Dean, Nader -- all of this will merely make it easier for Bush to win by a very large margin in November.
Democrats are in the grip of their various single issue left wing advocates. Very enthusiastic and well motivated, as Jorge suggests, but a small minority of the voting public. A proven formula for defeat. As has been said of some second marriages, 'a triumph of hope over experience'.
Mapleleaf (haven't seen him around in awhile) always appreciated knowing about the guys behind the scenes of the candidates.
Here's a very good bit about Dean's Karl Rove, Joe Trippi:
More from the
NYT online.
"Partnering with nature for a cleaner tomorrow" (as the website of timber's link says [Micro-Blaze]) - what's wrong with this equitaion?
Ah, timber's in a jolly mood.
Yeah, that looks like fun up there.
Would that be a lab photo of Karl Rove's hemorrhoid, maybe? :wink:
Echoing what timber and dys have posted about 'inexorable, ultimate inevitability':
Quote:Wesley Clark had talked for nearly an hour about Iraq, nuclear energy, taxes, even windmills, fielding questions at a rat-a-tat rate from prickly New Hampshire voters. Finally, he threw his hands in the air and smiled.
"You're a tough crowd to warm up!" the Democratic presidential candidate said as heads nodded in agreement throughout the cramped conference room. "I'm excited! What about you?"
The plea drew a polite cheer, but one Clark supporter gazed across the crowd of 75 and gave voice to a thought that spoke volumes about the rapidly shifting nomination fight: "Howard Dean doesn't have to work this hard."
Clark is one of five hardworking, hard-charging candidates with a reasonable chance of overtaking Dean when the primary season begins in mid-January, along with Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Edwards, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.
Party leaders are divided over the strength of Dean's surge. Many Democrats sense an aura of invincibility gathering around the former Vermont governor; just as many warn that the landscape can shift quickly once the voting starts next month.
The debate suggests that Dean has come close to achieving a goal he set for strategists months ago in the face of skepticism from the party establishment: create a perception of inevitability before the first votes are cast.
Dean's surge hastens search for alternative to front-runner
PDiddie, I see a credible Gephardt challenge to Dean in Iowa, at least I think it will be hard-fought. As I see it, anything other than a conclusive Dean-trouncing there pretty much wraps it up for Dean, as his lead in the NH primary appears, at least from the polls, to be unassailable. Coming into NH with even a strong second in Iowa should give Dean unstoppable momentum from then on ... or am I missing something there?
Oh, dunno if you saw this, but here's a provocative read from Ted Rall:
Cancel the Primaries
Rall raises the valid points that doing so would present a united, cohesive Democrat front, save money for the states involved, for The Democrat Party itself, and allow The Democrats to devote the bulk of their available funding to the matter of gaining not the just the party nomination, but The Whitehouse. I doubt the proposal will get far, but it could be the single most effective avenue available to them ... what do you think?
timberlandko wrote: ... what do you think?
I don't think anybody should be forced out until some votes are cast.
BTW, it's Democrat
ic Party. :wink:
Well, there's another argument to choose Dean in the primaries - with Dean as the Dem nominee, Nader wouldnt stand a chance to play his game. The voters Nader appeals to - the young and the radical - are the easiest for Dean to win over.
I dont quite get what Nader would hope to get out of this race - he's doomed to do considerably worse than in 2000, so the only acknowledgement his campiagn would attract would look negatively in comparison, right?
If he claims its just principle that drives him, one wonders what he's done meanwhile, these past three years, to strengthen his party on levels that it actually stands a chance at being elected at. A top-down strategy for a small party is merely vanity.
Not sure if I should be amused, frightened, or happy:
Conservatives for Dean?
Quote:President Howard Dean
Carl F. Worden
When I wrote, "Another One-Termer Like Dad?" several months ago, I began my treatise with the words, "If the Democrats play their cards right, and if President George W. Bush extends the federal Assault Weapon Ban that was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, then I am going to predict that George W. Bush will be a one-term war-hero president just like his father."
Well, whether by hook or crook, and whether intended or not, the Democrats are playing their cards right. That article and my predictions were right on the money, even to extent that I foretold, "If the Democrats do something truly stupid, like run a raving liberal like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton for president, then Bush 43 has maybe an even chance. But if the Democrats run a moderate, southern pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper, then I can predict with complete confidence that a Democrat, or possibly even a third-party candidate, will occupy the White House after the next presidential election."
Get ready for President Howard Dean. No he's not a moderate, southern pro-gun candidate. Instead, he's a former Vermont governor from the north. Everything else falls right into line: He is a moderate Democrat who is also a pro-gun candidate who promises not to use the Constitution as toilet paper.
Dean is adamantly against the war in Iraq. Dean is conservatively pro-gun. Dean is soft on abortion and he is a moderate Democrat socialist to the extent that he believes government is responsible for taking care of those who are either mentally or physically unable to care for themselves. In that light, he's the perfect candidate to take residence in the White House following the coming November elections.
Unless Howard Dean screws up in some spectacular way, or unless Dean dies in another suspicious airplane accident, Howard Dean will be the next president of the United States. Mark my words.
Dean is the perfect candidate for election in 2004. George W. Bush has divided the Republican Party into two distinct groups. They comprise the phony and fascist Neo-Conservatives who mistakenly embraced the perpetually wrong philosophy that the ends justify the means, ala Clinton. To them, if Clinton could get away with it, why shouldn't they? Their error has manifested itself via a disastrous war on Iraq that was never constitutionally declared by Congress, and the blatantly and irrefutably unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Both the moderate Democrats and the true American Christian conservatives have found themselves in surprising and stunning agreement on these issues.
If you leave out religious conviction ala the abortion debate, which is entirely the province of the judiciary at this time anyway, and hone in on constitutional principle only, moderate Democrats and right-wing, true Christian conservatives, are in unexpected agreement: We have yet another Viet Nam on our hands, and our kids are being unnecessarily killed as a result of it.
History will prove those kids died in vain, just like all those 58,000 kids killed in Viet Nam: Viet Nam is still a communist nation, and we have reinstated full diplomatic and trade relations with them. In that light, every one of those kids died for NOTHING, and the same will be said of those being killed right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The true American conservatives who once commanded the Republican Party, are horrified by what Bush has done, and many of them, including myself, have vowed never to support Bush again, even if we have to vote for a third party candidate that has little chance of winning.
To the truly committed, truly Christian conservative, George W. Bush is a traitor, a completely phony Christian, and just another politician who placed his left hand on the Bible, raised his right hand to God, and swore to uphold and defend a Constitution he had every intention of violating - if the "situation" warranted it.
If there is one thing that true conservatives share, it is their solid and unwavering conviction to do what is both lawful and right, both under the law, and in the eyes of our God. In that light, our current president is woefully unfaithful, and in fact, treasonous to our Constitution.
A president who personally declares a United States citizen an enemy combatant, ineligible for legal counsel or to face his accusers and their evidence against him, even though he was arrested on U.S. soil and never carried a weapon against U.S. forces or their allies, is a domestic enemy of the people of the United States. True Christian conservatives understood that the moment he issued the order.
True Americans with solid constitutional convictions were outraged by that, and they immediately knew they had a problem in the White House. I don't know what Howard Dean's religious convictions, if any, hold to. But it doesn't matter in this case. Here we have a pro-gun candidate who is against this disastrous war in Iraq, and he is a candidate intent on principle to uphold he personal convictions. I like him, and for the first time in my life, I will vote for a Democrat, Howard Dean, to be my next president next November.
If he's still alive.
Carl F. Worden
By the way, what "airplane accident?"
To counter timber's picture, here's one that represents GWBush.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
hob:
I think that's a reference to the (unfounded) conspiracy theories surrounding the deaths of Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone.
CI, that's the face of America that most of the world sees now.
hbob wrote:By the way, what "airplane accident?"
This one and
this one
The Wellstone Memorial Service, broadcast live and in its entirety here, gave me great comfort. I had my suspiscions prior to that debacle, but watching it assured me The Democrats had totally lost touch with not only America but with their historical core constituency. The conspiarcy theories surrounding the other plane crashes merely add weight to my conviction. So far, though, nobody has tied Amelia Earhart's disappearance to anyone in The Current Administration. Probably only because most Democrats are to young to have any familiarity with it.
Quote:watching it assured me The Democrats had totally lost touch with not only America but with their historical core constituency.
And Timber has to get a dig in, regardless.
hobitbob wrote:And Timber has to get a dig in, regardless.
Its only objectionable if its directed toward, as opposed to originating with, The Left?
No, its also objectionable when directed towards the Left. Duh.
Allright, ninh ... I'll grant that. Now, show me where the "dig" is ... I made a personal observation, and one not involving allegation of venality, criminal wrongdoing, or incompetence ... which are the chief complaints levelled by The Left against The Current Administration, as I see it. I could be wrong, of course, my perspective naturally is influenced by my viewpoint.
Meanwhile, in the most recent poll (Newsweek, Dec 11-12),
-- 50% of those polled would NOT like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, versus 45% who would.
Thats only marginally (1%) better a result for him than the worst scores he's had on this question so far. The Thanksgiving turkey didnt help for long, apparently.
But, on the other hand, he's also pretty much stopped sliding away further since mid-September. Which is good news for him, since even now,
- when pitted against any of the specific Democratic presidential candidates, Bush still has a lead of a minimum of 6%.
Also,
- comparatively, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are the ones who come closest, 6% respectively 7% behind Bush at 49-43 and 49-42, respectively.
Lieberman is 9% behind Bush, Kerry 10% and Gephardt and Edwards 11% (both at 51-40).
My take, 1, is that we really should have heard the last about Dean supposedly being less electable than Kerry or Lieberman or Gephardt by now ... though probably we shan't.
Note, though, that in all cases Bush scores 49-51%, and the Democratic candidate 40-43%. That suggests a pretty solid division of preference.
My take, 2, in this respect would be - considering the huge campaign budget Bush Jr. will be having - the Democratic candidate would actually need to ENTER into the final campaign with a lead in the polls to even stand a chance, or am I seeing that wrong?
timberlandko wrote:Now, show me where the "dig" is ... I made a personal observation, and one not involving allegation of venality, criminal wrongdoing, or incompetence ...
The observation of "The Democrats [having] totally lost touch with not only America but with their historical core constituency" does not involve alleging incompetence?
<shrugs> Hey, you didnt say anything
bad here ... no overt insult any of us'll be smarting from. If you'd evolve that observation into something like a cogent argument, you'd have a good basis for a new thread, actually. As it stands, its just another gratuitous dig you're childishly slipping in (and defending with the argument that "the other side does it too"). Context is everything.
Anyway ... any comments on those polls, y'all? (You know I'm a poll addict ...)
The 're-elect' number is the one the wonks dissect and fret over and savor and so on, nimh.
50% less than a year out is bad, very bad.
This is what Kommandant Rove loses sleep over.
He knows Dubya lost by more than half a million votes, and that they have lost many more than they have picked in the three years since.
So what will they do about that (finding a few more votes)? Pull out of Iraq? Put the squeeze on all those Pioneer CEO's to start hiring?
To quote Republican Representative Gerald Solomon of New York, talking about Bill Clinton:
"Never underestimate a desperate President."
