Eric Massa received two more Democratic committee endorsements this week, one from the Perinton committee, and the other from Schuyer County. It will be interesting to see if he receives more endorsements after the Pittsford and Corning committee meetings tonight and tomorrow.
In addition to an uphill battle on the endorsement front, David Nachbar also has his work cut out for him on the Internet. Someone calling himself "A Soon-to-Be Nachbar Fan" has registered the name NachbarForCongress.com and now has an "open letter to David Nachbar" posted at that address.
Update: Apparently Nachbar is planning to use DavidNachbar.org as his campaign site.
Comments
I bet they will be a "nachbar fan" after squatting the site and selling it to him for a million bucks
The continued hatred toward George Bush disgusts me.
1. I really don't feel that our good name has been hurt in countries where it counts. Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and Great Britain still love us (as do a large number of smaller countries), and Germany and France have recently elected pro USA Prime Ministers. Russia, China and Iran (and other countries with authoritarian regimes) don't like us but that's not new. When I see more emigration than immigration, I'll be convinced that our country is horrible.
2. President Clinton was the first to push Free Trade Agreements. Labor is cheap in other countries, and there isn’t much we can do about that.
3. We spilled blood in a war - now that's a big surprise! Many democratic senators voted for the use of force. And don't go to the WMD argument as the Clinton administration was also convinced that Iraq had WMDs. I enlisted in the Navy during Vietnam (because I was about to be drafted), I knew people who died in the war, yet I don’t remember hating President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon or the democratic congress.
Bush has been far from perfect. His care of the budget in general (not just the war) has left a lot to be desired. I have already stated here that I would not have voted for him if I had known how he would turn out. But the level of hatred just amazes me.
I think the NachbarforCongress site is pretty mild compared to a lot of stuff I've seen.
On your general point about the amount of Bush hatred out and about, my concern with any attack on Bush in the context of the '08 campaign is that it is a distraction - we need to concentrate on how we're going to fix the mess Bush left.
I agree with your point on free trade. Free trade has been advanced by politicians from both parties for years.
On our international standing, I think it's more serious that you're allowing. The policies of the Bush administration have lowered our standing in the world in ways other than countries "liking" us. For example, North Korea not liking us is no big deal - but North Korea doesn't fear us, either, because they see how bogged down we are in Iraq. Iran might be in that boat, also. International standing is more than a popularity contest.
As for the war, I agree that everyone who voted for it deserves some part of the blame, but the sloppy execution is on the Bush administration.
I'm sure you didn't hate the administration back in your Vietnam days, but what about protesters chantng "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today"? If the Internet had been invented back in '68, I think that there would be a good proportion of anti-LBJ websites in psychadelic colors with anti-LBJ slogans. I started kindergarten in '68 so I can't really judge if the level of hate is higher, or if it's just more accessible due to the Internet.
There will be many messes to clean up for the next president, the chief of which will be the Islamic problem. We need a vigorous national debate on what to do next. I’m not sure anyone has a great idea. It appears that neither pulling out of Iraq nor staying there indefinitely will serve our purposes.
North Korea doesn’t fear us mostly because they fall under China’s protective umbrella. Iran doesn’t fear us because they don’t think President Bush wants to endure any more political heat at home.
The Army is bogged down in Iraq, but the Navy and Air Force aren’t.
Agreed - Bush receives 100% of the blame for the mismanaged war.
The protestors during the Vietnam War were emotionally involved. Today I think that a good deal of the anti-war protests and the Bush hate are for the most part political gamesmanship.
Dear Elmer,
Anyone who even remotely follows news of the UK knows that George W. Bush is spectacularly unpopular with the British public. The French election was about domestic issues and most certainly not driven by “pro-USA” sentiment, which is non-existent in France. Did you catch Angela Merkel’s reaction to Bush’s ‘back rub’ at the G-8 summit? What self-centered sand-hill has your head been buried in to honestly believe that elections in these countries were all about George Bush? Furthermore, what has your love affair with George Bush got to do with this posting about Nachbar ?
The Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations were competent. If you believe that the current administation is competent, Elmer, then there is no sense talking to you about it. The Nixon administration may have been as callous as the present one, but it was effective and it recognized that hanging 80% percent of the population out to dry while doing nice things for its friends was bad politics.
I would have given W the benefit of the doubt, but after the witnessing his behavior during and after the 2000 election controversy, I had no respect for him. I assumed that he was delusional and something if a sociopath. But I don't hate him.
Elmer, I agree there's a ton of gamesmanship going on. Bush has his problems. I think he should be tougher on securing our borders and on national security in general. I think that our kids need the support that the soldiers in Vietnam didn't have. In this age of instant communication and full disclosure it's easy for us to play armchair general.
Once again I will state that I am not happy with the Bush administration. If I knew then what I know now I would not have voted for him. (I wouldn’t have voted for Gore or Kerry either).
Vince – speaking strictly of wars, I feel that the Johnson administration was much more incompetent than the Bush administration. In LBJ’s last year in office, over 16,000 American troops were killed. Talk about cannon fodder! At the rate we are loosing them in Iraq it would take 18 years to do what LBJ managed in one. Also, we have much stronger strategic interests in Iraq than we had in Vietnam.
Anne – I have been accused of having my head in many places, but never a sand hill!
Remember – I (unfortunately) started all this by trying to understand why people hate Bush as much as they do and I have really not gotten a good answer. I was not trying to defend his competence as President.
Elmer, while I agree that we have greater strategic interests in the Middle East than we had (in hindsight, at least) in Vietnam, I believe that we could have served those interests much more effectively and efficiently had we not invaded Iraq. As to casualties, Vietnam fell into line with standards and expectations set in the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Korea. After Vietnam our tolerance for casualties in a conflict that doesn't threaten our national existence has dropped dramatically.
I agree that LBJ was a no better war fighting president than Bush. He was also guilty of getting us into a devastating war under false pretenses. Certainly the few military officers that I had contact with at the time had no use for LBJ or McNamara's leadership. Initially we, he and his generals couldn't conceive of the US ever losing a war against insurgents in a fourth rate little country. Bush should have had no such illusions.
Unlike Bush, LBJ was interested enough in the well-being of the people of this country to actually try and improve their lot. He was a genius at getting things done and he personally ran his administration. He accomplished a great deal on the domestic front, and we continued to hold our own in the Cold War. My point was that he was a competent president and Bush is not.