Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 08/12/04 11:20 am:
Good comparison.

Churchill was a Conservative in 1900-1904
A Liberal from 1906-1922
and a ‘constitutional anti-socialist’ in 1924 before becoming a Conservative again in 1925.

Blair was elected as a socialist in 1983 and in 1994 set about creating a party that appealed to the popular vote rather than to the principals of the founders of the Labour Party, after becoming leader under voting rules he had helped to set up. Blair would make, and is in fact, a moderate Conservative leader and in more respects than the Weapons of Iraq is one big fat liar.

At least Churchill had the honesty to change parties when he wanted to support an alternate policy.

I asked a question about politicians that representing the views of the public rather than making their own stand and seeking support and most people here supported the man who stood on his own principals. Blair is a populist, a man that moulds his party to whatever shape will give it power.

I am no supporter of socialism but it must be disappointing for those people who were, to watch the Labour party languish in opposition for nearly two decades to see it usurped at the point when the Conservatives had no chance of extending their tenure.

I would compare Churchill more to Bush though.

The son of a politician that fought all his father's same causes and lost at them.

A failure academically it is said that for gain entry to Eton College he simply wrote his name on the examination paper.

After taking a commission in the 4th Hussars he distinguished himself in the Boer War as a correspondent creating himself as a legend in his own notebook after being captured and escaping from the Boers.

As first Lord of the Admiralty in WWI he "masterminded" the disastrous Gallipoli campaign and was dismissed over it

He was mistrusted by many and was frozen out of any coalition governments in the inter war years by the Liberal leadership.

Even his ascent to the premiership was contentious. He was reappointed 1st Lord of the Admiralty at the outbreak of WW2 and it was the failure of the naval operation to support Norway that led to the resignation of Chamberlain.

Both Churchill and the Conservative leader Lord Halifax were summoned by the King to discuss forming an interim government. Halifax foolishly asked Churchill if he thought that it would be inappropriate for a Lord to sit as Prime Minister in the House of Commons, Churchill seizing the moment said yes and took the job for himself.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/12/04 11:36 am:
Now for my take on the letter. No doubt both sides, as usual, are extremely critical of the other, but this has gotten out of hand so I actually agree with you to an extent Sancho. However, I can't abide outright lies from either side, but it seems the left has turned lying into policy.

This letter, which the general public doesn't hear about by the way, is a prime example.

Lie: "The group is led by a longtime Republican operative," referring to Swiftboat vets.

Lie: "Bush has no record or vision to run on"

Lie: "The swift boat ad is full of lies."

Lie: "Thirteen men who never served with John Kerry lie about knowing him and viciously attack his record."

Lie: "When they ran dishonest attack ads (like the unbelievable new one on the air right now)" (they, as in "the Republicans")

All of these quotes are lies. Only one board member of Swift Boat Vets can be definitively identified as a Republican operative, William E. Franke. Their 'leader' on the Steering Committee is not. Their media contact is, but she is not their 'leader.'

Bush has no record or vision? Come on, what's the unemployment rate? How's the economy? How has minority owned small business fared? How's Afghanistan? How many Al Qaeda and other terrorists are dead or in jail? Where's Saddam Hussein, his sons and most of his cohorts? Have we had any terrorist attacks on our soil lately? What's become of Libya, etc. etc.

If the Swift Boat Vets ad is full of lies why didn't she name one? All of these men served with Kerry, Steve Gardner was I believe his gunner, they were in the same unit, slept in the same quarters, ate together, operated in close proximity and some were Kerry's commanding officers. And if these guys are liars, why doesn't Kerry just release his records and clear it all up?

Why is it that these men who served their country honorably, both before and after the war are not to be believed? What have they done to deserve the smear, and why are they implying Bush as being behind it all, and where is there any record of Bush attacking Kerry's military service anyway? Moveon is fine but Swiftvets is not? Gimme a break.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/12/04 12:36 pm:
E R

I learned this from VG's FAQ's on the HTML board . It is item

#3. Links and Graphics

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/12/04 1:51 pm:
Ok Tom, I tried following VG's FAQ twice this week. Both times my hyperlink tested fine on the preview page, but both times after submitting the post, Answerway's URL was added before mine which screws the whole thing up, what's up with that? Let's see if this story about the Cambodia Christmas works.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/12/04 1:57 pm:
Christmas in Cambodia

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/12/04 1:58 pm:
Ok, I'm a dweeb.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/13/04 8:10 am:
try it again and remove the quotation marks from the link ; just put the link in after the = (should read a target=_new target=_new href=[insert link] in between the < >)

and leave a space before the final >

Christmas in Cambodia

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/13/04 11:24 am:
Thanks Tom, let's try this story On Loathing Bush

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/13/04 11:43 am:
not such a dweeb after all. it took me a long time to get this part of it down . I;m ready to try new tricks .

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/13/04 12:01 pm:
VDH makes a good point again . I was in Borders today and looked at the shelf of new Non-fiction political books. There had to be 20 anti-Bush books on the shelf ;many of them not engaging in political discourse but in pure attack of the person. I tried to find an equivalent Kerry book ,and none were found . Not one !! Not even 'Unfit for Command' which is a hot topic in the country right now and the #1 best seller right now on Amazon.com . I couldn't find it anywhere and did not have time to ask . On the shelf were 2 pro-Kerry books however (and no pro Bush books ). It looks to me that this is an institutional coup in this country. You would think Borders primary concern would be to make money.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 08/13/04 12:04 pm:
Well don't get too tricky on us :)