well I am probably not indictive of other "greens" i did vote green in the last election and i would certainly vote for Dean.
Mamajuana, I like Chafee, too. There was a good feature about him in the NY Times Magazine a few weeks ago. The GOP hard liners think he's a little crazy, as if voting against the Bush agenda indicates a deficiency of some sort. As if...
PDiddie -- I doubt that Kerry would have spoken up like that if he and Dean weren't running neck and neck. It is lovely, just lovely. Thanks for posting that.
It is beginning to look a little livelier. D'Artagnan - I've liked Chafee a long time, and wished he were one of ours. But the dem candidates are beginning to shake out. Around here we have a state repub who won on a nasty campaign, and boy, is he now getting a bad press. All of his own making. That's on a local note, of course, but I always watch the locals. I sort of go between Kerry and Dean. Have liked Kerry, but didn't know much about Dean. But Kerry can be tough, and I have a hunch Dean can be too. I also have a feeling about the northeast weighing in. This is not based on any facts - just a feeling.
As far as I've seen, Kerry was hedging on issue questions until Dean busted out with his take no prisoners rhetoric. He seemed to be banking on his "smooth, suave" style vibe up until then. Now all of a sudden he's a tough guy? I think the difference between Kerry and Dean is that the edge you see with Dean is real - he sounds fed up with certain aspects of the right's influence because he is fed up.
Dean has been consistent throughout, and I hope when the right's smut hunters go dredging for smears (and they most certainly have already been working overtime), none of the crap they sling sticks, and this guy gets to make a real run.
Tart, mama, snood--acknowledged.
What I particularly like, on reflection, is that Kerry points out the striking differences between him and the chickenhawks. "I fought, and bled, for the right to speak out"...this goes right to the vulnerability of the Repuke draft dodgers while bolstering the strength (and patriotism, an attractive quality for swing voters) of the Dems who served.
I also like the fact that the Dems are not attacking each other; they're attacking Bush.
Remember: more than half a million people voted for Gore than Bush 2 1/2 years ago. (And were it not for the few thousand votes in Palm Beach County that Jewish voters mistakenly cast for Pat Buchanan, the Towers might still be standing and President Gore would be in impeachment trial right now...sorry, a digression.)
I doubt whether many people who voted 'D' last time will vote 'R' in 2004; more so the opposite, IMHO.
A lively and spirited battle for the nomination is going to be a good thing for the party, and the nation.
All in all, folks tend to favor candidates with whom they are comfortable and who effectively promote and communicate an agenda with which they are essentially in agreement. That accepted, I see the Democrats facing a formidible, multi-faceted task. I wonder if The Campaign will be as interesting as the Democrats' efforts to participate meaningfully therein. Perhaps the Democrats' will unite, capture the public imagination, and rise to the occasion. And perhaps the decisions they make in the coming months will deprive them even of their cherished claim to a dispute of the elected legitimacy of the Next Administration. Continued success on the part of The Current Administration, perceived or real, likely would pose difficulty to The Opposition. Regardless of candidate or platform, the Democrats require that The Republicans alienate the electorate to greater extent than do they themselves. I see little indication the Democrats recognize this. I imagine, if the Democrats do not prevail, they will have beaten themselves. Both Parties have historic precedent for such. I further imagine the Democrats' howls of anguish and outrage in the event of their defeat will serve only to further marginalize their support. It is one thing to lose a closely contended, even controversial election. It is entirely another to lose conclusively. I doubt the coming election will leave much room for interpretation of results. The probity of victory likely will be clearer this time than last. Absent calamity befalling the Nation, thus discrediting The Current Administration in the next year, the Democrats are in dire straits indeed. Failure has not been a notable attribute of The Current Administration, whatever may be opinion of its method.
And all that said, I do not necessarilly endorse The Republicans; in fact they do much to alienate me. I sense, however, they alenate fewer folks than do any of the current crop of Democratic candidates.
timberlandko wrote: Continued success on the part of The Current Administration, perceived or real, likely would pose difficulty to The Opposition. Regardless of candidate or platform, the Democrats require that The Republicans alienate the electorate to greater extent than do they themselves. I see little indication the Democrats recognize this. I imagine, if the Democrats do not prevail, they will have beaten themselves. Both Parties have historic precedent for such. I further imagine the Democrats' howls of anguish and outrage in the event of their defeat will serve only to further marginalize their support. It is one thing to lose a closely contended, even controversial election. It is entirely another to lose conclusively. I doubt the coming election will leave much room for interpretation of results. The probity of victory likely will be clearer this time than last. Absent calamity befalling the Nation, thus discrediting The Current Administration in the next year, the Democrats are in dire straits indeed. Failure has not been a notable attribute of The Current Administration, whatever may be opinion of its method.
And all that said, I do not necessarilly endorse The Republicans; in fact they do much to alienate me. I sense, however, they alenate fewer folks than do any of the current crop of Democratic candidates.
After that very involved, "impartial" analysis, I would simply reiterate that Bush Sr. also appeared to have a greased slide to victory after his "success" in Iraq. We'll know when we know.
Gotta give ya that snood ... but is the only hope that Bush the Youinger repeat the mistake of Bush the Elder? I suspect that is inlikely. I'm not alltogether happy about it, I just expect The Younger may have studied The Elder. He may well have profited from negative example.
Not wanting to scan the previous 65 pages, (gosh I miss the continuous thread display of abuzz!!) I don't know if this has been mentioned or not.
I look forward to the Dean/West Wing President Bartlett analogies which are sure to come as Dean's campaign builds steam.
"Intelligent, out-spoken, New England Governor, yada, yada yada,"
When you think of it, it is a natural to glom on to the success of the television show.
timberlandko wrote:Gotta give ya that snood ... but is the only hope that Bush the Youinger repeat the mistake of Bush the Elder? I suspect that is inlikely. I'm not alltogether happy about it, I just expect The Younger may have studied The Elder. He may well have profited from negative example.
As I said, expect what you want - time will tell.
Snood, it is not what I want. I see no reason not to expect it.
No - it's not that a lot of us think this Bush will repeat the patterns of his father. If anything, he seems determined to be the opposite.
And I do think the democrats are well aware of the serious economic and domestic problems already facing the nation - which are being set aside due to the attention paid to this invasion. But they won't go away, and when most people feel the pinch they begin not to like it. Wars, despite the best laid plans, don't last forever. Dean, from the start, has been talking about the economics, particularly the lack of health insurance for many, the educational problems, and the increasing job loss. He's never lost sight of that, and he has taken an early stand against this invasion and its reasons.
I think Kerry can be tough. In the beginning, everybody was thrown off by the fact that there actually would be this invasion, and as cause after cause was manufactured, belief in it lessened. Today there is a lot of propaganda being put forth about the protestors wondering if they did the right thing at the time - which makes no sense, since the protests started before, and the belief in the reasons has continued, which in no way means non-support of the troops, but rather of the administration. Which, in turn, makes me wonder if the administration may be beginning to have doubts.
The democrtas are beginning to coalesce, rather than fall apart. Just look at the patterns emerging.
Max - yes, an obvious comparison, made many times. I even wonder if West Wing may not have been taken originally from Dean, who, after all, was governor of vermont for six terms.
timberlandko wrote:Snood, it is not what I want. I see no reason not to expect it.
And my point is that we can't know until it happens. No one could have predicted the debacle that was the last presidential "election".
i have no idea where i read this but it stuck in my mind " this is the first war where we have to look for the cause after finishing the war"
"We'll know when we know."
Snood, you keep reminding me of things I should remember!
Dys -- I guess the reason why I think you are so smart is because you always say what I was going to say.
And Tartarin - you make this place better by being here.
Recent Dem candidate fund raising info.
Looks like Edwards is leading; his road paved with lawyer money. <Eww>
Dean doing better than expected. Lieberman, slow outta the gate. Kerry, tripping up due to foot in mouth disorder...
I can't wait for it to heat up. They've gotten the word from MacAuliffe not to go against one another, but sooner or later you have got to differentiate yourself from the other guys in the pack...
Is everybody here firmly in Dean's corner?
Sofie, you remind me of someone who used to post in here by the handle of Lash Goth.
Welcome back, if you're her.
Quote:Conservatism is an intellectually and morally bankrupt elitist movement that exists to enrich the few by manipulating the fears of the many. Right-wingers are repressive and belligerent, but - like all bullies - they are dependent on no one calling their bluff. When forcefully confronted, conservatism collapses under the weight of its own decadence.
Think of Joseph McCarthy.
Think of Richard Nixon.
These reprobates have blazed the trail to oblivion for the trespasser in the White House. Bush shares their conservative traits: their obsession with secrecy, their demand for conformity, and their paranoia that disagreement is treason. If McCarthy and Nixon had gone unchallenged, they would never have been exposed as the un-American tyrants that they were.
It is only because they were ultimately confronted that our nation has retained the right to dissent.
Once again, that right is being assaulted. And once again, it is the moral obligation of people who love this country to fight back. It is our patriotic duty not just to condemn Bush, but to condemn him constantly. We must refuse to be intimidated by those who, like the bleating sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm, seek to drown out all dissent with meaningless noise.
The Battle for Democracy in Our Homeland
