2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I'll jump in too, PD. I like the fact that Dean and Kerry are outspoken about Bush and the war. The right wing spin machine is working full time on it and we must wait to see what they will attempt to do to mire the Dems. I am tired of playing "nice." Time to get in there and fight!

0 Replies

So many think they can stay in the "Ivory Tower" and still win. I do not. This election will require a great effort and we must run a "gauntlet" if we are to succeed. I say that as someone who is fed up with the Democrats behavior throughout the past two years. I would like to see a strong candidate, and if he is a Republican that repudiates this administration and I like him, well that is where my vote will go!

0 Replies

It isn't likely that there will be a Republican other than George, so I can easily say that! Ha! Laughing

0 Replies

Vietnamnurse is correct. No self-respecting member of either party, with real hopes for a political future would stand up against an incumbent Pres. (The only time in my life I remember this happening was Kennedy against Carter...)

I find it INCREDIBLY REFRESHING to see others willing to vote man/woman over party. This is progress, IMO, toward free-thinking and an empowered electorate!!!! YAY!!!

Lieberman, close-talking aside, to me is a man of high character. He reminds me of McCain in that he votes with his conscience rather than his party. I have heard him agree with the GOP on some issues and disagree on others. He is also no fool on national security. He is more common sense on spending and taxes than Bush and the opposition.

Character counts big for me, and I think Lieberman is loaded with it.

0 Replies

Hey, whether or not you think Clinton is self-respecting (and that is opinion only), he stood up against an incumbent president and won two terms. And he was unknown, as the elder Bush was fond of pointing out.

I don't exactly feel the way VNN does, but I do admire Lincoln Chafee. He believes in what he says and does, and he comes from a line of people in public service who did just that.

And opinions can be so opposite, with the belief in them strong, no matter what. To me, Lieberman doesn't ring true. I just don't get the feeling that he is so totally sincere, nor do I believe that he, anymore than McCain, votes with his conscience so much. I think a lot of it is politically expedient.

A quiet hero - to me - is James Jefford. There is a man who really took a risk in order to vote his conscience. When it didn't work out that well, he stayed, rather than cut and run, which takes even more guts.

0 Replies

Hey, whether or not you think Clinton is self-respecting (and that is opinion only), he stood up against an incumbent president and won two terms. And he was unknown, as the elder Bush was fond of pointing out.
++++++++++++++++
mamajuana-- I think you misunderstood me.
I meant to say when there is a Democrat President running for re-election, no one in his party will run against him. Same with Republicans. You are correct that no Republican will run against Bush. It just isn't done, unless it is almost assured by incredibly low poll numbers that the sitting Pres. cannot win, or is currently mortally wounded by a scandal... but Clinton may have broken that mold. He survived a terrible scandal.

The only time I recall a sitting President being sabotaged by a member of his own party was Kennedy against Carter. It was only done because Carter's Presidency was so bad. I don't know any other time this was done. I wonder if one of our noted historians can shed any light on this phenomena.

Certainly, all Presidents can be challenged by the opposing party.

Just wanted to clarify. Smile

0 Replies

Ah. Ok, all clear. No, nobody I can think of. And I can't imagine it successfully working, either. Again - opinion - the republicans are stuck with Bush.

But isn't it funny how a one-term president named Jimmy has achieved respect and admiration, a lot because he put his energy and work where his mouth is? Maybe, in retrospect, it wasn't such a failed presidency. That Iran thing has a lot of lingering questions.

0 Replies

So, this is what writer's block looks like!

0 Replies

max--

I think if you will read carefully over the A2K rules, you will find that sending members to bed late at night with disturbing mental images is verboten.

This will serve as a warning. Please do not repeat this behavior.

Thank you. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Just trying to be topical...

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/transform.gif

0 Replies

Hmmm....handsome, and superior gifs....
I'm considering stalking you.

Nah. Still on probation.

Damn.
So, max. Who does it for you in 2004?

0 Replies

I was going to offer my services to work on YOUR campaign,

interested?

Oh, were we still talking about the 2004 ELECTION?

smooch

0 Replies

God help me. I have to have him. Cool

Gggrrrhh. I feel like a tigerrrr.

Thanks for the gifs, dahlink.

0 Replies

Hey, I don't want to shock you guys, but you're not really Robert Redford.

0 Replies

Thanks for the compliment, snood.

Does your signature refer to your underwear?

0 Replies

Guf-FAW!

He most certainly is Robert Redford!

Now, muster up that courage and change your underwear.... Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Willie Horton comes to mind

That ad may have crossed a line, but my recollection is that the points it expressed were factually accurate. I'm not defending the ad, but while I am willing to try to slap down campaign ads that put forth falsehoods and slander an opponent, I am not willing to suppress free political speech just because I find it distasteful.

So... what are you saying...
You do believe that the veracity of the message is the important thing, but you don't defend the Willie Horton ad because it's distasteful? It sounds like you're sort of suggesting that you think there's a line of decency that can be crossed with these ads, but you would ignore that if the facts were sound? In other words, it sounds like you're sort of astraddle the whole thing.

0 Replies

Nope, my signature is from the Serenity Prayer. But hey Max- thanks for bringing a little of that abuzz smell to A2K. It takes a certain kind of person to carry that lagacy, and you definitely fit the bill.

0 Replies

legacy

0 Replies

snood wrote:

trespassers will wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Willie Horton comes to mind

That ad may have crossed a line, but my recollection is that the points it expressed were factually accurate. I'm not defending the ad, but while I am willing to try to slap down campaign ads that put forth falsehoods and slander an opponent, I am not willing to suppress free political speech just because I find it distasteful.

So... what are you saying...
You do believe that the veracity of the message is the important thing, but you don't defend the Willie Horton ad because it's distasteful? It sounds like you're sort of suggesting that you think there's a line of decency that can be crossed with these ads, but you would ignore that if the facts were sound? In other words, it sounds like you're sort of astraddle the whole thing.

Not exactly.

I think my response to mamajuana (which followed close after the one you are referencing here) clarifies my point of view:

On March 5th Tresspassers Will wrote:

mama - Okay, if you are so incensed about Willie Horton, how do you feel about the NAACP's anti-Bush campaign ad, featuring grainy, black-and-white footage of a pickup truck, chains dragging from the back to solicit an image of the terrible dragging-death of James Byrd. Was that appropriate? What exactly did the terrible death of that black man have to do with the presidential election? Answer: NOTHING. What did Bush do to directly or indirectly cause this horrible crime? Answer: NOTHING. What did Bush have to do with the murder of James Byrd? Answer: NOTHING.

Contrast that with the "Willie Horton" ad. Here are the facts:

* In 1976 Dukakis had vetoed a bill that would have made Horton ineligible for furlough from prison.

* On June 6, 1986, convicted murderer Willie Horton was released from the Northeastern Correctional Center in Concord. Under state law, he had become eligible for an unguarded, 48-hour furlough. He never came back.

* Horton showed up in Oxon Hill, Maryland, on April 3, 1987. Clifford Barnes, 28, heard footsteps in his house and thought his fiancée had returned early from a wedding party. Suddenly Willie Horton stepped out of the shadows with a gun. For the next seven hours, Horton punched, pistol-whipped, and kicked Barnes - and also cut him 22 times across his midsection.

* When Barnes' fiancée Angela returned that evening, Horton gagged her and savagely raped her twice. Horton then stole Barnes' car, and was later chased by police until captured.

The facts of the ad you find so abhorent happen to be true and directly attributable to the action Dukakis took to allow men like Horton a chance to victimize the public again after the legal system had tried to prevent it. Whether or not it was "sporting" or "cricket" to bring it up, the information was factually accurate as presented.

So, if you want to talk about "setting new lows" you don't need to go back to Willie Horton, nor do you need to look outside the Democrat party.

Google Search: "Willie Horton"

Now, I believe my comment was that we might want to try to police the accuracy and veracity of campaign ads.

What I was attempting to put across was that whether or not I find something distasteful is not a reason to legislate or take action against it. The Dukakis-Horton link is real, and pointed to a legitimate concern voters might share about the candidate. The linkage suggested between GWBush and James Byrd was a fiction, a lie designed to create a completely baseless concern among voters. As such, it was slander of the worst sort. No one should be allowed to put forth an ad like that.

Our freedom of political speech is intended to ensure that voters are able to be as well informed as possible. By definition, an "informed" populace is informed by facts. Intentionally putting forth lies and misleading statements is as contrary to the concept of free political speech as is a bar to that speech, since both deny the voter his or her right to be well and accurately informed.

That's the distinction I was making. If it is true, it is fair game. If it is false, you should not be allowed to claim it, and you should suffer penalties if you do.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know