2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Lightwizard wrote:

(You might note that when one goes to the Home Page of The New Republic, you're not onslaughted with ads huckstering the latest propaganda tomes).

How awful! How can we progressives ever hope to compete with the Republicans on their own terms if we don't imitate them completely? Shocked

0 Replies

I must commend Hobibib for his trenchant put down of National Review. He is correct, of course. There are extremist positions on both sides. It was only yesterday on these posts that some well-meaning extremist on the left attempted to shove material from the Nation under the door.

Sorry, both the Nation and National Review are too baised to be taken seriously.

The same goes for common dreams and the Weekly Standard.

0 Replies

Light Wizard is correct in his post when he outlines the opinions and writings of General Clark.

For those who are interested( the site covers some of Lightwizards' comments and some the New Republic did not cover)
FAIR put the lie to Wesley Clark as the new anti-war candidate.

The article gives a great deal of evidence that Clark not only spoke but also wrote in favor of the Iraq War.

http://www.fair.org/preess-releases/clark-antiwar. htm

I will repeat that I am for Dean as the candidate to face George W. Bush. He is leading in the money derby.

I am for Dean because I think his candidacy will be the best thing for this country. I view Dean as a
McGovern Doppelganger.

0 Replies

"After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine." - Clark (10/10/02)

0 Replies

Without active al-Quaeda support, the Bush administration can not be elected for a second term. I wonder if Osama gets invited to the barbeques at the Western White House? He seems to be Bush's strongest supporter.

0 Replies

There's criticism of liberal positions in The New Republic and criticisms of the conservative positions in the Weekly Standard. William Kristol doesn't let Bush of the hook for his mistakes.

0 Replies

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2003/wesley.jpg

0 Replies

Clark vs The Facts

CLARK ON MILITARY FAMILIES

Clark Claims:

Clark Claims Military Personnel Do Better Under Democrat Administrations. "I think there's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, because it's simply true, the Republicans do like weapon systems and Democrats like people. And so, I can tell you, and I would speak for anybody up here, when we take this government back in 2005, we're going to look after pay." (Wesley Clark, CNN's Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)

But Fact Is:

President Bush Has Provided Historic Increases In Military Compensation Over Clinton. Under former President Clinton, military pay decreased an average of almost 2% per year relative to Consumer Price Index. Since President Bush took office, military pay increased an average of 5.2% per year relative to Consumer Price Index. ("Military Pay In Comparison With ECI And CPI," Department Of Defense; "Defense Spending Highlights," CQ Almanac, 2000, pp. 2-29 - 2-46)

Kerry Voted Against Military Pay Increases At Least ELEVEN Times. (S.1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31; I 0-0, 9/5/95; H.R.2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34; I 0-0; H.R.1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31; I 0-0, 9/6/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41; I 0-0, 12/19/95; S.1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31; I 0-0, 1/26/96; S.1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29; I 0-0, 7/10/96; H.R.3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23; I 0-0, 9/10/96; S.Con.Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion agreed to 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93; S.Con.Res.18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93)

Lieberman Voted Against Military Pay Increases At Least THREE Times. (S.Con.Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93; H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion agreed to 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93; S.4, CQ Vote #26: Passed 91-8: R 52-3; D 39-5, 2/24/99)

Gephardt Voted Against Military Pay Increases At Least Once. (H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #865: Adopted 267-149: R 209-17; D 58-131; I 0-1, 12/15/95)

KERRY ON VETERANS' HEALTH CARE
Kerry Claims:

Kerry Claims President Not Addressing Veterans' Health Care. "We have 135,000 veterans waiting six months to see a doctor for the first time just to get their prescription drugs." (Sen. John Kerry, CNN's Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)

But Fact Is:

"President's FY2004 Budget Is The Largest Annual Increase For ... Veterans Affairs Ever Requested ..." ("The President's Budget Briefing Book, FY 2004," The White House, 2/3/03)

President's FY 2004 Budget Proposal Fixes Six-Month Waiting Period, Which Exists Due To Rapid Growth Of Low-Priority Veterans. "In this budget, the President proposes to refocus attention on VA's core medical care mission of providing needed services to veterans with military disabilities, low incomes, and special needs such as spinal cord injuries by charging other lower-priority veterans in the system an annual enrollment fee and increased drug co-payments. Lower-priority veterans have grown from two percent in 1998 to over 31 percent of VA enrollees in 2002. As a result, 236,000 veterans now must wait six months or longer today for an appointment - a situation that will be eliminated with this budget." ("The President's Budget Briefing Book, FY 2004," The White House, 2/3/03)

American Legion National Commander Called President's 2004 Budget "Substantial Request And A Good Sign From The Administration." (The American Legion, Press Release, 2/4/03)

FY2004 Budget Proposal Increases Discretionary Funding 7.4% From FY2003. (Department Of Veterans Affairs, Press Release, 2/3/03)

FY2004 Budget Proposal Provides $2 Billion Increase In Veterans' Health Care Funding.(Department Of Veterans Affairs, Press Release, 2/3/03)

President's FY2003 Budget Requested $1.2 Billion Over FY2002 Veterans' Medical Care. (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee Website, http://rpc.senate.gov, Accessed 3/4/03)

KERRY ON OVEREXTENDED MILITARY
Kerry Claims:
"We Have Overextended The Military." (Sen. John Kerry, CNN's Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)

But Fact Is:

Kerry proposed Massive Defense Cuts Of Billions Of Dollars And Numerous Key Programs Throughout His Career. (S. 1580, Introduced 2/29/96; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 106, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

CLARK ON HIS IRAQ POSITION
Clark Claims:

Clark Claims Iraq Position "Very Clear." "I think my position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset." (Wesley Clark, CNN's Democrat Candidate Debate, Phoenix, AZ, 10/9/03)

But Fact Is:

October 2002: Clark Indicated His Support For Use Of Force Resolution And Said He Would Advise Congressmen To Vote For It. "Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark ... endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race. He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate." (Stephen Frothingham, "Gen. Clark Supports Swett, Raises Concerns About Iraq Policy," The Associated Press, 10/9/02)

August 2003: Clark Ducked Question On How He Would Have Voted On Iraq Resolution. CNN's BOB NOVAK: "So you would be the same as Senator Kerry and Congressman Gephardt? You vote yes, but then you start dancing when a few -- when you have some casualties in Iraq? Is that fair?" CLARK: "I'm not dancing. I'm not dancing one bit. I'm telling you exactly what was wrong with that resolution. That resolution was a carte blanche to the administration to go to the U.N. and then do what they wanted." (CNN's "Crossfire," 8/1/03)

One Day After Becoming Candidate, Clark Says He Would Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. "'At the time, I probably would have voted for it [Use of Force Authorization], but I think that's too simple a question,' General Clark said. A moment later, he said: 'I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it.'" (Adam Nagourney, "Clark Says He Would Have Voted For War," The New York Times, 9/19/03)

Two Days After Becoming Candidate, Clark "Would Never Have Voted For War." "'I never would have voted for war,' Clark ... said during an interview with The Des Moines Register. Reports published Friday quoted Clark as saying he probably would have supported the resolution." (Thomas Beaumont, "Clark Says He Wouldn't Have Voted For War," The Des Moines Register, 9/20/03)

0 Replies

The Dems are on the arc of a learning curve.
Lesson #1-- The uniform doesn't make the man.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

The Dems are on the arc of a learning curve.
Lesson #1-- The uniform doesn't make the man.

But it makes a good puppet. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

The Dems are on the arc of a learning curve.
Lesson #1-- The uniform doesn't make the man.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence; namely that Dems can learn from facts. The Dems we're dealing with don't care a tinker's cuss for facts. The only pertinent data to them are how they feel about the issue and what they want reality to be. Facts? We don't need no steenkeeng facts!

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Sofia wrote:
The Dems are on the arc of a learning curve.
Lesson #1-- The uniform doesn't make the man.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence; namely that Dems can learn from facts. The Dems we're dealing with don't care a tinker's cuss for facts. The only pertinent data to them are how they feel about the issue and what they want reality to be. Facts? We don't need no steenkeeng facts!

Have you looked at the face of the Republican party lately? Huge tax cuts in a recession. Two wars going on with negligible positive results, and bellicose language flying about in support of others. Poverty and joblessness increasing. Efforts underway to undermine civil liberties. Serious efforts being made to eliminate the seperation of churh and state, etc.... I don't think the Republicans have that strong a grip on reality.

0 Replies

Don't be so worried, hobit. Things aren't as bad as the nutty liberal media is trying to make you think they are...

It'll be ok. :wink:

0 Replies

hbob wrote:

Huge tax cuts in a recession.

Dunno where you studied economics; taxes are not stimulative, they are inhibitors. The case for tax cuts is strongest in the face of troubled economy.

Quote:

Two wars going on with negligible positive results, and bellicose language flying about in support of others.

The liberation of over 50 million people from repressive, totalitarian, belligerant regimes is hardly negligible result to thos 50 million-plus people, nor tho the global situation. Nor is the fact that international terrorism has been hindered to the point of having been able to substantively follow up on 9/11, destabilize any government, or prevent the dismantling of its organizations and resources.

Quote:

Poverty and joblessness increasing.

Not according to the evidence; the US and global economies are demonstratedly and conclusivelywell into recovery, though "Old Europe" does lag behind as yet.

Quote:

Efforts underway to undermine civil liberties.

While exagerated by The Left, such new legislation as has been effected is wholly appropriate in time of war. Potential and actual abuses of the expanded powers are being addressed, and The Patriot Act faces as many challenges from The Right as from The Left. The actual impact of The Act on the lives and prospects of law-abiding, peace-loving citizens has been non-existant.

Quote:

Serious efforts being made to eliminate the seperation of churh and state, etc....

Again, sentiment and perception aside, there is no evidence such is the case. What is happening is that The Right has taken arms against The Left's half-century long crusade against religion. Now, I'm not a religionist by any means, as has been well established elsewhere on this forum and in others. None the less, I am not committed to the destruction of religion; I feel it a matter of personal conscience and preferrence, not a matter of legislation and litigation.

Quote:

I don't think the Republicans have that strong a grip on reality.

That 'grip" has occasioned steadily increasing Republican representation as elected to Executive and Legislative branches of both state and federal governments. I perceive it is the Democrats who are in denial, and that they themselves are the proximate cause of their decline in influence. Now, I may be in error regards that perception, but I am comfortable with it, and fully anticipate further validation of it. I note, among other factors, that membership in The Democratic Party, now under 35% of the electorate, is at historic low level, and shows no sign of recovery. Developments over the coming year may of course prove contraindicative, but I see little prospect of that given current conditions and trends.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Clark vs The Facts

Wow. Thats some solid research you've been doing Timber! Hard to argue with such detailed info - that's really good - I mean, it's really good to see such a info-heavy, well-researched post here <nods>. Thanks.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Dunno where you studied economics; [..] The case for tax cuts is strongest in the face of troubled economy.

There's also a strong case against running huge deficits in time of crisis - the conservatives in my country seem to think so, and have really clamped down, budget-wise.

timberlandko wrote:

The liberation of over 50 million people from repressive, totalitarian, belligerant regimes is hardly negligible result to thos 50 million-plus people, nor tho the global situation.

The Afghans have been liberated from the Taliban but, barring the Kabulians, subsequently surrendered to the anarchy and cruelty of local warlords. An improvement of sorts, but hardly the kind you're suggesting. Even the Iraqis, who face a state of semi-lawlessness themselves, are lucky in comparison.

timberlandko wrote:

Nor is the fact that international terrorism has been hindered to the point of having been able to substantively follow up on 9/11, destabilize any government, or prevent the dismantling of its organizations and resources.

9/11 was a pretty much unique operation - nothing before it was anything like it, nothing after it's been anything like it. Even though the intention was, I'm sure, there all along on the part of the terrorists. To credit that to current government policies seems a bit reckless. On the same logic one could submit that Clinton had a really good anti-al-Qaeda policy, too, cause no 9/11 happened under his presidency. Both arguments are silly.

Fact is, terrorists have struck and struck again, after 9/11, if anything in an accelerated tempo than before - Morocco, Saudi-Arabia, Indonesia ...

Evidence on the "dismantling" of Al-Qaeda has been sketchy - for every strategic liaison arrested there was a new attack suggesting they're not all too hindered yet. Bin Laden hasnt been found, while the Taliban are succesfully carving out a piece of Afghanistan for themselves again.

timberlandko wrote:

Quote:
Poverty and joblessness increasing.
Not according to the evidence; the US and global economies are demonstratedly and conclusivelywell into recovery

Thats two different things. Even with the economy already into recovery, unemployment and poverty may still well be up. So a different counterargument is needed here.

timberlandko wrote:

While exagerated by The Left, such new legislation as has been effected is wholly appropriate in time of war. Potential and actual abuses of the expanded powers are being addressed, and The Patriot Act faces as many challenges from The Right as from The Left.

If it faces so many challenges from both The Right and The Left, it seems people across the political spectrum disagree with you on the "wholly appropriate" bit.

timberlandko wrote:

None the less, I am not committed to the destruction of religion; I feel it a matter of personal conscience and preferrence

Straw man - I dont think many Democrats or liberals are out to "destroy" religion. Even I'm not ;-).

0 Replies

Quote:

Clark vs The Facts

Isn't that comical? Almost as funny as this:

Scrat wrote:

The Dems we're dealing with don't care a tinker's cuss for facts. The only pertinent data to them are how they feel about the issue and what they want reality to be. Facts? We don't need no steenkeeng facts!

Let's leave the twisted conservative versions of reality there, in the roadside garbage can, and move on to some real reality (it's from the same guy I quoted in my last post):

Quote:

State of the Democratic Race

Just some quick thoughts on the primary race:

Clark
He's under attack by every other serious candidate. Dean rode such criticism to the top dog position, and Clark can benefit equally. However, he's got to eliminate the niggling distractions (paid speaking gigs, etc). Individually, those might not be big deals, but you add up enough of them, and negative patterns emerge. Also, the primary electorate is far more informed than the general electorate. Clark has to start providing specifics.

And fact is, Clark is faring poorly in the first seven primary states. There's a real question about Clark's chances if he can't pull off a victory the first month of the election season, despite whatever the national polls might say.

Dean
Gephardt must win Iowa. Kerry must win NH. Expect Dean, who is leading in both those states, to get hit by a barrage of ads from both those opponents. Dean has the money to respond, but the collateral damage may bring him down anyway as other candidates stay "above the fray".

Early signs are that Dean will go negative on Clark. I would let Edwards and Lieberman take on Clark (they are more directly affected by Clark's candidacy at this point), but I've never run a national presidential race before. So what do I know?

Gephardt
He needs to win Iowa. Period. As such, he'll probably take what cash he has and go nuclear on Dean. Expect the ads to start running anytime now.

The problem with Gep is that even an Iowa victory leaves him with little else. He survives to fight another day, but he'd be left broke and facing a hostile calendar strong competition in the following states (against candidates with geographical advantages like Clark and Gephardt).

A Gep Iowa victory might resemble McCain's 2000 New Hampshire victory.

Kerry
Forays into South Carolina have all but ended thanks to his weak poll numbers, Edward's surge, and Clark's entrance in the race. He's back to Plan A -- winning New Hampshire.

However, Dean has solidified his lead in the Granite State. So expect Kerry to spend a significant portion of his sizeable cash hoarde to try and take down Dean. This should go negative, as Kerry will go for broke.

Edwards
Given his low poll ratings, the rest of the candidates have ignored him thus far. But as he rises, he'll garner new attention. Witness Clark's campaign announcement, timed to steal Edwards' own announcement thunder. Edwards won't be able to stay above the fray much longer.

Edwards has made SC his firewall, but Clark needs SC as well. So does Lieberman. Things will get rough.

Thus Edwards, more so than any other candidate in the race, has an interest in brining down Clark as soon as possible. The others may want to weaken him in expectation that it will be become a Clark and anti-Clark race. But for Edwards, the road to the nominantion runs straight through Clark.

The others
None of the other candidates, Lieberman included, are players in this race. It'll come down to the five above.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

The Dems are on the arc of a learning curve.
Lesson #1-- The uniform doesn't make the man.

This critique from someone who supports Pres. Bush, who likes to dress up like a navy pilot? That's rich, Sofia. Gave me a chuckle--thanks!

0 Replies

Showing a strikingly similar pattern, both the last CBS/NYT poll, the last NPR poll and the last FOX News poll have "Bush" and the unspecified "Democrat" at a draw. September 24's FOX poll had them both at 39%, October 1's NPR poll had them both at 46% and the same date's CBS poll had them both at 44%.

Last Friday's Newsweek poll shows different, contradictory patterns. Only 44% "would like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president" - 50% would not. That 6% margin is up from a 1% margin two weeks before, suggesting the slight recovery of Bush in the polls is already over again.

However, when the opponent is specified by name, Bush still leads Clark by 4%, Kerry by 6%, Gephardt by 7%, Lieberman by 8% and Dean by 9%. (So much for Lieberman's claim to be the "electable" candidate ...).

Truth be said, tho, in all of these cases Bush's lead has been cut compared to two weeks before. Because back then, Bush's lead was 6% against Clark, 8% against Kerry, 9% against Lieberman and 14% against both Gephardt and Dean.

Interesting to see that those who were worst placed - Dean and Gephardt - now made the biggest catch-up, almost equalising the Democratic field. If that lasts, it will make the "electability" issue more of a moot point in the primaries.

Also in the Newsweek poll, only 44% now approves of how "George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq", 49% disapproves - his worst poll rating yet. Even the majority thinking "the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq last March" has been slashed in half, from 64-31 to 56-37, in just the one month.

45% now believes that the Bush Administration has "purposely misled the public about evidence that Iraq had banned weapons in order to build support for war" - 45% doesnt. Again, a first in the results on that question.

See www.pollingreport.com

0 Replies

It's still early, the public at large isn't paying much attention to debates etc. yet, not that they ever will. Rolling Eyes

Who knows what will happen in the next year, the main issues are still very volatile, creating mixed feelings.

Still interesting to watch the poll results though.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know