign Policy Experience when we need it most.

I disagree with a few of these. 1980 is probably the only election in the ones listed where Foreign Policy was a large issue. 1976 and 1992, were times when the country was in peace and were hoping things to stay that way. Vietnam was over and the country wanted peace. 1992, the wall was down and the War for Oil #1 was over.

BTW, Coolidge.

1896, Spanish-American War era. Maybe we needed a President with Foreign Relations at that time, but I doubt they really worried about it as the US was still pretty much isolationist.

DemOut West

6. the United States is so big

that in some sense, if you've lived east of the Mississippi your whole life, you don't have any foreign policy experience regarding that country west of the Mississippi and vice versa as well. In that respect only Gephardt can compete with Bush!



:)

[sandnsea]

9. Wow, this is bizarro

Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate, 1976 was the lies. 1980, Jimmy Carter "caused" the hostage crisis which is just one reason people wantd to get rid of him. And he hadn't resolved it. 1992, The first Iraq war was over. These are just totally different than what we have now.

We have an ongoing war and terrorism. Terrorism that many people blame on weak Democrats like Clinton. It's different and I think people are ignoring it at the peril of all of us.

[Scott Lee]

44. Terrorism will never be vanquished by war. Ever.

That's like trying to eradicate murder by putting more cops on the beat. It just aint gonna happen.

Besides that, your boy Kerry has made all these highhanded proclamations against the war on terror now, including the Patriot Act (which he voted for and appears to reject). So which John Kerry are you supporting? I can't tell these days, as there seem to be so many John Kerrys out there.

[tkulesa]

14. FDR was Sec. of the Navy

He had a lot of foreign policy experience from a military perspective. He also was something of an expert on Asia, especially China.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Teddy Roosevelt was Under Secretary of the Navy

when he ordered the US Fleet to enter Manila Bay and destroy the Spanish fleet. Teddy also went into combat in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. Teddy had plenty of foreign policy experience! FDR was the same way as Teddy.

[Kremer]

20. It's a no-win issue.

And they know it. What foreign policy exp. did bush have as TX gov? A trip to Mexico. Wow. Just how was Dean supposed to get foreign policy exp. as gov of Vermont? Invade New Hampshire and occupy it as a test run? Well Kerry,bush, etc have know healthcare experience. Dean was a doctor. So I guess Kerry etc should have gone to med school, otherwise can't be pres!

[blm]

16. Two factors: A proBush media and post 9-11 reality.

You'd have to be obtuse to think that those are not factors.

You think Bush wants to face Kerry on the War on terror when Kerry wrote the book about the New War on Terror in 1997?

You think Bush wants to face Kerry on terror networks when Kerry's legislation in the 90s helped shut off terror funding yet Bush's White House wasn't enforcing that legislation before 9-11?

Please start getting a clue on what the general election will look like and who can best counter it on the field it will be fought upon.

[sandnsea]

19. ProBush media

You'd think people who have been complaining about the ProBush media could recognize the ProDean media and worry about what that's going to mean to Dean next year. He won't get the same pass he's gotten and all the whining about Dean bashing, that is working now, is going to fall on deaf ears next year. We have to be able to embarrass him completely in the debates, especially on foreign policy and terrorism. IMO.

[rickin]

22. Dumbest post EVER

We need a president who is the real deal. Our time of war requires a person who has BEEN through war, not a draft-dodger.

Saying Kerry is against any one of the people you mentioned is like the worst political spin I have ever seen.

When Pearl Harbour was attacked, why did the need for a president with Foreign policy experience be required? Because that is what was needed at the time. That's why Truman and Eisenhower aren't on your 'list'

We need a president who can deal with the WAR we are battling. I am voting for Kerry or Clark. I think one of them is the real deal. Dean vs. the Afghani's, or Saddam Hussein? That'd be a disaster. Maybe he'd take them skiing.

[sandnsea]

30. There's another ad

Dean taking Saddam skiing. lol.

[Padraig18]

21. Speaking of obtuse...

... what part about your candidate's campaign sinking like a freaking stone are you still not clued in about, blm? The democrats ain't buyin' what he's peddlin', so who's obtuse? :eyes:

[blm]

26. Short-sightedness is plentiful right now.

If the press had been honest and scrutinized Dean from the beginning, where would he be?

If the antiwar crowd knew he was for for the use of force as determined by Bush, even unilateral force, where would he be?

The press gave more coverage of Joan Jett for Dean than they did the Fire Fighters' post 9-11 endorsement.

btw...why couldn't you address the post without changing the subject? Is that too difficult a task?

[Padraig18]

48. "...why couldn't you address the post ...."

I am frequently tempted to ask you the same question...

[Scott Lee]

45. Bush would browbeat Kerry into submsission they way he did before

on the IWR and the Patriot Acts. The Chimp would truly love Kerry to run, and Rove would have four weeks of vacation during the election because he wouldn't have to do nearly as much work.

[Devlzown]

24. Foreign policy is going to be

a HUGE issue in this election. Our chances of winning would increase greatly if we nominated someone with experience in that area. I'm not saying Dean CAN'T beat Bush. Hell, I'm a Kucinich supporter. I believe anything's possible. I just think Kerry or Clark would be tougher to beat.

[jeter]

25. Not me.

I think Kerry would be easy to beat.

I think Clark will be Dean's running mate.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

28. *cough* September 11 *cough*

Like it, lump it, but foreign policy experience is going to be very important in this race because of 9/11. By the way, FDR was Asst. Navy Secretary to Wilson, and I think TR personally fought in a couple of wars.

[slinkerwink]

29. *cough* IWR vote *cough*

I think there's something in my cough.

[sandnsea]

31. *cough* Dean agreed *cough*

[Scott Lee]

46. *cough Wrong again *

[WilliamPitt]

32. You bore me.

How does bringing that up respond to the point of my post: That in a post-9/11 America, foreign policy experience is going to be front and center in a campaign.

Wait. I know your answer. It's either "Kerry" or "Poop." Good on ya.

[Scott Lee]

47. Bore me with some of Kerry's foreign policy experience, please.

I've got a few seconds.

[blm]

52. If more bored people had read Kerry's 1997 book The New War on Terror

and followed its guidelines, we may never have known a September 11, 2001.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. *cough* war that would have happened anyway *cough*

Just ONCE I would like someone who hangs the cannard of that war vote over ANY candidate's head to PROVE to me that there would have been NO war and that the WAR would have cost less.

Frankly, this administration was HELLEBNT on that war.

All the vote did was allow a certainty of it instead of a surprise or instead of signaling to the hawks that they should proceed in some COVERT manner in order to get what they wanted and were going to do regardless.

[WilliamPitt]

34. *cough* is slink gonna get back to the point? *cough*

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. *cough* what's with all this coughing? *cough*

[blm]

37. Pass the NyQuil.

.

[curse10]

50. LoL

love ya!

[RetroLounge]

40. Since when does fighting in a war equate to

foreign policy experience?

[Fenris]

41. It doesn't

It has more to do with him being a Senator.

[Fenris]

36. Much of this is outright wrong

Theodore Roosevelt - Assistant Secretary of the Navy (a post he left in order to fight in the Spanish-American War).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who left office for a 3 month tour-of-duty (of sorts) in France.

James Carter - Graduate of the Naval Academy, officer on the nuclear submarine Seawolf, and worked on a nuclear engineering project under Admiral Hyman Rickover.

Calvin Coolidge - Another of what you refer to as "accidental" presidents. Coolidge was Vice President under Warren Harding, and was sworn in as President after Harding's sudden death. By the time he ran for re-election in 1924 he had been Vice President for 3 years and President for one.

For the record, in 1976 Carter was elected most likely because Ford and the Republican Party had not fully washed themselves of the Watergate stigma.

In 1980, Carter was defeated because of the Iran hostage situation and the stagnant economy, not to mention the fact that he had to run against Reagan's image-making machine.

In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated George Bush Sr. because of the recession. Many historians and political analysts believe that had the recession ended one year earlier than it did, Bush would have been re-elected.

If you want to attack Kerry, feel free. But do not invoke history when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

[blm]

38. Stockmarket tip...

Buy 'em for what they know.

Sell 'em for what they THINK they know.

[Uzybone]

42. Meaningless post

this is like someone saying Candidate X cant win in 2004 because he will not get votes from Ca, Wa, Tx, Fl and Or. Then a genius like you will post that neither Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison etc didnt get those votes either. Its an empty argument.

[DemOutWest]

49. I'm glad the coughing is gone,

otherwise I might have caught "Deanie-itis". Symptons include not having a clue, flipping and flopping and a lack of foreign policy.

John Kerry will never have deanie-itis.

Sinking like a stone? Wrong again! Rising to the top as soon as the real voters get out in Iowa and NH.

DemOutWest

[curse10]

51. This is ridiculous!

:eyes: