2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

A pox on your hibiscus

0 Replies

Fox ridiculous.

0 Replies

And may all your morning glories climb.

Back to raising money for a moment - if you all don't mind.... can't make comparisons between the pretzel man and the emerging democrats. There are nine new faces out - raising nine funds. The poor republicans only have Bush - no one else to split all that money among. And when I look at lists of donors - there's another difference no one seems to take note of. Bush's donors are basically the same old fat cats - and I think it was Matthew Dowd who said that with some of them there would come a limit. The democrats are pulling in from lots of sources - and Dean's is significant because there are so many small donations from thousands of people. Meanwhile, Kerry has raised a respectable amount, as has Edwards (at this point more than Dean) - and when you add in all the rest (including Mosley-Braun's couple of hundred thousand) it adds up to an amount to be considered.

I feel sorry for the republicans - the only one they have is Bush - and not everyone is happy about that. A small moment on tv - Bush walking either toward or from a plane, steps showing in back of him. Gives one of those waves. Slight pan of camera shows very few people, no one waving. Except among his cheering official crowds of loyals, we rarely see him being cheered or exuberantly greeted. Apathy seems to be a big reaction, which helps explain poll figures too. But there is no question the Iraq situation is pulling him down. Notice no more mentions of afghanistan, either.

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

And may all your morning glories climb.

Oh, they are, believe me...

Re Bush and the Democrats' prospects: mamajuana is correct in terms of Iraq dragging Bush down. It keeps getting worse--and the US public is noticing. The injuries and deaths to US soldiers are capturing attention, not BS re supposed weapons of mass destruction.

And today's news about the rise in unemployment has got to spook the Bush party. I saw mention today in the NY Times likening Bush to Herbert Hoover. No lie! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

"Bush's donors are basically the same old fat cats - and I think it was Matthew Dowd who said that with some of them there would come a limit. The democrats are pulling in from lots of sources..." Exactly, Mamaj!

I always thought Bush was Harding redux, but I'll take Hoover!

0 Replies

And until we get rid of Hoover/Harding, I'm chewing my morning glories for that little high...

0 Replies

On Iraq - despite the wealth of domestic problems , I feel iraq will be the downfall. Take the looting - no electricity, no water, no airconditioning - in 120% weather. Yet, there has been no great outburst from the populace, except against the Americans. It's like the Iraqis know what's going on, and why, and don't disapprove. The looting at the oilfields....the revenues from the operating oil fields were supposed to be the money used in the reconstruction of Iraq. Without it - not enough revenue. And despite Bully Rummy's talks, nobody has come forth to offer assistance of any kind with assurances of return of effort, which the US is reluctant to agree to. So far, it's all on our heads.

There is a slow dawning on the American public that there is no coalition, and that if Blair is in serious troible, there will be a onealition - and we're not exactly getting an enthusiastic joining up in the services.

Then there is the food problem, the work problem, the hospital and healt problems - and that's only in Iraq. And heric stories are not coming home.

Now, a 25 million dollar reward for the capture of Saddam has been offered. But subliminally. this indicates a need on the part of the WH to get him, because public confidence is slipping. And Bush saying "bring 'em on," about the guerilla warfare. The only way to bring Iraq to its knees is through some bloody fighting, which will aggravate the situation.

Things are changing. The Jessica Lynch story has all but disappeared, a lot because of skepticism all over. No pictures of Bush looking silly landing on the carrier - and they had planned on getting a lot of use out of that photo-op.

Iraq - I bet now they wish they'd gone somewhere else.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush's donors are basically the same old fat cats ...

Someone has been reading your mind...

Quote:

Political irony: Liberals say Bush is buckraking

Why aren't campaign finance reformers happy with George W. Bush? As the president raises money for his 2004 reelection campaign, he's living the reformers' dream: Bush is collecting limited amounts of hard money from real people who want to be a part of the political process.

He's not having small, private dinners with fat cats who write $2 million checks. He's having big, public dinners with people who write $2,000 checks, the maximum allowed under the new campaign finance law.

Isn't that just what the reformers wanted?

Bush's post-reform math is simple. Get 500 people to give $2,000 and you've got $1 million. Get 1,000 people and you've got $2 million. Find one of those cavernous hotel ballrooms that can accommodate 2,000 people and you've got $4 million. Do that for about a month and you've funded your campaign.

Of course, no other candidate can do what Bush does. The president is far ahead of the world in making the reformed system work for him.

So are the good-government types happy? Not at all.

"It's the most cold-blooded and efficient way of raising money in the history of politics," Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity, says in Canada's National Post. "These aren't your average Americans. They're the most well-heeled interests, with vested interests in government."

Bob Herbert of The New York Times calls Bush's fundraising dinners "events at which the fat cats throw millions of dollars at the president to reinforce their already impenetrable ring of influence around the national government."

That's the kind of rhetoric that was used when rich people and corporations gave seven-figure soft-money donations. Now, with contributors limited to $2,000, all of it hard money, the critics are still using the fat-cat argument.

But by any standard of measurement, they're simply wrong. Bush's GOP is the party of the little guy.

Which would you call the party of fat catshttp://www.thehill.com/york/070203.aspx

0 Replies

and now for a brief comic respite.....

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2003/bo030628.gif

0 Replies

Something for The Dean Crowd to think about ...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn06.html

It strikes me that The Democratic Party, in seeking to redifine itself, is moving further and further from The Center. That, to my mind, is their greatest failing. There is an awful certainty to The Bell Curve; Statistical Probability starts working REALLY well when the sample universe gets into the tens of millions. For all else it may be, this country is essentially "Centrist", as opposed to "Liberal" or "Conservative". While the folks who participate on a political discussion forum are "Savvy" about such things, "Middle America" really doesn't care much for a lot of the sparkplug issues currently occupying the Democrats. The further "Left" they move, the further they get from the sympathies of that great big center, the more irrelevant their "Issues" become to The Voting Public. The party that wins the most votes is the party that does the least to offend or upset "The Center". The Democrats, to my mind, don't seem to have a handle on that at this point.

0 Replies

I see Dean no further left than I i see Bush admin off center to the right

0 Replies

Timber (Hi, where've you been!!), I don't see Dean as 'way left. On the contrary, he's often "accused" of being too conservative. Bottom line, he's a mix. He admires Wellstone's style and populism; he is a fiscal conservative (drove Vermont libs crazy); he's anti-statist (said, why not gay unions); he's against gun control (ohmygosh); he finds Bush's invasion of Iraq irresponsible in the extreme (that's what got him so many followers), etc. etc. What's wrong with the SunTimes (and so many others) is that they're using last decade's (or even 1970's) templates to measure political attitudes at a time when these are changing rapidly. If you follow the internal movements of both major parties, you find realignments going on all over the place. Right wing Reps dropping away from Bush, angry as hell. Progressive liberals disgusted with the Democratic leadership. The Center, as Mr. Yeats pointed out in another context, does not hold.

0 Replies

the yellow line down the middle of the road (does moral majority ring a bell?) tends to vote for inane sound bites, slick advertising and who's your daddy.

0 Replies

Scrat--
Thanks for the article.
It definitely shows the parties are in a transformation. The Dems are now the party of the Fat Cat, and the GOP is taking the lead in social issues and reform.

I posted a thread about Bush, learning his financial and political triangulation tips fromn Clinton a week or so ago...

Just like your article, nobody would comment on it.

As to Dean-- sure way left libs don't see Dean as 'far left'. However, the overwhelming majority of citizens does. Still, he's been raising surprising loads of money. I do know the Bush administration is pulling for Dean.

0 Replies

Sofia - Yes, I too have noticed an increasing tendency by the left in A2K to pretend not to notice facts that disprove their pet beliefs. They seem to think that facts, if ignored, simply go away.

I wonder how one learns anything with that point of view. Hmmm... Perhaps one doesn't. That might explain liberalism altogether.... Cool

0 Replies

Scrat-- I wouldn't go that far--> "That might explain liberalism altogether." It just explains those who have way too much personally invested in their party to look at 'their side' objectively.

0 Replies

"facts" in the political arena are very few and very far between.

0 Replies

WASHINGTON - Let's face it. It's been a dull Democratic campaign for president -- until now.
The party's most experienced contenders - Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry - are virtually indistinguishable. They barely register with most voters, despite years on the national stage and months on the presidential trail. So cautious - and polite -- are these biggies that they seem constitutionally incapable of laying a glove on George W. Bush.
Now, a nobody from New England is making a name for himself as a charismatic outsider alienated from the party's power structure, a rebel with a cause.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the Democrats' James Dean.
Big surprise: Voters find candor in a politician refreshing.
Dean's campaign has even found a way to spin his poor showing with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" into a virtue. Dean admitted he didn't know how many men and women were on active duty, among other things, and, his aides pointed out, nobody in Washington ever admits he doesn't know everything.
http://www.wrbl.com/frontpage/MGB156CJUHD.html

0 Replies

On NPR's ATC this afternoon there was quite a useful round-up of where the various Dem candidates stand on healthcare. Plenty details, interesting comparisons. Will be available on audio later.

0 Replies

Wasn't the last president also a governor from a small state, not taken seriously, criticized and made fun of? Maybe sounding like you're really listening to what people say is more important than some people think.

And perhaps Rove is playing one of his tortuous games when it comes to Dean. Like - if the republicans say they like him, then they must think he'd be easy to beat, so maybe we should look at Sharpton.

Funny thing about this most secretive of administrations. So much of what they do is so glaringly obvious.

And I do like Kucinich's new haircut.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know