D.E.M.S.K.G.L.G.K..... A non-con discussion!

On Dean ..



http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

I'd agree with the New Republic there, Nimh -- though I often detect an immature meanness in much of what I've read in TNR. Dean's anger is precisely what has drawn many of us to him -- but the anger is more like moral outrage. SOMEONE (any of his supporters might say) had to stand up and tell it like it is!

TNR's got a writing style thats much sharper than magazines here, its true - but i tend to find that a relief after reading the bland reporting of online US newspapers ... ;-)

Anyway, i think i get the appeal of his anger ... i hope it will indeed work as well on people who'd normally not vote, people who now are still disillusioned with "all", as it seems to be working on the heartcore Dems. Thatd be the gamble to take when selecting Dean (cause I dont think he'll be winning over many wavering MOR republicans with that anger).

Still, considering how Dean's been perceived in Vermont, politically, as pretty far away from much of the left's agenda - on environmental issues, for example - its fair enough for a liberal to wonder out loud again, what is the "it" in the, "he'll tell it like it is", exactly (apart from the Iraq issue)? How much of that "it" would a leftist agree on, when the topic goes beyond what Bush did wrong into what he would do instead?

gore would not be the best. we need someone fresh. someone with a clear picture of what he wants to do to get this country out of the bush-mess.

the first questions i am concerned with deal with the economy. jobs, rising fuel prices, the defecet. things like that.

the next set would be how to get us out of this war. as gracefully as possible. and we need to get bin.

bin can not be ignored IMHO.

then there is healthcare.

social security and pensions.

education for the young.

closing our borders.

crime--specifically violent crime. and how offenders are punished.

the issue of government staying out of our bedrooms.

the separation of church and state.

i do not feel one candidate has come out strong enough yet.

whoever does emerge needs to be able to be just as dirty as those dirty republicans. we have to fight back.

btw. i like lieberman--he is from my state. but he is not a strong candidate either. he is one of the old boys. we need new blood.

gingy, 1st - welcome to A2K, secondly - you hit a lot of major points that must be addressed

I had stated my opinion in this thread before about the viability of Howard Dean as a presidential candidate and was seemly considered by some at best a bearer of bad news and at worst "non-progressive". I can shoulder the burden of the former but the latter is of questionable judgment. After all, what is a "Progressive?" It seems a loaded label. Is it bad to be "Pro-Life"? I would think no more so than to be "Pro-Choice". But I stray from my original intent of post here.

It would seem my concerns about Democrats putting their faith in a candidate for the presidential elections are validated by non other than David Brooks. Senior editor of "The Weekly Standard" Mr. Brooks informs us in his NYT column today that:



It seems important for the Dems to put forth a candidate that might not only satisfy their increasingly liberal leanings but also might also actually win the election and become President of the U.S.

The increase of "liberal leanings" I mention is more demographical than ideological. Both parties show an increase in those less willing to compromise their positions and therefore appear more radical. This leads to the appearance of a more leftist Democratic Party and more rightist G.O.P., the centrist position being less populated in both.

So it might seem advantageous for former Gov. Dean to identify himself as the "Anti-Bush" candidate. However, firing up the already converted in the party and securing the nomination of the Dems does not guarantee that he will be eating off White House china in the near future. In addition this line of reasoning assumes two things: There will be more Democrats voting than Republicans and that those independent voters known as the swing vote are somewhere close to being both insignificant and irrelevant (perhaps as small as 7 percent of the electorate).

But wait. Many studies show that those same independently thinking swing voters may actually represent at least 10 and maybe as much as 33 percent of the voters. But, So what? Well many of these have no adversity to splitting their ticket when it comes decision time and won't even listen to such candidates they find "partisan, strident and negative". These voters actually want the country's problems resolved and are willing not only to listen to those with possible solutions but to elect them given the solutions proposed make political and economic sense. Judged by the latter yardstick Howard Dean falls short.

So my question is twofold: Will the Democrats fall victim to Dean's somewhat shrill siren song and if not who might seem their savior?

As it stands Dean is a possible Democratic nomination but wishful thinking aside not electable. The fact that many G.O.P. pundits wish him well towards his Democratic Nomination is testament towards this conclusion. Further, I sincerely believe the other Dem candidates pose little problem for the G.O.P. in this election given the status quo. Again, the present hopes of the Democratic Party now rest on a change in the economy and Iraq, but waiting for bad or good things to happen is not a sound basis for running a political campaign.

Wait! Is That General Wesley K. Clark arriving with the AIR CAV? You say you're lookin' for leadership bunky? You say you want somebody that looks good in a uniform? You say you want to talk NATO and success in Kosovo bunky? Well... what do you think? Would he have a chance given some good domestic policy?

Respectfully,

JM

Ah, James. David Brooks is a light weight Republican lackey who's funny but not profound, smart but not particularly intelligent. Try Frank Rich who wrote, a couple of days ago, about what we are all feeling: We increasingly realize that we have been had. Well, most of us! Some of us haven't caught on yet. When you do, you might want to rethink your vote.

Would you really want someone from the Pentagon as VP? Here is an article from FAIR:


FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

September 16, 2003

The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might
enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been
the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent
coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the
various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's
"anti-war" label is inaccurate.

Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign
against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of
Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO
commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it:
The
only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a
four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03).
Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq"
(9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could
spell
trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's
Howard
Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the
general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom
"many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15
Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the
Iraq
war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside
announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The
Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed
the
war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and
with
grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be
understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the
beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said.
"And
I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements
before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range
of
positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military
strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column
declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London
Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine
(10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a
counter-argument
to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the
war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of
troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark
explained
on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't
have
made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're
here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to
move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he
later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States
is
on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know,
we're
going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get
with
us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this.
But
the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line,
too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and
the
United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide
who
they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark
seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles
O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction."
When
O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was
resolute:
"Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any
doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will
be
found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the
wisdom
of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation--
the
powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt
and
reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column
(4/10/03).
"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been
critical
of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean
plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf
War.
If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four
divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they
certainly
made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the
region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from
a
sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt
and
Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western
standards
of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark
explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or
wisdom
of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced."
The
way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is
instructive,
since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not
"temporarily
silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of
victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the
Mall
and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up
the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the
continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is
a
single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power,
especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable
today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain
fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome
Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views
"anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

More I see of Clark, more he seems like a compromise candidate. I ain't in the mood for compromise. Bush is dangerously defective -- no doubt about that. But do I want to replace him but keep equally dangerous and defective policies and lawmakers in place? Nope.

I'm sticking like glue to Dean.

I am a bit of a hypocrite since Kucinich is probably closer to my thinking than is Dean. Probably won't make up my mind until I have to! In the meantime, I support Dean, send piggy bank money to Kucinich.

I would be very comfortable with Kucinich. He was my early choice, but, Dean seems to be leaving him behind in popularity. I unabashedly am going with the one of the two I think has the best chance to win.

I like Kucinich very much. He is much more in my style also - but, unelectable I'm afraid. I heard him talk on Diane Rheim last week - his answers were fast, to the point, and very thoughtful. But, I will not stick my foot down my throat - I will vote for anyone, including the city dog catcher, instead of the sneermiester - Bush.

Somebody, somewhere posted an interesting article written by Max Cleland about the administration's mistakes in Iraq. Cleland ends the article by saying something like, Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Too bad you didn't go when you were first called.

Which leads me to wonder the following: To what extent does seeing serious battle (losing three limbs, like Cleland?) turn one into a realist about war, someone who'd avoid it whenever possible? Or to what extent does it inure certain people to war?

To what extent is Clark some who has seen battle, who would be a reliable, negotiatin', civilian leader in times when war threatens? What do you suppose would have happened to George W. had he ever been in the middle of a war?

Clark is not a responsible military leader. He is the product of the climb over the bodies of your subordinates carreerism of the modern military. I dislike and distrust him. Sorry.

bill
i like dennis too. but i am basing my feelings on ONE debate. i really don't know enough yet.

and wesley clark has not stated his views on armerca's problems. he would be prudent to get THAT up front as soon as possible.

i would not vote for sharpton unless it was between bush (or tnent lott or newt) and him.

i think he is not presidential material.

i think that there is a nice group to pick from and it will come together nicely. i am sure we will get a good candidate!

congrats on your 100th post, gingy ;-D

and on a good note, too ;-)

I have issues with Sharpton, but I can let that rest, because I don't believe Democrats will see him as the solution to the Bush problem. I believe it comes down to Dean or Clark, or Dean and Clark. In a perfect world I might vote for other than they, but, we have only so many options.