2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

You guys got worms? I've always had good luck with Valley Vet Supply

Geez, Timber, do you really think you should be egging on those that can only hurl insults? As a mod, I expect more from you...

I guess my failing here is in expecting more of some folk's sense of humor.

I understood your humor, it's just that you have now condoned a certain level of nastiness. Probably wasn't you intention, but lowest common denominator and all...

Hey, folks who insist on going right to the edge should not be surprised if the ground crumbles beneath them, thereby raising the denominator

That's me, below the lowest common denominator....I like that......it sounds so exotic. :wink:

Anyway all I did was ask a question.

Are you picking on me McGentrix? (Smileys to indicate humor, so as not to be misunderstood.)

:wink:

The latest polls are interesting because they seem to totally do away with the notion of an "unelectable Dean". In these latest poll results, Dean appears no more or less unelectable than any of his moderate rivals.

For example, the last Newsweek poll (October 23-24) has:
Dean at 43% against Bush at 49%
Clark at 43% against Bush at 49%
Lieberman at 43% against Bush at 50%
Kerry at 42% against Bush at 50% and
Gephardt at 42% against Bush at 51%

And the very last poll, from Quinnipiac University (Oct 23-27) has:
Dean at 42% against Bush at 48%
Clark at 43% against Bush at 47%
Lieberman at 43% against Bush at 48%
Kerry at 43% against Bush at 49% and
Gephardt at 43% against Bush at 49%

It's almost like no-one gives a hoot who the Democrat choice would be - 42-43% would vote for him, in any case. That's typical for the dynamic we've seen, I guess - one in which the Bush numbers are eroding, but the more the Democrat numbers are edging up the more they are getting all alike. Because its a dynamic thats all about Bush getting more impopular - not about any specific Democrat getting any more popular.

Thats good news for now, but also slightly troubling - if the Dems' increasing popularity (remember, just over a month ago Dean, Kerry and Gephardt were still in the 30s) is all merely about unease with Bush, they will sweep down as quickly as they swept up if any good news comes up.

That sounds about right. None of them actually has a chance. :wink:

I liked what I read about Wesley Clark's statements in NH yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/politics/campaigns/29CLAR.html

Gee, what a shock. This jackoff has the gall to make sweeping generalizations clearly crafted to suggest to the ignorant masses that Bush actually had a role in causing 9/11, and you're tickled to death. No surprise there, what with you being your local watch captain for the Bush hate squad.

What amazes me is how appallingly low your standards are for what is "good" or "valuable" so long as it lets you hate Bush just a little more.

I'm surprised you could read the speech that way. [Edit: I do see it now -- Clark failed to specify that "responsibilities for 9/11" means responsibilites for dealing with the consequences, not responsibility for it happening. I still stand by the rest of the post though.]I see the speech as being crafted to suggest that George Bush used cooked evidence to mislead the nation into a war, then fired staff people for cooking intelligence. And he is suggesting that this is not how presidents ought to do business.

I agree with Wesley Clark. Bush has a record of firing high ranking advisors for not cooking facts for him. Most prominently, he fired his chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, for suggesting before the war that it would cost $100 billion or more. The Bush budget for 2003 had allocated nothing at all. He also fired a General whose name eludes me at the moment. His sin was that he had suggested, also before the war, that even though America would win easily, a substantial share of the military would be absorbed in the occupation, weakening its ability to react to other crises that may loom. Both advisers merely predicted, against the party line, that what did happen would happen. But Bush preferred the party line over uncooked evidence, so he fired them.

I absolutely agree: That's not how presidents do business.

Scrat -- Take a look also at the instances of Bush being advised prior to 9/11 of the imminent danger of attack and dismissing it, brushing past it.

And I'm damned if I can find any convincing explanation for the odd lack of action in the ninety minutes on either side of the attack. Having made those mistakes, whether deliberate (as some believe) or as the result of incompetence (no less a possibility), he then went on to use 9/11 as the basis for retaliation against the wrong "enemy." How one turns those mountains into molehills is beyond me.

And cut out the Limbaugh/Coulter stuff. Hate is the wrong word to apply to how the rest of us feel about George W. Bush -- it implies a personal concern which is just not there. You may have hated Clinton with the narrow, childish, sexually obsessed focus so many Republicans evinced from 1992 on, but most liberals are a tad more grown up and considerably more concerned about the effect Bush has on the nation and the world. So outrage and dismay tend to describe our reactions, not hate.

Thomas - You are clearly a smart man who is well informed, but you have an annoying habit of stating the conclusions you draw from a series of events as the factual causes and effects. You state that Bush fired people for the reasons you claim, but we both know that these are your conclusions, not facts at all. (Your conclusions could be correct, but you don't know that they are, yet you pretend to.)

I suspect Bill Clinton of a lot of things he got away with, but you do not see me here claiming to know he did those things. Like too many others here (most of whom are not as smart as you) you set a lower standard for proof of those things you want to be true than you do for those you do not.

Nope, I think Thomas has got you on that one Scrat. That was certainly true of Lindsey -- publicly. I don't remember the general's name either, so I can't officially vouch for that, but I know Thomas is being conservative (a genuine conservative -- we don't often see them folks around here!!) when he limits his examples to two.

That last is a statement admitting of nearly universal application in political debate. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander.

Tartarin - Look over your shoulder. There's a black helicopter following you. Your comments on this border on being stupid. Lack of action 90 minutes following the event???? Do you have a f#$$%ing clue what happened that day? If there was a man or woman anywhere who wasn't shaken by what took place... Of course there was some confusion.

Of course, the contemptible left will play even a tragedy like 9/11 for political advantage if they think they can. Why not? They turned the Wellstone funeral into a bash republicans rally, why not trample on the graves of the 9/11 dead too if they think it can win them a couple of votes?

And please do me the courtesy of accepting my words as my words. I don't accuse you of being a mindless parrot for the ignorant retards you look up to, so cut the crap about Limbaugh and Coulter. I haven't brought them up, so don't link my thoughts to them. YOU HATE BUSH. If you're too far into denial to admit it, don't think it isn't evident. A small, pathetic and vocal minority on the left hate Bush just as a similar group on the right hates Clinton. Some of us in the middle recognize the vitriol of both fringe groups even when those of you in those groups don't see it in yourselves.

How charming . . . we've missed you so, Scrat . . .

I never left, hairball.

Keep the personal remarks to yourself, shithead . . .