0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2003 10:30 pm
Sofia wrote:
nimh--
Thank you, dear. My gaping wound has miraculously healed. No scar! Cool

You obviously weren't treated at Hopkins! Wink
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 01:10 am
Professor Hobibit's stunning rejoinder(5:41 PM) is unanswerable ( filled with blah-blahs). It would seem that, at times, the poor man is actually tounge-tied.

Perhaps I had better not pose such difficult problems for him to solve.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 12:42 pm
One of the things I really like about the Doctor is his ability to needle Dubya:

Quote:
Becoming a Ranger for President Bush means raising at least $200,000 for his re-election, but former Howard Dean's presidential campaign has also formed a group of "Texas Rangers," who need only comfortable shoes and a weekend to spare.

In his latest effort to tweak Bush for his prodigious fundraising even as he out-raises everyone in the Democratic field, Dean is flying at least 495 Lone Star State supporters to Iowa and New Hampshire later this month and is calling them "Texas Rangers."

Planeloads of Dean supporters are going from Austin to Des Moines; Dallas to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Houston to Manchester, NH, on Sept. 27. The campaign says their mission is to spend two days taking Dean's "message of hope and action door to door."

Dean has made an unusual push in Texas, which doesn't hold its primary until March 2, after 17 other states and the District of Columbia have held their nominating contests. Dean bought TV advertising in Austin when Bush was at his ranch for his August vacation. The ads generated a lucrative response from new contributors. The campaign says Dean drew 3,000 supporters in Austin in July and 3,500 in San Antonio last month.


Wa Po via Star-Tribune
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 01:31 pm
Lola wrote:
And Sorry, nimh.....why didn't we say, "nimh, what the f--- you talkin about?" Can't think why we didn't......... Laughing


Hmmm. It seems the answer is some people don't care if you are right or wrong, as long as you are on their side... :wink:

Myeh!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:20 pm
One of Dean's "Texas Rangers" writes:

In the 2004 General Election, at the ripe old age of 80 years, I will be casting my fifteenth vote for a President of the United States. My first vote, in 1948 for Harry Truman, helped him to pull the biggest political upset of the first half of the twentieth century. My hope is that the next election will see the biggest upset of all times. In all, I have won six, lost seven, and had the most recent one stolen. Personally, I want to win this next one to even my score.

But, there are far more important reasons for us to elect a Democrat in the next election. Never in my life have I experienced the gut-wrenching feeling as I am now feeling regarding the direction our country is being led by the current administration. Many of our citizens have lost faith in our system because of the alarming things that they see -- our foreign policy is in shambles; we have the respect of practically no one worldwide;. the government lies to the world -- and its own citizens; we have squandered budget surpluses and replaced them with debts that even our grandchildren will be unable to pay; we have made an oxymoron of "environmental protection;" we have deadened the hopes and aspirations of an entire generation; we continue to let our healthcare decline as more and more people become ineligible for publicly funded care and more and more lose their coverage because of unemployment which does not seem to concern the present administration. Time and space prevents me to file a complete indictment of our current administration. We must not let them continue to lead us down the road of indifference as they pursue their dreams of a plutocracy.

These are just some of the reasons I am going to another state to help present the cause of Governor Dean. At my age, and with my bad back, there are many things I can find to do at home without traipsing around the country, but I can think of nothing better I can do to help assure the future of my country and my fellow Americans. I like what Governor Dean says and how he says it. Eleven years ago we elected another governor from a small state -- over the battle-cry of the Republicans that he was "a failed governor from a small state." Maybe what this country needs is another "governor from a small state" since it is obvious that the governor from a large state hasn't been able to cut the mustard. I will do all I can to help elect Governor Dean! I hope the people in Iowa will join me -- for the future of our country!

Bill Sybert
Dallas, Texas

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001501.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:38 pm
We need more people like Mr Sybert; people who knows how to communicate what's wrong with this administration, then get out there to promote Dean. Those three millon people that lost jobs during the past three years also lost their health care insurance. Where are they? Why aren't they speaking up?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 02:49 pm
Because they are too busy trying to stay alive, maybe?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 03:59 pm
I wonder if they're going to vote in the next election?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 04:14 pm
Nimh, that's just hilarious! I won't look up the actual discussion, but I'm sure you were at your usual well though out, persuasive level. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:03 pm
roger wrote:
Nimh, that's just hilarious! I won't look up the actual discussion, but I'm sure you were at your usual well though out, persuasive level. :wink:


Embarrassed i'm still embarassed ..

'Ctually, i think ima gonna edit those old posts a bit, so that at least if anyone ever finds them through "Search", they'll make sense. I'll add a note about them having been edited and a link to the post above tho - it wouldnt be intended as a "cover up".

[Done. Replaced "Al-Qaeda"s by "Saddam's Iraq"s in each of them and added an explanatory note to the top of each.]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:19 pm
New Newsweek opinion poll. Almost spectacularly interesting, really.

When the question is to choose between Bush and a Democrat, Bush still leads with an ample margin against Dean and, to a lesser extent, Hillary, but only with 5% against Kerry, 3% against Gore - and 4% against Wesley Clark.

In none of the earlier Newsweek polls mentioned here, the margin between Bush and any Democratic candidate was as small as 4%.

Moreover, women, Independents and Southerners - all key constituencies - prefer Clark over Bush.

And asked, "In general, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, or not?", 50% says, "no", and only 44%, "yes".

Quote:
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Sept. 18-19, 2003. N=855 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).

"Suppose the next general election for president were being held TODAY and you had to choose between George W. Bush, the Republican, and [see below], the Democrat -- who would you vote for?" [..]

ALL Bush 47% Clark 43% Other/Undecided 10%
Men Bush 52% Clark 41% Other/Undecided 7%
Women Bush 42% Clark 45% Other/Undecided 13%
Republicans Bush 82% Clark 11% Other/Undecided 7%
Democrats Bush 17% Clark 76% Other/Undecided 7%
Independents Bush 42% Clark 44% Other/Undecided 14%
South Bush 45% Clark 47% Other/Undecided 8%
Non-South Bush 47% Clark 41% Other/Undecided 12%

"In general, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, or not?"

9/18-19/03 Yes 44% No 50% Don't Know 6%

7/24-25/03 Yes 49% No 43% Don't Know 8%
5/1-2/03 Yes 51% No 38% Don't Know 11%
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:39 pm
From the same Newsweek poll:

Quote:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve 51% Disapprove 42% Don't Know 7%


Still a majority positive rating for Bush thus, though the heads up here is that the approval rate in this poll hasn't been this low since May 2001, and the disapproval rate, up another 6% in a little less than a month, has never before been this high.

Quote:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve 46% Disapprove 47% Don't Know 7%


A reversal since last week, when it was still 51% vs 42%: for the first time since the war began does a plurality disapprove of Bush's handling.

And here's the full list of Democrats:

Quote:
"Now I'm going to name 10 Democrats in the race for president. After I read you their names, tell me which ONE you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 2004. Here are the choice . . . ."

[%ages now compared to July]

Wesley Clark 14% (n/a)
Howard Dean 12% (+0)
Joe Lieberman 12% (-1)
John Kerry 10% (+0)
Dick Gephardt 8% (-6)
Al Sharpton 7% (+1)
John Edwards 6% (+0)
Bob Graham 4% (-3)
Carol Moseley Braun 2% (-1)
Dennis Kucinich 2% (+0)
Other / None / Don't know 23% (-4)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:53 pm
Wesley Clark 14% (n/a)
Howard Dean 12% (+0)
Joe Lieberman 12% (-1)
John Kerry 10% (+0)
Dick Gephardt 8% (-6)
Al Sharpton 7% (+1)
John Edwards 6% (+0)
Bob Graham 4% (-3)
Carol Moseley Braun 2% (-1)
Dennis Kucinich 2% (+0)
Other / None / Don't know 23% (-4)

-----------
I guess we all interpret things differently--but what this says to me: Almost a fourth of DEMOCRATS prefer none of the above, or can't quite make themselves hold their nose and pick one-- In the space of a week--any other choice to hazard onto the horizon is instantly chosen over the miserable line up... 14%--desperate for 'somebody else' in the form of Clark.

Once Clark's military history, and schizophrenic flip-flopping are shown to the public--the sad Dem electorate will be hoping for some other choice to come limping into view.

....Hill-ary...
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:54 pm
Frankly, in terms of honesty and accountablity, I don't see any difference between Billiary and Bushy-Poo II.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:56 pm
yes, we all have our biases, don't we Sofia? One is as distorting as the next. We'll see........it's very early. The next year will be interesting.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 05:57 pm
3 days before the Newsweek poll, there was also a new CBS poll again. It, too, asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

The answer was in the exact same proportions as in Newsweek's poll:

Quote:
Approve 46% Disapprove 47% Don't Know 7%.


Note: just one month before, in the same poll, 57% had approved of the way Bush handled "Iraq", and only 33% disapproved.

The CBS poll also asked:

Quote:
"So far, do you think the Bush Administration has developed a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq, or hasn't it developed one yet?"

Has Clear Plan 22% (late August: 42%)
Does Not 64% (late August: 45%)
Don't Know 14% (late August: 13%)

[and:] "Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

Worth It 43%; Not Worth It 47%; Don't Know 10%

"From what you have seen or heard, is the United States in control of events taking place in Iraq, or are the events in Iraq out of U.S. control?"

In Control 38%; Out of Control 48%; Don't Know 14%

"Who should have the lead responsibility for setting up a new government in Iraq: the United Nations or the United States?"

United Nations 64% United States 26% Neither 5% Don't Know 5%

"President Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion for the next year to rebuild Iraq. Do you think the U.S. should or should not spend this amount of money rebuilding Iraq?"

Should 26% Should Not 66% Don't Know 8%


(See here)

Yet another poll, the Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll, every second week asks: "Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"

This week, the answer was:

Quote:
Right Direction 37% Wrong Track 57% Not Sure 6%


Only in January and March this year did few people in this poll think the US was heading in the right direction; at no point in 2002 or 2003 did so many people think the US was on the wrong track.

Seems like the polls this week are breaking myriad records.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 06:03 pm
Sofia wrote:
I guess we all interpret things differently--but what this says to me: [..] In the space of a week--any other choice to hazard onto the horizon is instantly chosen over the miserable line up... 14%--desperate for 'somebody else' in the form of Clark.

Once Clark's military history, and schizophrenic flip-flopping are shown to the public--the sad Dem electorate will be hoping for some other choice to come limping into view.


Well ... I'm a bit cautious in contradicting Sofia these days ... <embarassed grimace>

but 'ccording to the same logic, "any other choice to hazard onto the horizon" apparently can succeed, within one week, to approach President Bush's rating up to within the margin of error - and trump him not just among "the sad Democratoc electorate" but among Independents as well. That should trouble some White House analysts ...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 06:37 pm
Wow, 22 percent think the Bush administration has a "clear plan" for Iraq. They should advise this president what that is!
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 06:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
We need more people like Mr Sybert; people who knows how to communicate what's wrong with this administration, then get out there to promote Dean. Those three millon people that lost jobs during the past three years also lost their health care insurance. Where are they? Why aren't they speaking up?


This article might help you figure out where we/they are. It is very long, but a good read. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030818&s=lieberman

Just a taste of it for you:

Hungry in America
by Trudy Lieberman

I have no heart for somebody who starves his folks. --George W. Bush discussing North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and US food donations on CNN (January 2, 2003)

Ellen Spearman lives in a trailer at the edge of Morrill, Nebraska, a tiny dusty town near the Wyoming state line. A few years ago she was a member of the working poor, earning $9.10 an hour at a local energy company. Then she got sick and had four surgeries for what turned out to be a benign facial tumor. New owners took over the company and told her she was a medical liability and could not work full time with benefits. For a while she worked part time without benefits until the company eliminated her position. So the 49-year-old single mother of five, with two teenage boys still at home, now lives on $21,300 a year from Social Security disability, child support and payments from the company's long-term disability policy she got as a benefit when she was first hired. That's about $6,000 above the federal poverty level, and too high to qualify for food stamps. But it is not enough to feed her family.

Food is the expendable item in a poor person's budget. With the need to pay for gasoline, car insurance, trailer rent, clothes, medicine and utilities, and to make payments on a car loan and $10,000 in medical bills, Spearman says three meals a day "take a back seat." She says she and her family eat a lot of rice with biscuits and gravy. Their diet is more interesting only when a local supermarket sells eight pieces of chicken for $3.99 or chuck roast for $1.49 a pound. "This country doesn't want to admit there's poverty," she says. "We can feed the world but not our own."

Spearman's predicament mirrors that of many Americans. While the most severe forms of malnutrition and starvation that prevailed through the 1960s have largely disappeared, some 33 million people live in households that aren't sure where their next meals are coming from--those whom policy analysts call the food insecure. And with poverty on the rise--the United States experienced the biggest jump in poverty in a decade in 2001, to nearly 12 percent of the population--their ranks are growing. At the end of 2002 the US Conference of Mayors reported a 19 percent increase in the demand for emergency food over the previous year. Food pantries, shelters, soup kitchens and other emergency food providers now serve at least 23 million people a year. "They are America's dirty little secret," says Larry Brown, who directs Brandeis University's Center on Hunger and Poverty. "They are hardworking have-nots who cannot pay the rent, medical bills, and still feed their families."

Food and hunger are a lens through which we see what America has become: a country indifferent to the basic needs of its citizens, one that forces millions of them to rely on private charity that is inadequate, inefficient and frequently unavailable. As people with low and middle incomes have lost their jobs, their families line up for handouts, something many thought they'd never have to do. Hunger exposes the casualties of the ever-widening income gap between the rich and the rest of the population, and the damage inflicted by a twenty-year campaign waged by right-wing think tanks and conservative politicians to defund and delegitimize government. That campaign, which has succeeded in returning the public's view of poverty to the Darwinian one that prevailed before the Progressive Era at the turn of the twentieth century, is emblematic of the right's assault on public programs, which has used the old-fashioned notion of personal failing as the vehicle for accomplishing its political goals. Indeed, few politicians now advocate for the hungry.

...

When the nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act were created in 1972, authorizing special food programs for the elderly, it was Richard Nixon who pushed for more funding. Throughout the 1970s few Americans would have disputed the idea that the federal government had a major role to play in feeding the hungry. "Hunger was a problem we came much closer to solving in the 1970s," says James Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center. "Food stamps were more available, wages at the bottom were higher and there was less inequality."

But then came the Reagan Revolution, with its emphasis on cutting government and the taxes needed to support it. In 1981, when the Heritage Foundation published its first Mandate for Leadership, the right laid out its plan "to restrain the food programs" and reduce the federal government's role. Some of its proposals, like moving the functions of the Community Food and Nutrition Program to the states through block grants, have come to pass. That has meant less money, intensive competition among nonprofit organizations and ultimately less outreach and advocacy for the hungry.

In his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Ronald Reagan coined the term "safety net." Implicit was the idea that like a trapeze artist who needed a safety net only to prevent rare catastrophes, government would help only those in dire need and that most of the time people could provide for themselves. Almost everyone, including many liberals, bought into the concept, which subtly shifted the purpose of social programs from assuring adequate living standards for all to helping the few who occasionally fell on hard times. Reagan attacked the legitimacy of food stamps by painting a picture of undeserving welfare queens who ate at the government trough while buying vodka with their benefits. That notion stuck, and public support for food programs waned.

...
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 07:06 pm
Buterflynet, what a moving article!
The far right has this neo-Victorian notion of poverty as an indication of sinful behaviour,and seems more than happy to have members of American society starve and fail to prosper, if it can see iteself as virtuous protectors of "morality."
Have you read Hellfire Nation by James Morone? Its an excellent book, as is Barabara Erenriech's (sp) book, Nickle and Dimed.
From my position in EMS over the last two decades, I have become panifully aware of the difficultiues the working poor have in obtaining medical care, often relying on Emergency Departments for primary care issues,and allowing minor illesses to fester until they are major medical complaints. A "war on Poverty," that is really a war on the poor was begun by the Reagan administration, and has continued through the present day. Even the Clinton administration, although it provided some funding for social programs, aprticipated in this war on Americans. Consider the welfare reform measures pushed through by the Clinton administration, that limited benefits to a set amount of time. Has the government gone too far to reverse the damage?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/03/2025 at 12:22:13