GOP pollsters running scared of DEAN in memos.

[Zebo]

The GOP Pollsters? Memo: In September, 2003, a prominent Republican polling firm, Moore Information, circulated a memo insisting Howard Dean can beat George W. Bush in the general election and that ?Dean is a threat [that] Republicans better not ignore.? ?Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but will not appear threatening to folks in the middle," the GOP pollsters write. The memo even goes so far as to compare the appeal of Howard Dean to that of Ronald Reagan: ?Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems.? The pollsters also make a convincing case for Dean?s taking enough electoral votes to win the election even without Florida. "We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover." (www.moore-info.com)



Some excerpts follow:



?Howard Dean can win because he believes in what he is saying, because he can semi-legitimately spin his record as Governor into one of fiscal conservatism, and because he comes across as if he actually cares about people.



There is the potential for the economy to remain sluggish and stagnant and conditions in the Middle East are impossible to predict. Should these situations remain status quo or worsen, America will be looking for someone new, someone fresh, someone who can shake America out of the doldrums and reinvigorate the body politic. Dean would provide solutions and excitement.



When the nominee of the Democrat party is selected, voters will start to focus. By then, should he have the nomination in hand, Howard Dean will be billed as the ?moderate fiscal watchdog this country needs?oh, and by the way, he won?t take away your guns.? And if the economy is still stagnant, and there is little progress in the Middle East, that could be plenty enough for him to win 270 electoral votes.?



http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004 Election Why Dean can win Sept 03.htm

 

[busmaster11]

You should stop posting stuff like this Zebo. I'd like to see the repugs continue to disrespect Dean outwardly as long as possible. It's music to my ears.

 

[Red Dawn]

The memo even goes so far as to compare the appeal of Howard Dean to that of Ronald Reagan: ?Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems.?

Bwuahahahaha....Bwuahahahaha....that's one of the funniest things I've read in this forum in a long long time! Dean will be lucky if he doesn't get trounced like McGovern did.

 

[chess9]

Busmaster:

No kidding! Bush is in the lead TODAY, but most of the electorate is sleeping like a baby. I think the Republicans are really scared of Dean because the contrast between Bush and Dean will be so strong that the election COULD be a plebescite on the war (but probably not-think economy). If Dean succeeds in making the war the central issue, then Bush is in very deep trouble.

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chess9
Busmaster:

No kidding! Bush is in the lead TODAY, but most of the electorate is sleeping like a baby. I think the Republicans are really scared of Dean because the contrast between Bush and Dean will be so strong that the election COULD be a plebescite on the war (but probably not-think economy). If Dean succeeds in making the war the central issue, then Bush is in very deep trouble.

-Robert

I disagree. I see no proof Bush is in the lead today. If the Election was held today I am sure Dean would win in a Landslide in the Popular vote, The Electoral BS is another story, they are bought and still owned by the GOP Loyalists.

Nevermind, it's a New Year, the AT experts, CAD & Co, Rush and Hannioty are right. Bush is the Greatest President of all time and the Economy is the best it's been in over 20 years. There's more jobs than ever before as "Bush's Fantastic Economy" has been creating more jobs than being lost and they are higher wages too. Me and a few million other Americans have just "Blind" somehow and just have to get a new pair of glasses and see all these new HIGHer paying jobs out there.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chess9
Busmaster:

No kidding! Bush is in the lead TODAY, but most of the electorate is sleeping like a baby. I think the Republicans are really scared of Dean because the contrast between Bush and Dean will be so strong that the election COULD be a plebescite on the war (but probably not-think economy). If Dean succeeds in making the war the central issue, then Bush is in very deep trouble.

-Robert

I disagree. I see no proof Bush is in the lead today. If the Election was held today I am sure Dean would win in a Landslide in the Popular vote, The Electoral BS is another story, they are bought and still owned by the GOP Loyalists.

Why do you tend to see things in absolutes Dave? Landslide, Depression, Revolution, Banning God? Have you never even considered that the most extreme case is generally the most unlikely?

 

[chess9]

Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: chess9
Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

I'd like to see bush in Tikrit.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

I disagree. I see no proof Bush is in the lead today. If the Election was held today I am sure Dean would win in a Landslide in the Popular vote, The Electoral BS is another story, they are bought and still owned by the GOP Loyalists.

Another typical sore loser comment from the left.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chess9
Busmaster:

No kidding! Bush is in the lead TODAY, but most of the electorate is sleeping like a baby. I think the Republicans are really scared of Dean because the contrast between Bush and Dean will be so strong that the election COULD be a plebescite on the war (but probably not-think economy). If Dean succeeds in making the war the central issue, then Bush is in very deep trouble.

-Robert

I disagree. I see no proof Bush is in the lead today. If the Election was held today I am sure Dean would win in a Landslide in the Popular vote, The Electoral BS is another story, they are bought and still owned by the GOP Loyalists.

Nevermind, it's a New Year, the AT experts, CAD & Co, Rush and Hannioty are right. Bush is the Greatest President of all time and the Economy is the best it's been in over 20 years. There's more jobs than ever before as "Bush's Fantastic Economy" has been creating more jobs than being lost and they are higher wages too. Me and a few million other Americans have just "Blind" somehow and just have to get a new pair of glasses and see all these new HIGHer paying jobs out there.

Damn Dave, have you ever thought of dealing with reality?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: chess9
Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

I'd like to see bush in Tikrit.

Funny, that was my first thought as well.
:beer:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: chess9
Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

I'd like to see bush in Tikrit.

Funny, that was my first thought as well.
:beer:

Wouldn't he be loved and admired there as the Iraqi's liberator?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: chess9
Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

I'd like to see bush in Tikrit.

Funny, that was my first thought as well.
:beer:

Wouldn't he be loved and admired there as the Iraqi's liberator?

I was surprised he didn't show up there today with a plastic, New Year's baby.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chess9
Busmaster:

No kidding! Bush is in the lead TODAY, but most of the electorate is sleeping like a baby. I think the Republicans are really scared of Dean because the contrast between Bush and Dean will be so strong that the election COULD be a plebescite on the war (but probably not-think economy). If Dean succeeds in making the war the central issue, then Bush is in very deep trouble.

-Robert

I disagree. I see no proof Bush is in the lead today. If the Election was held today I am sure Dean would win in a Landslide in the Popular vote, The Electoral BS is another story, they are bought and still owned by the GOP Loyalists.

Why do you tend to see things in absolutes Dave? Landslide, Depression, Revolution, Banning God? Have you never even considered that the most extreme case is generally the most unlikely?

Its just like obsessive compulsive dissorder. One rationalizes an obsessive or counter-productive action(Idea) by dismissing logic and fearing the worst possible outcome if that action(Idea) is not followed through to fruitation. Its a self protect mechanism used by every human from time to time. Some people just cant seem to turn it off. Examples being Dave, Zebo and heartsurgeon.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In all fairness to Dave, he did get a good screwing by an unlikely worst possible outcome scenerio. It's probably hard to see anything other than extremes after something like that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
In all fairness to Dave, he did get a good screwing by an unlikely worst possible outcome scenerio. It's probably hard to see anything other than extremes after something like that.

"I can see clearly now the rain has gone. it's gonna be a bright bright sun shiny day"

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: chess9
Dave:

All the polls show Bush's approval rating as quite high. Well over 50%. Also, in a head to head matchup right now with Dean he crushes Dean according to the polls. Now, I will agree that most of the electorate is simply responding to name recognition not issues. Once they start paying attention to issues the race will narrow considerably.

BUT, I said "TODAY".

No one wants Bush retired to a ranch in Tikrit, er, Crawford, more than me.

And, Tnitsuj makes a valid point. Once you start a sentence with something like "All Republicans are..." you've destroyed your credibility. The underlying notion is that we are actually all more alike than we are different anyway. That's why I have so many right wing wacko friends.

(Edit: Two of those right wing wackos are on their way over here for dinner. Yes, I even eat with them. I am soooo tolerant. )
-Robert

I'd like to see bush in Tikrit.

Funny, that was my first thought as well.
:beer:

Wouldn't he be loved and admired there as the Iraqi's liberator?

From all the conservative propaganda you would think so. Let's put it to the test. I need some fresh ideas for my death pool anyway.

 

[Dari]

Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

Now that's funny!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

I'm a Democrat and always will be. But I have no problem agreeing with the President when he's right.

BTW, who do you think neo-conservatives are anyway? They're Democrats that support a strong American foreign policy, like Republicans. If the Democratic Party chooses Howard the Duck as their presidential nominee, then it will prove once again why neo-conservatives are what they are: their home party supports a weak American foreign policy, like in the 1960s when neo-cons jumped ship.

I think Clinton screwed it up for Democrats when he give the false assumption of a "peace dividend" during the 1990s after the USSR fell and the US had no powerful enemy. Today's Democrats refuse to believe that that "peace dividend" was a false mirage that came to bite us in the ass on September 11, 2001. If they choose Dean, my assumption is that they will want to continue that fantasy. Unfortunately, the rest of America doesn't want to join them on that acid trip.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

I'm a Democrat and always will be. But I have no problem agreeing with the President when he's right.

BTW, who do you think neo-conservatives are anyway? They're Democrats that support a strong American foreign policy, like Republicans. If the Democratic Party chooses Howard the Duck as their presidential nominee, then it will prove once again why neo-conservatives are what they are: their home party supports a weak American foreign policy, like in the 1960s when neo-cons jumped ship.

I think Clinton screwed it up for Democrats when he give the false assumption of a "peace dividend" during the 1990s after the USSR fell and the US had no powerful enemy. Today's Democrats refuse to believe that that "peace dividend" was a false mirage that came to bite us in the ass on September 11, 2001. If they choose Dean, my assumption is that they will want to continue that fantasy. Unfortunately, the rest of America doesn't want to join them on that acid trip.

Its amazing to me how being against one war (based on a radical, new doctrine) makes a person weak on foreign policy. You talk about a fantasy world, yet you don't recognize that no country has wanted to fvck with us since WW2. Not the Soviet Union, not Vietnam, not Iraq under Saddam, not NK, not Libya, not Iran. If they did anything to us, it would be suicide. Our problem is with terrorists who are so whacked out that they look forward to committing suicide to advance their cause. As evidenced by the way he was captured, Saddam is no such person. All the major Dems running, Dean included, support cooperative alliances backed by the strongest military in the world.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

I'm a Democrat and always will be. But I have no problem agreeing with the President when he's right.

BTW, who do you think neo-conservatives are anyway? They're Democrats that support a strong American foreign policy, like Republicans. If the Democratic Party chooses Howard the Duck as their presidential nominee, then it will prove once again why neo-conservatives are what they are: their home party supports a weak American foreign policy, like in the 1960s when neo-cons jumped ship.

I think Clinton screwed it up for Democrats when he give the false assumption of a "peace dividend" during the 1990s after the USSR fell and the US had no powerful enemy. Today's Democrats refuse to believe that that "peace dividend" was a false mirage that came to bite us in the ass on September 11, 2001. If they choose Dean, my assumption is that they will want to continue that fantasy. Unfortunately, the rest of America doesn't want to join them on that acid trip.

Its amazing to me how being against one war (based on a radical, new doctrine) makes a person weak on foreign policy. You talk about a fantasy world, yet you don't recognize that no country has wanted to fvck with us since WW2. Not the Soviet Union, not Vietnam, not Iraq under Saddam, not NK, not Libya, not Iran. If they did anything to us, it would be suicide. Our problem is with terrorists who are so whacked out that they look forward to committing suicide to advance their cause. As evidenced by the way he was captured, Saddam is no such person. All the major Dems running, Dean included, support cooperative alliances backed by the strongest military in the world.

how, exactly, is pre-emption a radical new doctrine? its been around since the dawn of time. its the 'ill get him before he gets me' train of thought.

its like me and some friends playing HL or Quake. they would always whine about how i would kill them when they had no gun [or they gun they started with]. they wanted it to be 'fair', they wanted me to wait untill they got the rocket launcher or something more powerful than i had.
why should i let my enemy have a gun to shoot me with? kill him before he can cause any ammount of serious damage.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari
Howard the Duck's Presidential campaign represents the very worst of a potential leader: Anti-war; diminutive (I have nothing against short people, but the perception is not good for a superpower); rash; stubborn; incompetent; confused; tempered; and stupid.

People can say what they want about his tenure as governor of Vermont, but what I see is a man that has gone to bed with the extreme left of this country. I seriously doubt that America and the world wants a soft, weak President who will pull our troops from global hotspots. They gambled heavily and now have the spotlight. The point is, can Howard the Duck change tactic in midstream and propose himself as a moderate? That would infuriate his liberal base. Personally, I don't think so. The man is stained.

Like it or not everyone, the United States has to get more engaged in the world to stop terrorism, WMDs, promote globalization, and ensure the longevity of international instutions and global peace.

Howard the Duck is a farce. If anything, my fellow Democrats should nominate Lieberman or someone else that is competent in the Leadership Council.

LOL! This made my day! Thanks for making my hangover not so bad anymore Dari.

I'm glad you read the latest talking points memo passed around the Bush-Orwell 2004 campaign, but isn't there something very immoral about registering with the opposing party just to sabotage their primaries? Its just not kosher dude...

I'm a Democrat and always will be. But I have no problem agreeing with the President when he's right.

BTW, who do you think neo-conservatives are anyway? They're Democrats that support a strong American foreign policy, like Republicans. If the Democratic Party chooses Howard the Duck as their presidential nominee, then it will prove once again why neo-conservatives are what they are: their home party supports a weak American foreign policy, like in the 1960s when neo-cons jumped ship.

I think Clinton screwed it up for Democrats when he give the false assumption of a "peace dividend" during the 1990s after the USSR fell and the US had no powerful enemy. Today's Democrats refuse to believe that that "peace dividend" was a false mirage that came to bite us in the ass on September 11, 2001. If they choose Dean, my assumption is that they will want to continue that fantasy. Unfortunately, the rest of America doesn't want to join them on that acid trip.

Its amazing to me how being against one war (based on a radical, new doctrine) makes a person weak on foreign policy. You talk about a fantasy world, yet you don't recognize that no country has wanted to fvck with us since WW2. Not the Soviet Union, not Vietnam, not Iraq under Saddam, not NK, not Libya, not Iran. If they did anything to us, it would be suicide. Our problem is with terrorists who are so whacked out that they look forward to committing suicide to advance their cause. As evidenced by the way he was captured, Saddam is no such person. All the major Dems running, Dean included, support cooperative alliances backed by the strongest military in the world.

how, exactly, is pre-emption a radical new doctrine? its been around since the dawn of time. its the 'ill get him before he gets me' train of thought.

its like me and some friends playing HL or Quake. they would always whine about how i would kill them when they had no gun [or they gun they started with]. they wanted it to be 'fair', they wanted me to wait untill they got the rocket launcher or something more powerful than i had.
why should i let my enemy have a gun to shoot me with? kill him before he can cause any ammount of serious damage.

International Politics can't be equated with Quake or Half Life. Likewise, who cares if Hitler, Stalin, Kahn, Attila or others used Pre-emption this is the now and Pre-Emption has been deemed as too dangerous in a world which can be destroyed in 20 minutes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This is all nice and wonderfull for the dean lappers but it's been understood by pretty much anyone who follows politics that dean *may* have a shot, but it'll take quite a few things to happen for it to come true. So yes, taking him(dean) too lightly could possibly hurt Bush but I know Bush/Rove will not let that happen, IF dean infact does get the dem nod.

The problem the deanites need to address is how they will be able to move to the center and gain the support of the supporters of the other candidates. And then the question becomes - if he does gain the support of the "Republican wing" of the democratic party(DLC) - will he alienate the leftist base he has built by moderating his stances and going"washington" on them.

It's going to be an interesting year regardless. I still predict Bush will win by quite a comfortable margin no matter who runs against him as it would take quite a few "bad" things to happen for Bush to not get re-elected.

CkG