0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 07:39 am
When the only party who can mount a defense against the group of people I consider the most dangerous in the world, Bush Inc., and they can't pull it together it is depressing.

We are screwed in this country. I really believe that. America will never be the same again, not in my lifetime.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:09 am
BP

As folks have said before, I think this period of run-up to selection of a candidate is quite normal. Recall the ugly stuff between Bush and McCain.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:17 am
I agree 100% blatham. I also stand by my belief in my previous remark though.

Barring divine intervention I think Bushs' re-election is a foregone conclusion and I wonder how many people have considered the fact that once he's in in his second term and has nothing to lose, he will really unleash the dogs of war and hell for the personal gain of Bush Inc.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:24 am
BP

As to your second sentence in your first post...though not a certainty, I too think it is presently perhaps more likely than at any point in the past.

Tommy Franks has conceded that another significant terrorist attack could well introduce military governance.

As regards the middle east, it's a bit scary to think what this week might look like if Musharraf and Brenner HAD both been successfully murdered.

Clearly, it is time for Doctor Strangelove to be re-released to octoplexes across the land.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:27 am
One additional point...both the reality and the pervasiveness of any police state occuring in the present is very much facilitated - unlike any time in the past - by the technologies which now exist.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:43 am
Well, fellas, I'm just not so certain (nor as resigned).

I keep thinking about those 550,000 votes Bush didn't get last time, and those 3 million fewer people who had jobs three years ago, and all the Republicans I know online and off who feel so shocked and awed at what Bush has done on so many fronts, from civil liberties to the environment to the Medicare prescription bill that they won't dare vote for him again...

Karl Rove is counting on your (and millions of other peoples') disillusionment, Bear. Let's not make his day...

Watch thisand be reminded what kind of cretin we're dealing with.

And stop being so depressed, because this guy is gonna lose. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 09:49 am
pdid bush will not be relected on my account...I will speak my mind about the need to elect a new president and I will vote for whoever the democrats throw up there.....that's really all I can do and I hope it's enough, but I'm not optimistic.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 10:52 am
PDid's quote, "And stop being so depressed, because this guy is gonna lose." If that 'really' does happen, I'm treat'n you to lunch with drinks - to celebrate. Wink
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 11:03 am
You're on, c.i.

"Comes the revolution, I'll buy you a new hat."
--John Reed (as portrayed by Warren Beatty in Reds)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 12:02 pm
Sofia wrote:
I watched a segment on CNN wherein it was forwarded that the media annointed Dean. Did they, or did they just follow the story? Should they have given equal coverage to the other Dem contenders? I remember a couple of months when you could see Dean's face plastered all over the big covers...


Good point, but the thing is - Dean was the only one who did something that was new and noteworthy.

When he was still an asterisk in the polls and merely the long shot from Vermont, he didnt get all the attention. But while the other candidates slowly prepared on the usual mechanisms for the primaries, holding press briefings for some random thing they could tout themselves for, Dean went out and a) started campaigning fanatically at a time when most people said he was crazy to do so, warning him for "peaking too early", b) organised supporters in ways that were never or hardly done before (Meet-ups, Internet funding drives, giving volunteers the chance to set up their own campaign activities) and c) did so with unprecedented success.

Basically, he was the only candidate who came up with a story for the media to pounce on - and that is what they're bound to do. Any other candidate pouting now should just realised that they could have dared to venture into unknown campaiogning territory themselves - and if they'd succeeded, they would have been in the spotlight now.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 12:16 pm
That seems reasonable.
The commentator had video of many other pundits and anchors saying things like--"Can he be beaten?" "Looks like its a done deal..." (Sort of like calling a race before the voting precincts close... ) Instead of reporting the facts (which were impressive), they seemed to be crowning him prematurely. It happens frequently. Thought it was worth mentioning. It won't change.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 12:41 pm
Sofia wrote:
The commentator had video of many other pundits and anchors saying things like--"Can he be beaten?" "Looks like its a done deal..." (Sort of like calling a race before the voting precincts close... ) Instead of reporting the facts (which were impressive), they seemed to be crowning him prematurely. It happens frequently.


Thats true. Elecetions nowadays seem to be decided in main before anyone even casted a vote - I mean, not necessarily who will squeeze through to actual victory, there's always surprises - but who even gets a chance, in any case. The selection of the main contenders is done by media coverage and by the fundraising process even before any one candidate's strength is tested at the ballot box.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 12:43 pm
Sofia wrote:
I watched a segment on CNN wherein it was forwarded that the media annointed Dean. Did they, or did they just follow the story? Should they have given equal coverage to the other Dem contenders? I remember a couple of months when you could see Dean's face plastered all over the big covers...


I wanted to respond to that also, Sofie and nimh...

Dennis Kucinich's response in the last debate (the one Ted Koppel moderated) hit the nail on the head and drove it all the way into the board with one swing. Paraphrasing:

"When we are answering questions about endorsements and polls and money raised, it keeps us from discussing the real issues, which are Iraq and the economy and creating jobs and healthcare for all Americans..."

What the media wants to do shape the context. (It will have some influence necessarily, but like any other unfettered power it craves more and more.) This "feed the beast" syndrome made its appearance early with Koppel opening the debate with those questions about the Gore endorsement, the polls, fundraising or the lack thereof and so on.

(Prior to the debate a C-Span reporter asked Koppel what he wanted to accomplish; his answer was, "keep viewers from dozing off". Evil or Very Mad)

This is also why we have to wade through the "news" of Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson and so on to get to the real news, and especially the stories that aren't being told (like the brewing scandal of incompetence of the companies entrusted to electronically count our votes, and the stonewalling of the Bush administration relative to the 9/11 commission inquiry.)

Most of the media has abdicated its responsibility to protect and to serve. That noble mission was sacrificed on the altar of increasing quarterly profits. L. Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, owner of over 1200 radio and 237 TV stations across the US (and organizers of Dixie Chicks boycotts and disc burnings), said this when asked by Fortune magazine about his corporation's commitment to news gathering and reporting:

Quote:
"We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products."


Our media in this country has become too conglomerated, too incestuously entwined with the Congresspersons who are supposed to also be the peoples' watchdog, and simply too lazy to do what they are supposed to do.

They'll report whatever is good for their bottom-line, which for the consumer of their 'product' is the nutritional equivalent of eating at Mickey D's three times a day.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 03:06 pm
PDiddle, the link you provided is kinda a cheapshot.

Attacking the guy for raising campaign funds? What president didn't go out and raise campaign funds the year before the election? sure he's done more campaigning than most, but what did you expect him to do, pass on the money.

let's attack him for the issues, not for stupid stuff like this.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 03:43 pm
Centroles wrote:
PDiddle, the link you provided is kinda a cheapshot.

Attacking the guy for raising campaign funds? What president didn't go out and raise campaign funds the year before the election? sure he's done more campaigning than most, but what did you expect him to do, pass on the money.

let's attack him for the issues, not for stupid stuff like this.


If you think smiling and palming $2000 checks while soldiers die in Iraq is not an issue, Cent...

If you think attending almost 50 fundraisers and zero funerals for soldiers is not an issue...

If you think that raising money and drawing curtains on the coffins of the returning deceased is not an issue...

...sorry about that. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 03:58 pm
PDid, You must've missed GWBush's visit to Walter Reed last week. He was telling the soldiers they were sacrificing for a good cause, and that the American People are behind them. People must have short memories, because this president took away veteran's benefits during his first year in office after he promised to take care of the vets during his campaign. Oh, well........a minor point, I guess.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 04:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
PDid, You must've missed GWBush's visit to Walter Reed last week. He was telling the soldiers they were sacrificing for a good cause, and that the American People are behind them. People must have short memories, because this president took away veteran's benefits during his first year in office after he promised to take care of the vets during his campaign. Oh, well........a minor point, I guess.

I think this is best explained by the article on Bush's suport among the blue collar types elsewhere. We have a "feel good" president who starts "feel good" wars, and credits "feel good" "heroes" while they end up suffereing form their "feel good" wounds. Sad
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 04:42 pm
Those 400+ dead American soldiers don't have any feelings at all. How does one explain why the family members of those soldiers still want GWBush as their president after he's given nothing but good sounding rhetoric and taken away their benefits? When I figure that one out, I think I'll be the wisest person on this planet.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2003 04:48 pm
He's given them a "cause" for which their kiddies died. If you look a the demographics of enlisted military service, many of them come from multiple generational military families. When they die for their country, the mindset of "for their country" outweighs the "die" portion. And lets not forget that for most families, the $100,000.00 (minimum coverage) payment from SGLI can be a decisive factor in lending support to the cause. Sad
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 05:02 pm
Quote:
Washington, D.C., Jan. 13 (0 Delegates)
Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), John Edwards (D-N.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Clark have pulled out of the inside-the-Beltway nonbinding primary, turning it into a beauty contest between Dean and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Dean is strongly favored.

Iowa caucuses, Jan. 19New Hampshire primary, Jan. 27 (22)
This race is Dean's to lose. Every poll in recent weeks has shown him with a 14- to 30-point lead over Kerry among Dems, and a similar margin among independents, who can vote in this election and tend to like outsider candidates (see John McCain and Bill Bradley, circa 2000). One year ago, Dean's and Kerry's standings in the polls were reversed. Kerry may be unable to continue the race if he loses New Hampshire. His at-least second-place finish once seemed assured, but if he continues to look weak in New Hampshire and in the South, that may give an opening to a candidate who comes in with a large amount of money, such as Clark. Anyone who can knock Kerry out of second in New Hampshire will be able to get a considerable lift heading into the Feb. 3 states. By December, Kerry and Dean each had 11 offices in New Hampshire while Clark had nine. Third place in New Hampshire is irrelevant. In the modern primary system, no Democrat who has placed worse than second in New Hampshire has won his party's nomination.


More at The American Prospect
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 06/17/2025 at 04:51:50