Let me revive this thread with this snippet from the Wa Po about Rand Beers, who quit the administration and now works for Kerry:
Quote:Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox.
"Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.
Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?
More here. Sign up is free.
Thanks PD, I read the entire article.
So, who's the front-runner in the democratic party for 2004? c.i.
cicerone imposter wrote:So, who's the front-runner in the democratic party for 2004? c.i.
Lieberman. At the end of the day the RNC may toss a few scraps to the far left, but they know that their only shot is to offer up someone almost as conservative-sounding as Bush, and hope people take the bait.
Scrat, I surely don't see it that way. I see Kerry pulling ahead. Leiberman is not much of a card-carrying pinko-liberal.
Heard Graham tonight, talking about his health plan. Really like that man.. He's got more rounded experience and know how, and he speaks plain.
mamajuana wrote:Heard Graham tonight, talking about his health plan. Really like that man.. He's got more rounded experience and know how, and he speaks plain.
they're trying to marginalize him by making him out as an eccentric boob.
Noticed that, snood. But I hope we see and hear more of him. He's only now beginning to make himself heard. Around here, the dems aren't that high on Lieberman or Edwards, and Kerry is still something of a mysterman, where he really should be more public by now. Dean is interesting...he seems right now to be the one making the biggest use of the net. I get regular newsletters from him. Funny thing. On reflection, it was Gore who talked about the importance of the internet - and it's still underused.
Mama, if he can slip by the "establishment" at the DNC convention, I can really see Dean pulling this out; perhaps, then, for the Southern vote, it could be a Dean/Graham ticket. Whatcha think?
I've been seeing Dean/Graham for a while. Will be interested to see what happens with Kerry. Just not getting good vibes from that campaign -- more like DLC vibes.
Tartar, you are correct, ma'am! Kerry is and will be a problem because of his wealth and ties to DLC. I am ready to vote for just about anyone who runs against Bush, but, damn, I hate to end up returning to voting for the evil of 2 lessers!! The DLC is simply Republican-lite, as far as I'm concerned; but we can't lose hope: speak truth to power . . .
I had thought Kerry-Dean or Kerry-Graham, but now I don't know. And Gephardt could conceivably be a dark horse. Apparently they like him in Iowa. Right now I'm writing off the others, but.......you never know..
Dean's got some rough edges. I think something will depend on how the American public swallows the Bush lies, and if they care.
That last part is the scary part--so few seem to care. It is consistent, the public really didn't care that Clinton might have lied, and by and large seem not to care now that Bush might have lied. There is a very active dichotomy here. The object we seek in an effective democracy is to assure the life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness of all citizens. So, if in that pursuit, many have at least achieved contentment, if not actually happiness, it is understandable that they lose interest in any topic with does not threaten to upset their personal status quo.
I hope Sharpton gets the nod.
I'm finding I'm getting a very satisfactory reaction from genuine ol' Republicans when they say something like, "I'm a conservative -- that's why I voted for Bush," with a little PS saying "but I'm not that enthusiastic about Bush." (That's what they all seem to be saying these days.) At which point I jump in and say, "Not surprised, since Bush isn't a conservative; he's a radical." Sound of brain clanking and then, "I never looked at it that way, but... yes, I think you're right..."
I'm starting to believe that if the Dems would just SAY that, grab the conservative label ("fiscally conservative", like Dean), get those Republicans reassessing their own feelings about the admin. What many seem to be saying is "I'm a conservative and therefore I vote for Bush... but... " My view is that (to give a few examples), Mamaj, PDiddie, Blatham and many others herein are in many ways conservatives in contrast to Scrat, McG, and many others who appear to be seriously radical, often reactionary. So we need to say so. Divorce the conservatives from the radicals and reactionaries.
littlek wrote:Scrat, I surely don't see it that way. I see Kerry pulling ahead. Leiberman is not much of a card-carrying pinko-liberal.
I agree that Lieberman is no "pinko-liberal" as you call him. That's precisely why I think the DNC considers him their best shot. Plus they probably fell they owe it to him after requiring him to toss his convictions to the wind in order to fit onto Gore's ticket in 2000.
My bet is that they will attempt to balance him by picking one of the liberal mavericks as his running mate to try to placate the left-wing. (It won't work.)
Dean + anyone sounds great to me. An easy win fir Bush.
