2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

c.i., none of this has much to do with the Democratic Contenders ... there are plenty of threads for discussing Iraq and/or Bush and/or terrorist attacks. Pick one or start one, and I'll continue to disagree with you about this stuff there. Lets get back to disagreeing about the Democratic Contenders here, OK?

And to everybody else on this thread, I aplogize for my part in this recent hijacking.

Agreed. Me too; sorry.

timber, I invite you to this forum that speaks to the issue of Israel and Palestine, and the Road Map. http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10310&start=180

Whole lotta duckin' goin' on...

Okey dokey. When things take an interesting turn, off we go. But this is a thread on the democratic contenders.

I heard tonight about an interesting movement I hadn't heard of - rock the vote. There was an interview with the young founder. This is aimed at the younger voter, and its primary aim is to get the vote out. In the interview, it was stated that the most popular figure among the young is Dean. That contrary to popular belief, there is no overwhelming majority for Bush. That the first and biggest concern is jobs - they are increasingly conscious of the fact that high school and college graduates are finding it very difficult to get jobs. (add that to the job loss, and it begins to get scary.) They are also concerned about the environment and about education. For more information on what appears to be a working, growing movement -

http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_about.php

Rock the Vote ain't exactly new; it was formed in 1990, by recording industry exec Pat Lippert, and MTV. Originally, it was a response to The Parents' Music Resource Center, and was intended to counter repression of freedom of speech and artistic expression in the music industry. The first warcry of the movement was "Censorship is Un-American". In '91, it began to focus on the enfranchisement and consequent empowerment of America's then largely politically disaffected youth. The group lobbied for the National Voter Reform Act (the "Motor Voter Bill"), which was vetoed in '91 by Bush the Elder, then signed by Clinton in '93. Lippert and the organization, aided by concerts and promos from scores of artists, marshalled nearly a half million young voters for Clinton in the '92 election. Rock the Vote certainly did "Rock the Vote"; today registering to vote is far more convenient and less exclusionary than ever before in our nation's history. The organization has become a considerable political fixture. Their activism has extended to environmental issues, gay rights, immigration reform, healthcare, poverty relief, and education, among other issues. Lippert, however, missed most of this sweeping change; he died of Aids in '93.

I know some of that, timber. About Lippert and MTV. What I gathered from the interview tonight (and I whish I could remember his name) is that this is a revitalized group, and, I suspect, looking at some of moveon.com's policies now. There are lots of googles about them. I got into this through my new college grandson. Since my son is more conservative than I, I feel it is my duty to see the kid headed in the right direction, which means registering to vote is as important as that license to drive.

college students and president bush
try this link. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/survey_release_spr03.pdf

Excellent. MJ, glad to hear it. BTW, I just googled "Rock the Vote" and came up with this Timeline , which provides lots more info than my previous comment. I met Lippert once.

I am loath to deflect the thrust of this excellent argument but I simply must respond to what I can show is a very misleading post by Mamajuana.

At the end of the day yesterday, Mamajuana posted the results of a poll by Zogby( who has been known to be far off the mark many times.

I am very much afraid that Mamajuana's referral to the minor poster Zogby is trumped by the most highly regarded and, according to all authorities in the polling field, the most rigorously administered polling organization in the world- The Gallup Poll.'

According to Gallup's latest poll- August 25 and 26th 2003

President Bush's Job Approval Rating is pegged at 59%

President Bush's handling of Terrorism is approved by 66% of the people polled.

In a race between Bush and a generic Democrat, Bush receives 51% of the vote, the generic Democrat receives 39% of the vote and Other receives 4% with 5% giving no Opinion.


May I respectfully submit that any reference to Polling Data should attempt to include the most respected Polling organizations?

There are all sorts of polls, for sure, and all sorts of ways to skew the data derived from a poll. A good overview of significant polls can be found at: http://www.pollingreport.com/

Actually, I think polls are mostly what The Media fall back on when they can't come up with real news. 'Course, when I find one that supports my opinion, I'll likely grab it, even knowing somewhere out there probably is a differing set of statistics

timber, history is something you're usually pretty good at.

Less than a year ago, al-Qaeda connected terrorists blew up a nightclubin Bali, Indonesia, killing more than 200 and wounding over 300.

And since then, in Indonesia alone, including last month:

December 5 2002:
Three people are killed at a McDonald's in eastern Indonesia.

February 3 2003:
A bomb damages part of Indonesia 's national police headquarters complex in Jakarta, smashing cars and windows. There are no reported casualties.

April 24 2003:
A small pipe bomb goes off outside the main UN building in downtown Jakarta. No one is injured.

April 27 2003:
A bomb explodes near a fast food outlet at Jakarta's main airport, injuring eleven people.

July 14 2003:
A bomb rocks Indonesia's parliament just days after police captured nine suspected Islamist militants, seizing explosives capable of making a bomb ten times more powerful than those used in the Bali attack. No one is injured.

August 5 2003:
Ten people are killed and scores injured when a bomb rips through a hotel in Jakarta's foreign embassy and business district.

You're right; let's keep this thread on topic. Please, though, no more comments like this:



That's so italgato-like. Don't go there.

You werent proven wrong on your case that it was wrong of the Bush admin to use "WMD as a primary raison de guerre" - we agreed with you on that. That wasnt what PDiddie "took exception to" at all - to suggest so is (deliberately?) clouding the issue.

What he maintains you were proven wrong on (and I would agree), was your endlessly repeated case, at the time, that we'd find WMD any moment now. In PDiddie's paraphrasing, they were "just around the corner".

You say you never said it. But in my post PDiddie referred to, back then I already compiled a whole range of posts in which you said or insinuated exactly that, provking me to comment that "you're giving us so much smoke we wouldnt see the gun if it stared us in the face! ;-)". Note, for example (and there's loads more here):









Time and time again, you commented that "today or tomorrow", we would hear about the WMD that, you were sure, were there. Time and time again, you posted this news with great emphasis, not exactly denoting that you considered it the 'subordinate' question you now claim to have considered it.

I've always been kinda (admiringly) amazed about how you got away with that track record and still kept your reputation on this board as one of the most respected experts on the topic. I'd say that it wouldnt hurt "to admit and acknowledge error and accept correction" this time 'round - or at least accept that your follow-up predictions now might be taken with a grain of salt of some proportions.

I guess its a matter of interpretation, there, ninh ... in the cases you cited, I said I beleved we would know more soon, not that WMDs would be discovered, or used. In every instance, we did indeed know more soon ... we knew that "The Smoking Gun" had not yet been found. And evidence continues to mount that the programs and dual-use facilities did exist, were in place. As far as "Subordinate", I beieve also if you examine the record, I clearly held the war to be a resumption of hostilities broken off by the '91 ceasefire, due to continued Iraqi intransigence in the matters of compliance with sanctions and disarmament, not something "rushed into post 9/11". I did expect earlier disclosure of concrete discovery of prohibited WMD activity, yes. Oh, and as to "The Smoking Gun" ... Back this spring, I mentioned that perhaps the reason no smoking gun had been found was that it was still in Saddam's pocket, loaded, perhaps even cocked, but as yet unfired. That's still what I think. It is my conviction that the deception programs and practices that allowed Saddam to keep his related programs and progress from "The Inspectors" for over a decade have for months further frustrated our attempts to bring them into the open. Anyone is welcome to take as much salt with my message as they find suitable. Now back to the issue at hand, I just don't see that I have been "proven wrong", or that there exists any error to be acknowleged. While it likely will not satisfy the stauncherst of the naysayers, I believe David Kay's report, due later this month, will remove much of the cloud of doubt. If it does not, then I was wrong, and The Administration's PR blunder was even bigger than I had assumed. I really don't think this is another one of those "Bodyguard" stories. If it turns out to be one, following Kay's report, I will certainly acknowlege that.
Consider this; which scenario makes more sense?
1) Saddam saw advantage to be gained by inducing the US to destroy his regime by pretending to have and conceal WMDs, and continuing to fail to comply with the UNSCR requirements that he provide proof he had divested himself of known inventory and capability
or
2) Saddam had something to hide.

From the latest Nation, Calvin Trillin's poem:


JUST WAIT

The White House said, although it wasn't true,
Iraq must be invaded, PDQ,
Since terrorists, who'd caught us unaware,
Were with Iraq, and always gathered there.

They didn't then, but more come every day,
So they can drive the infidels away.
Will other lies come true? Can we deduce
That Baghdad's A-bomb plants will now produce?

I'm sorry, that is disingenuous. You didn't say "that WMDs would be discovered, or used"? Just copying from that '15-examples' post back then, I can see how you wrote, respectively:


and


Lookit - I don't mind that you misestimated some of this stuff - hey, I musta said stuff about, say, thinking it likely that the war would last for months, thinking it likely that the US troops would meet dogged resistance, thinking it likely that the invasion would cost anything up to the tens of thousands of lives that Powell's "shovel tanks" buried beneath the sand back in '91 - and none of that came about. Each and all mistaken assumptions - happens. And the prediction that WMD might be used against US soldiers was made by many people, war opponents as well as proponents.

What I mind is playing the "I didnt really say it" kind of games when anyone, like PDiddie now, calls you on any of it - lashing out at such posters' "ignorance" instead. Its kind of childish.

The thing about, when defiantly rejecting anyone's reminder about none of your predictions back then having materialised, referring to how you were still going to be proven right any moment now - just like you were back then, half a year ago - also vaguely bugged me; but if its this month's report you're holding out for, sure - why not wait another month.

As for the options you sketch in your "scenarios", I have something to say about those as well, but I'll do it in the US, UN and Iraqthread. "Timber" is enough of a digression to this thread - a relevant one, considering how it started - without actually adding "Iraq" to it as well.

Hey, no problem nimh. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I gotta say I just don't see where you're comin' from on the deal, but then, that could be nobody's problem but my own. I figure it isn't much worth gettin' all bothered about, and if anything embarrasses me its having spent this much time and typing on it ... sorta like my own private version of "The Sixteen Words" non-issue, I guess.

Aw c'mon, Timber. No one is trying to cut you down. (TIMBER!!!)

It's just that clinging to ill logic isn't up to your usual standard.

Tartarin's right, Timber.

Place where I was coming from was sheer annoyance about anyone "playing the 'I didnt really say it' kind of games when [called on past misestimations] - lashing out at such posters' "ignorance" instead".

'S jus' not right, and you have to speak up about friends not doing right as quickly as you would on foes doing so, if you want to take yourself seriously. I mean, you said it - you denied it and so we took the trouble of looking it up for you - just own up instead of getting all miffed about it, you're a big enough man - hell, I just included a whole bunch of predictions I was mistaken on myself, an' I aint that big a man.

So I guess I'm just trying to get you to be as fair as I'd expect you to be, so that I can take your posts and "wise arbitrator" role here on A2K as seriously as I'd like to. But tha'z OK. Its not your job to meet my expectations ... and I can draw my own conclusions. Just looks bad, tha'z all <shrugs>

Tartarin - you had talked about local elections. Here, from the NY Times, Sunday, 7 September 2003, Political Points by Michael Janofsky:



Representative Patrick J. Toomey, a three-term Republican from Allentown, Pa., has been one of President Bush's staunchest allies, voting consistently for policies promoted by the White House. Such loyalty would be rewarded, yes? Not necessarily.

Mr. Toomey, who is stepping down to mount a primary challenge next year against Senator Arlen Specter, slammed straight into a White House policy on whom it supports. Never mind that Mr. Specter, a four-term moderate, has frequently annoyed the Bush administration by siding with Democrats. It's an election year. "Senior administration politicos told us it was official White House policy to support incumbents," said Mark Dion, Mr. Toomey's chief of staff.



(Comment: Although Specter is getting more liberal by the day - reflecting his constituency - he's still the vote getter. And the reublican party is afraid that Toomey wouldn't be able to carry the seat, which is in a democratic area. So, the lesser of two evils is to back Specter. Just a few months back the WH was rootin tootin for Toomey.)



Recruiter Rove:
Hard to Resist

No sooner had Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald of Illinois announced that he would not seek a second term than President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, was on the phone to Jim Edgar, the former Illinois governor, with a simple message, as Mr. Edgar recalled: "We want you to run."

A few days later, Mr. Edgar's phone rang again. This time it was Mr. Bush himself, urging him to "think about it." Then he got a follow-up from Mr. Rove.

The same friendly persuasion has played out countless times since Mr. Bush took office. In the 2002 election cycle, the results were outstanding. Republicans extended their majority in the House by six seats and regained control of the Senate.

This year, the going has been tougher. Despite the arm-twisting, Mr. Edgar and a host of others with impressive credentials and name recognition have resisted Mr. Rove's entreaties — some for family reasons, some for interest in a different office. The group includes Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Representative Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Representative Jennifer Dunn of Washington, former Gov. Ed Schaefer of North Dakota and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, a Floridian.

Though he resisted the appeals of Mr. Rove, Mr. Edgar said he was impressed that the White House was taking such an aggressive approach to recruitment.

It was not welcome news to Mr. Rove, an important presidential aide who likes to get his way. "He was genuinely surprised and disappointed," Mr. Edgar said. "I could hear the tone of his voice."

But it was welcome news to the Democrats. Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey, the chief fund-raiser for Democratic Senate candidates, declared in a fund-raising letter about to come out: "By any account, this has been a hopeless summer for G.O.P. Senate recruiting efforts."


Comment - By all accounts, this doesn't look so much as a sure thing anymore. Harry Reid in Nevada doesn't look so vulnerable as the repubs hoped. It appears the times may be changing. And the Governors Association, which had been very strong Bush backers, is complaining about a number of important things - like promised funding for mandated programs that has never appeared; like the touted school testing than many districts have now done away with.