The real campaigning won't start full force until next year. Thata when the Bushite campaigning will turn that very same negative color. X person belives that, while my belief systems are better. The good stuff won't happen until there are some debates just like in the last election. Hopefully it won't come to blows, but at least then it would be entertaining.
FrodoB:
I prefer to call it dialectic tension.
Without a spirited debate, as the Republicans had in 1999-2000, how is the electorate to be informed? The best thing about all these disagreements is that they have a salutory pedagogical effect on the boob-wah-zee. Otherwise, they'd get drunk every night and watch football and Nascar-and we know where that dissolute behavior leads.
The field is going to be pretty thin by June so we'll have a whole summer to decide if Dean or Clark or whoever is more or less conservative than Bush. On spending we already know that Bush is a wild-eyed liberal so put a check in that box for the Head Moron. On civil rights and the constitutional freedoms we cherish we know the Head Moron wants corporations to be free to pollute and he wants us right where he can keep an eye on us-preferably with an FBI agent parked in the driveway. Put a check in the Fascist box for Bush.
Unlike Red I don't think Dean is that liberal. Kucinich is liberal, Dean really is much more of a centrist. The Fox Cartoon Network and other right wing apologists have been trying to paint Dean as too liberal, but they think everyone but Lieberman is too liberal.
The problem Dean is going to face is his opposition to the war. Many people will just not understand that view, particularly if the U.S. finds evidence linking SH to Al Qaida and/or some serious WMD. Dean could be trapped in a position that is indefensible in the face of the news coming out of Iraq next year. And that's why all the savvy pols in the Democratic Party want someone who voted for the war, or a military man, to be nominated. They won't be marginalized on that issue. That is a huge downside for the Dems. It has given me pause.... I've given money to Dean, but if the news out of Iraq changes I'm going with Clark who is almost Bush lite, opposes the war, but is a military man. I cannot stand Kerry and wish he'd just go away. I love Joe Lieberman but he is blinded by his love for Israel plus he carries the baggage of the last election where he really didn't shine so bright. No one else has a remote chance, including Gebhart who is so lackluster as to make Bush look like a supernova in comparison.
Anyway, this canard about the politics of hate and negativity is way overworked. Don't take it to the bank. Yes, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up a notch. But, Dean in particular has done a good job of separating himself from the pack and offering reasoned criticism of the President. The other candidates have also done a generally good job of attacking the President and each tother. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! Just because the volume and rhetoric is up-and too high for my liking as well-doesn't mean the voters are going to use that yardstick when voting. Yet you hear that all the time from these pundits with too much air time to fill. People are going to pass right over the rhetoric and volume and vote on the issues or pick the name they recognize (way too many people are in this category). Because of the latter effect-going with name recognition-running a negative campaign actually has some merit because it usually gets the candidate more exposure. That's terrible but true.
So, your thesis is unsupported in my view.
-Robert
I prefer to call it dialectic tension.
Without a spirited debate, as the Republicans had in 1999-2000, how is the electorate to be informed? The best thing about all these disagreements is that they have a salutory pedagogical effect on the boob-wah-zee. Otherwise, they'd get drunk every night and watch football and Nascar-and we know where that dissolute behavior leads.
The field is going to be pretty thin by June so we'll have a whole summer to decide if Dean or Clark or whoever is more or less conservative than Bush. On spending we already know that Bush is a wild-eyed liberal so put a check in that box for the Head Moron. On civil rights and the constitutional freedoms we cherish we know the Head Moron wants corporations to be free to pollute and he wants us right where he can keep an eye on us-preferably with an FBI agent parked in the driveway. Put a check in the Fascist box for Bush.
Unlike Red I don't think Dean is that liberal. Kucinich is liberal, Dean really is much more of a centrist. The Fox Cartoon Network and other right wing apologists have been trying to paint Dean as too liberal, but they think everyone but Lieberman is too liberal.
The problem Dean is going to face is his opposition to the war. Many people will just not understand that view, particularly if the U.S. finds evidence linking SH to Al Qaida and/or some serious WMD. Dean could be trapped in a position that is indefensible in the face of the news coming out of Iraq next year. And that's why all the savvy pols in the Democratic Party want someone who voted for the war, or a military man, to be nominated. They won't be marginalized on that issue. That is a huge downside for the Dems. It has given me pause.... I've given money to Dean, but if the news out of Iraq changes I'm going with Clark who is almost Bush lite, opposes the war, but is a military man. I cannot stand Kerry and wish he'd just go away. I love Joe Lieberman but he is blinded by his love for Israel plus he carries the baggage of the last election where he really didn't shine so bright. No one else has a remote chance, including Gebhart who is so lackluster as to make Bush look like a supernova in comparison.
Anyway, this canard about the politics of hate and negativity is way overworked. Don't take it to the bank. Yes, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up a notch. But, Dean in particular has done a good job of separating himself from the pack and offering reasoned criticism of the President. The other candidates have also done a generally good job of attacking the President and each tother. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! Just because the volume and rhetoric is up-and too high for my liking as well-doesn't mean the voters are going to use that yardstick when voting. Yet you hear that all the time from these pundits with too much air time to fill. People are going to pass right over the rhetoric and volume and vote on the issues or pick the name they recognize (way too many people are in this category). Because of the latter effect-going with name recognition-running a negative campaign actually has some merit because it usually gets the candidate more exposure. That's terrible but true.
So, your thesis is unsupported in my view.
-Robert
im sorry but this is just too funny. if dean represents a centrist democrat then wow, just wow
the reason why democrats will lose in '04 is simply - ppl dont like change, and right now most americans dont feel change is necessary. bush has hit homeruns on the economy and foreign policy and following the moral/ethical debacle of the clinton years bush is someone, whom most believe, brings morality and honesty back to the white house. this is definetely not a good year to be running agains the pres.
You know what's bugging me about BOTH parties lately? Their constant LYING about our wonderful "Two Party System," which we do not now nor have we ever had. If it shows you anything it shows you that Republicans and Democrats are quite capable of bipartisan work when it comes to crushing the alternatives to their idiocy.
Jason
Jason
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
In 99% of the cases it's never a good year to run against the incumbent. For a standing President to lose he must of really screwed the Pooch and not just an Intern. Hell if it weren't for the Oil Embargo and the Iranian Hostage Crises Carter might not have lost against Reagan. The only reason why the original Bush lost to Clinton was to do with Perot running and the reason Ford lost was because he inherited the Presidency from the most corrupt Administration in recent history, Nixon's
JosphII:
Uh, Bush has hit a single on the economy after striking out about 30 times. Bush has been ejected from the foreign policy "game" and given a 5 year suspension for using WMD on a non-threatening nation.
You gotta stop getting your sports news from Karl Rove. He thinks a balk is stopping to think for one second whether you should out a CIA agent to one or ten reporters.
-Robert
Uh, Bush has hit a single on the economy after striking out about 30 times. Bush has been ejected from the foreign policy "game" and given a 5 year suspension for using WMD on a non-threatening nation.
You gotta stop getting your sports news from Karl Rove. He thinks a balk is stopping to think for one second whether you should out a CIA agent to one or ten reporters.
-Robert
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Had a little too much to drink did we?
No, he's right, you heard BBD, it's "The Fantastic Bush Economy".
Originally posted by: chess9
JosphII:
Uh, Bush has hit a single on the economy after striking out about 30 times. Bush has been ejected from the foreign policy "game" and given a 5 year suspension for using WMD on a non-threatening nation.
You gotta stop getting your sports news from Karl Rove. He thinks a balk is stopping to think for one second whether you should out a CIA agent to one or ten reporters.
-Robert
another reason why the democrats will lose in '04 (and demonstrated by the above): out of step with the vast majority of americans
Dean would win if true conservatives had balls.
No way should a true conservative even think of voting for Bush.
Dean, though not a good one, is obviously a better choice for a true conservative than Bush is.
No way should a true conservative even think of voting for Bush.
Dean, though not a good one, is obviously a better choice for a true conservative than Bush is.
Why would a true conservative vote for Dean? Other than on budget, Bush is *far* more conservative on every issue. Or are you just making a sweeping generalized statement unbacked by fact?
Let's line a few up:
Who's more conservative?
Military: Bush
Economy: Bush
Budget: Dean (at least so he says, but he's got oodles of spending plans up his sleeve. He's gonna spend more, and tax more to pay for it)
Legal: Bush
Taxes: Bush
Entitlements: Bush
Education: Bush
Labor: Bush
Healthcare: Bush
Foreign Policy: Bush
Gun Control: Bush
So yes, while Bush is far from being the uber-conservative we'd like him to be, Dean is about as far from it as you can get.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Why's that? Just because Dean was a Fiscal Conservative in a dinky state doesn't mean that he would be an effective Fiscal Conservative for the Federal Government. Of course with a Republican Congress he might be forced to be more Fiscally Conservative and on the other hand the Republican Congress probably would give up their Fiscally Liberal ways, if just to keep Dean honest.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter