|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 420 of 536:
| 
Dec 11 07:10 UTC 2003 |
The problem is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt are traditional democrats.
They symbolize the Democratic leadership in Congress in the nineties when the
Demcrats became the minority party there. They do not inspire any passion.
People don't care about them, they see them as politics as usual, and I do
not think they will vote out Bush in favor of someone who represents the
same-old same-old
Dean inspires a great deal of passion, particularly among younger voters.
Gore recognizes this. He recognizes that the party can't beat Bush without
a candidate they can get passionate about. They can't get passionate about
and aren't getting passionate about these others. It is Dean that has the
grass roots movement behind him and that means it is Dean who has the best
chance to beat Bush. General Clark is the only alternative IMO and I think
there is too much distrust of the military among the party's rank and file
to nominate a general.
But what does that leave for the strongest ticket, the ticket that could
inspire the most independent voters, and the most new voters, logically a
Dean/Clark ticket. Face it, if Gephardt or Kerry run against Bush, a lot of
voters won't care. They'll stay home. They'll see the same-old same-old.
Why replace Bush with one of the Democratic leadership in Congress when many
voters think both sides have failed in recent years? To win, to beat Bush,
the Democrats must give the voters someone different, someone outside
Washington who has shown political skills and the willingness to get right
in Bush's face and stare him down. That is Howard Dean.
|
remmers
|
|
response 421 of 536:
|
Dec 11 12:30 UTC 2003 |
According to a story in today's New York Times, Bush's advisers are
now assuming that Dean will be his opponent in 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?hp
|
other
|
|
response 422 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:29 UTC 2003 |
I'm assuming America will be his opponent.
|
twenex
|
|
response 423 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:51 UTC 2003 |
rotflmao. How true.
|
remmers
|
|
response 424 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:15 UTC 2003 |
(We can hope...)
|
klg
|
|
response 425 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:24 UTC 2003 |
One word for Mr. richard: George McGovern
(Go, How-weird! Go, Weasley! Our "dream ticket.")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 426 of 536:
|
Dec 12 02:07 UTC 2003 |
Don't you wish.....
|
bhoward
|
|
response 427 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:19 UTC 2003 |
So which word was it Mr. Klg, "George" or "McGovern"?
|
klg
|
|
response 428 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:32 UTC 2003 |
(Hey. We ought to know. We campaigned for him.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 429 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:18 UTC 2003 |
(Yet more confirmation of my long-standing observation that ex-liberals
make the most tiresome conservatives. ;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 430 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:20 UTC 2003 |
Not surprising. The most annoying and overly evangelistic religious
people are always the freshly converted, as well.
|
klg
|
|
response 431 of 536:
|
Dec 12 17:09 UTC 2003 |
(We gotta make up for the foolishness of our youth.)
|
klg
|
|
response 432 of 536:
|
Dec 12 17:41 UTC 2003 |
(and for the foolishness of those who do not realize theirs)
|
willcome
|
|
response 433 of 536:
|
Dec 12 19:22 UTC 2003 |
Have you made up for Christopher Hitchens's?
|
remmers
|
|
response 434 of 536:
|
Dec 12 20:52 UTC 2003 |
I am curious about the reasons for Kerry's switch.
|
richard
|
|
response 435 of 536:
|
Dec 14 07:43 UTC 2003 |
1. McGovern ran a poor campaign, and had a disastrous convention, and then
three weeks later his runningmate Thomas Eagleton had to resign from the
ticket when it was revealed he'd had electroshock therapy.
2. McGovern ran out of money, went completely broke. That won't happen
with Dean, his campaign is and will continue to be extremely well funded.
3. Dean isn't as liberal as McGovern. Dean is a fiscal consevative who
is a strong advocate of balancing budgets instead of defecit spending.
Also as a governor of a rural state, he takes the view of his Vermont
constituents that gun control laws are a state issue. Consequently the
NRA gives him a pretty good rating, which tells you he's no McGovern.
4. McGovern's opponent was Richard Nixon, who broke laws and went to all
extents legal and otherwise to win (Watergate-- sound familiar?) Dean
won't have such slimeball tactics done to him. Oh wait, then again,
Dean would be running against Bush and his right hand men, Karl "The
Hatchet Man" Rove and "Dirty Dick" Cheney, so you never know right...
|
klg
|
|
response 436 of 536:
|
Dec 15 03:53 UTC 2003 |
1. The backbone of Dean's campaign is younger neophytes. If/when the
pros want to take over, it is likely to get messy.
2. The campaign may have been poorly funded, but even that doesn't
excuse the final electoral count.
3. The country has shifted to be more conservative than it was back
then.
4. McGovern was, at least, consistent in his stands. For example, he
didn't (as How-weird does) claim to have been against the war "from
the start" when the facts show otherwise.
5. McGovern was a war hero. He was no Dean.
6. No matter how often you repeat your childish/outlandish/untrue
accusations against President Bush and his staff, the country won't
believe you.
|
scott
|
|
response 437 of 536:
|
Dec 15 05:05 UTC 2003 |
5... are you planning on putting Bush's war record up for debate, klg?
I didn't think you had the guts, or were that stupid.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 438 of 536:
|
Dec 15 06:40 UTC 2003 |
I read 6. as a cry of desperation.
|
twenex
|
|
response 439 of 536:
|
Dec 15 09:11 UTC 2003 |
Re: 438. Heh heh heh, heh. MWAHAHAAAH!
|
klg
|
|
response 440 of 536:
|
Dec 15 17:07 UTC 2003 |
re: "#437 (scott): 5... are you planning on putting Bush's war record
up for debate, klg? I didn't think you had the guts, or were that
stupid."
(Come, now, Mr. scott! You really do think we are that stupid.) But,
actually, it was in response to Mr. richard's comparison of Messrs.
Dean & McGovern. President Bush's service is not involved.
re: "438 (rcurl): I read 6. as a cry of desperation."
(Illiteracy is a terrible thing.)
|
gull
|
|
response 441 of 536:
|
Dec 15 17:22 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure being consistent in your stands gets you anywhere in a
campaign these days. Bush clearly doesn't think so.
|
bru
|
|
response 442 of 536:
|
Dec 15 19:08 UTC 2003 |
nor does Howard Dean apparently after his foreign policy speech today...
|
richard
|
|
response 443 of 536:
|
Dec 17 02:12 UTC 2003 |
Dean has never been inconsistent in his opposition to the war in Iraq.
He was never against removing Saddam Hussein, he was against the means
used to justify the ends. Is there a cost that is so high that
something isn't worth doing? This is an excerpt from Dean's foreign
policy speech he gave yesterday:
Howard Dean:
"I want to talk about Iraq in the context of all our security
challenges ahead. Saddam s capture offers the Iraqi people, the United
States, and the international community an opportunity to move ahead.
But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee.
Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.
The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the
administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time,
with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost.
An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership
might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam s ouster, to
then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.
As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged
yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the
aftermath of the administration s war to oust him. There is the
continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our
personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There
is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for
American goals.
Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does
Saddam s capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even
greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems,
does Saturday s capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of
weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire
them.
When I become president, addressing these critical and interlocking
threats terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- will be
America s highest priority.
To meet these and other important security challenges, including Iraq,
I will bring to bear all the instruments of power that will keep our
citizens secure and our nation strong.
Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:
The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;
The credibility that comes from telling the truth;
The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by
ideology;
The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;
And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world
has ever known to ensure the security of this nation. "
Everyone's applauding Bush now that Saddam's captured, and even the
other Democratic candidates are mostly saying they agree with him.
What did Dean say in above excerpt yesterday,
"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the
administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time,
with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost."
Dean said that a year ago, six months ago, and yesterday, the day after
Saddam's capture. Dean has not changed his view and, unlike his
opponents, he is still speaking out.
|
richard
|
|
response 444 of 536:
|
Dec 17 02:31 UTC 2003 |
And klg, cut the "howeird" crap, you know that nobody, especially not
people who live their life making speeches and taking positions every
day, is going to end up being 100% consistent. You are asking for
clinical perfection, you don't want a human being as president, you
want a robot. Bush the Sr. and Reagan and Carter, Clinton, Nixon and
all previous presidents had inconsistencies in their record. Sometimes
it just signified they changed their mind on a view, which is their
right to do. It could have signified that their views matured as they
matured and gave more consideration to matters.
It is one thing to ask for total consistency in your religious leaders,
to whom you are asked to give your faith, and that as we've found is
increasingly unrealistic too. But we are electing a president, not a
Pope or a minister.
What we need to look for is not clinical perfection, but for what kind
of a person this is and whether we are comfortable with their overrall
views and who they seem to be as a human being. That is more important
than whether you agree with a candidate on every single view, or
whether a candidate's views have evolved from what they were in the
past. Heck, Bush's father, Bush the Sr., used to be a pro-choice
Eisenhower Republican. The Reaganites hated him. But he changed
views, he became more conservative. That was his prerogative. That
didn't mean it was necessary to start calling him George H. Weird Bush
did it? So drop the crap klg, and keep the debate focused on the
issues. This is a presidential campaign, not a debate team event.
|
