Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I believe the Democrat party will have a very difficult time synthesizing the interests of the various more or less single issue groups that increasingly make up that party, and uniting behind a single candidate who can win. While all may be united in disliking the Bush Administration, there is very little in the way of policy or consistently expressed values that unites them. Both parties tend to succeed when they work to occupy the middle ground and tame the excesses of their more extreme advocates. Republicans have, of late, done a much better job of that than have democrats.

Which of the seven dwarfs will be nominated? I doubt that it makes much difference.

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

But there is an anger among democrats. There is an informed sense of something very wrong with the Afghanistan and Iraq pictures.

I find nothing in what I've seen in the last few years to suggest that the Democrats as a whole are informed in the least beyond what big headlines get shoved in their faces on a regular basis. In fact, I suspect that the strength of the Democrat party at election time stems largely from the sheer numbers of people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues that they actually think voting Democrat is a good thing.

0 Replies

Oh. Sigh.

0 Replies

Is someone talking up there?

Nah...just incoherent mumbling.

Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement regarding the speech today by former Vice President Al Gore:

Quote:

"I thank Vice President Al Gore for standing up to this Administration and using his position as a respected leader in our party to speak about truth, integrity, and real compassion--three values that are sorely lacking in this White House and Administration.

"Al Gore has always been a voice of reason in our party and our nation. Today, he demonstrated that by addressing the very real concerns of mainstream America.

"Today, Al Gore clearly stood up to this Administration and its falsely portrayed intentions. He should be applauded for that by all who seek a return to truth, integrity, and compassion in our government."

Dean for America.com

Not only is this guy saying all the right things, but he's also the first one, every time, to say it.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I suspect that the strength of the Democrat party at election time stems largely from the sheer numbers of people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues that they actually think voting Democrat is a good thing.

Add to this the sheer number of Republicans who'll have to switch camps because they are so well-informed about their big-spending, government-inflating president. It'll give you an impression of why I as a libertarian Democrat am so optimistic about the next elections.

-- T.

0 Replies

Lovely, PDiddie. Lovely. Smart and civil and unflaggingly energetic. I like Dean but I'll tell ya, I think he's got a terrific team working with him.

0 Replies

Quote:

Wesley Clark is a political moderate, a war hero, a smart-as-hell, telegenic, electable Southerner with "General" for a first name and a vision for America. Another way of looking at Clark is that he's potentially Bill Clinton in all the good ways (smart, centrist, and charismatic), but without Clinton's problems (wine, women, and bad sax playing). And the four stars on each of Clark's shoulders stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush, who went AWOL from his National Guard duty.

Can we start the Presidential debates right now?

Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I suspect that the strength of the Democrat party at election time stems largely from the sheer numbers of people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues that they actually think voting Democrat is a good thing.

Add to this the sheer number of Republicans who'll have to switch camps because they are so well-informed about their big-spending, government-inflating president. It'll give you an impression of why I as a libertarian Democrat am so optimistic about the next elections.

-- T.

"Libertarian Democrat" hmmm? Interesting. You'd probably label me a "libertarian Republican". I vote Republican because I believe that party is better for the nation, and leans more towards libertarian ideals than does the Democrat party. We might have an interesting discussion about that some day. I suspect you are well-informed and thoughtful enough about your opinions that you might change my mind about a few things.

I don't disagree with your core assertion above, that the current crop of Republicans are not living up to my expectations of a party that claims to promote a small, constitutional and fiscally responsible federal government, but I don't think the fact that those we have elected are not doing as they claimed they would translates into Republican voters being uninformed. Of course there are droves of uninformed voters on both sides, and one person might be well informed on some issues and completely clueless on others.

0 Replies

I can't believe I'm taking up for Clinton.
Wesley Clark is a zero in the charisma dept., and cannot think on his feet. He's not in Clinton's stratosphere, despite regional and educational similarities. Clark is a washout.

0 Replies

Yeah, too bad General Clark doesn't have to run against Clinton, Sofe. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Quote:
Wesley Clark is a political moderate, a war hero, a smart-as-hell, telegenic, electable Southerner with "General" for a first name and a vision for America. Another way of looking at Clark is that he's potentially Bill Clinton in all the good ways (smart, centrist, and charismatic), but without Clinton's problems (wine, women, and bad sax playing). And the four stars on each of Clark's shoulders stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush, who went AWOL from his National Guard duty.

Can we start the Presidential debates right now?

Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare

I've seen your contrasts of Clinton and Clark, as though they are equally suited to take on 'a Bush after a war in Iraq.' Rhodes scholars from Arkansas... I think the similarity ends there. Had I not seen Clark on camera, failing miserably, I wouldn't have such a dissmissive opinion of his chances. I've also read blistering accounts of his military decisions and don't think the 'four stars on his shoulders' are going to faze the "National Security' voter.

0 Replies

Betcha you're wrong... :wink: Cool

0 Replies

Time will tell. Cool

(Has Clark even announced?)

0 Replies

I thought he was supposed to say something this past Wednesday, Sofia, but I saw nothing. While he doesn't particularly move me, he obviously does some.

I suspect the military vote may be changing, too. Reading more and more about lowering morale among the troops, and a disenchantment with this Iraqi problem. Seems more and more information is slowly coming from Iraq that the killing of the two Saddam sons worsened matters, where it was popularly supposed it would be encouraging news to the Iraqis. So now we are disliked and distusted by the Iraqis; damn all of anyone or anywhere else have come forward with any help, and the economic picture is looking grayer and grayer. It's beginning to look like the only solution in Iraq is to get very tough militarily, which will then give the total lie to the various things Bush has tried. We will not have liberated a people; we will not have stabilized an area; we will not have lessened the threat of terrorism; and we certainly will not have ended a war. And, since this war did not bring any economic relief (excepting, of course, bechtel, Halliburton, etc.) - well, I would say we have a public a little more educated now, and beginning to change their minds about a lot of things.

Just a short while ago the republican doom and gloomsters were loud, but it really does look like the democrats have causes, and are beginning to speak out about them. And are gathering up more and more. Maybe that log in the eye Bush referred to was actually in a republican eye.

0 Replies

Mamajuana,

Your analysis may be comforting to true believer, yellow dog Democrats, but it flies in the face of the facts.

The economy is showing increasing signs of accelerating growth. The stock market (a leading indicator) turned around several months ago (my fairly conservative and balanced portfolio rose by 11% in the second quarter); interest rates are rising; employment, a lagging indicator, will soon follow. People are already seeing the effect of the recent tax cuts in their net pay.

The situation in Iraq is far better than you portray. Civil government is slowly being established there and we get increasing contributions to public order from Iraqis themselves. Our current ability to isolate Saudi Arabia on issues concerning terrorism is a direct result of our position in Iraq and the attendant end of our exclusive dependence on the goodwill of the Saudis. This also gives us leverage in the Middle East.

Instead of a coherent world view, all I see from Democrats is fault finding and, after the fact, revisionist political positioning on the part of their elected leaders. They can surely generate a good deal of excitement on the part of their true believers. However that won't win them any elections.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Instead of a coherent world view, all I see from Democrats is fault finding and, after the fact, revisionist political positioning on the part of their elected leaders. They can surely generate a good deal of excitement on the part of their true believers. However that won't win them any elections.

You just described something quite similar to the state of the Republicans in late 1999, yet they did win the election. What makes you so sure the Democrats are different this time? :wink:

--T

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Instead of a coherent world view, all I see from Democrats is fault finding and, after the fact, revisionist political positioning on the part of their elected leaders. They can surely generate a good deal of excitement on the part of their true believers. However that won't win them any elections.

You just described something quite similar to the state of the Republicans in late 1999, yet they did win the election. What makes you so sure the Democrats are different this time? :wink:

--T

Thomas-- I generally respect your opinions, though I don't usually agree with them--but I wanted to take issue here.

The Republicans are pretty well known for their policies and platforms, while no one knows exactly what the Democrats stand for, except merely opposition to the Republicans. While the GOP may have certainly been out of power in 1999, there has never been the type of inconsistancy and flailing to find an identity that currently defines the Democrat party.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

The Republicans are pretty well known for their policies and platforms, while no one knows exactly what the Democrats stand for, except merely opposition to the Republicans.

I agree they are now. But there's a reason I picked the year 1999 -- early 2000 might have been even better. With Bush and McCain head to head, and Steve Forbes a strong third, I can't remember there was much consistency between Republican candidates at the time -- other than the fact that they all trashed Bill Clinton for lying about his sex life, and kept pontificating about "restoring dignity in the White House". George Bush's campaign tune of "compassionate conservatism" was even out of line with his own record as governor of Texas, which had consistently spelled the "compassionate" part without the "com". (Just like his presidential record) And don't get me started on his sermons on America becoming "a more humble nation" that doesn't bully everyone else in the world ...

I'm not denying there is disharmony and soul searching among the Democratic candidates right now, but the Republicans haven't always been the monolith they are now either. And the point I was trying to make is that soul searching a year before the election is consistent with winning the election. Maybe Clinton 1992 is an even better example of this than Bush Jr. 2000. Remember how unbeatable Bush Sr. looked in fall 1991, and how all the prominent Democrats refrained from running, hoping to get a better chance in 1996?

Of course, it is perfectly possible that I'm suffering from selective amnesia here, and that this is what shaped my opinion. Smile

-- Thomas

0 Replies

In the summer of 1991, the only declared Democratic candidate for president against the last incumbent named Bush, who was also coming off a victory in battle against Iraq, was Paul Tsongas.

A certain Rhodes scholar from Arkansas didn't declare until October.

This election won't be about the Democrats, or their policy ideas.

This election will be a referendum about George Bush and his policies.

I like the Democrats' chances more every day. Cool

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

This election won't be about the Democrats, or their policy ideas. This election will be a referendum about George Bush and his policies.

But his is just what Sofia is saying, if I understand her correctly. The Republicans have an agenda of tax cuts for the middle class and toughness on terror. As agendas go, this is an unusually phony one -- their "middle class" tax cuts are heavily tilted towards the rich, the "war on terror" is mostly a war on Iraq, which has nothing to do with Al Quaeda -- but it's nevertheless an agenda that you can hold a referendum on. The Democratic candidates don't even have a phony agenda at the moment. I hope they'll have one (without too much phoniness) nine months from now.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know