Here's the "deal" on 2004...

Despite what you may have heard (or I may have told you repeatedly at the top of my lungs) I only become a ranting liberal in the presence of a raving right winger. Similarly I expect that most raving right wingers in fact don't really goose step in church outside of a political debate.

To that end, since everyone likes to pretend in vague moments of clarity that THEY are really a moderate, why don't we all just become one for real? In our actions anyway (not in the pit, as that's no fun).

Here's the real objective "deal" (to the best of my ability) on the 2004 candidates.

The Has-Beens
Facing either election or retirement...
~Bush is a tarnished extreme right winger with some odd liberal spending problems.
~Kerry is a tarnished Ted Kennedy liberal that owes his start to Dukakis. I'm just calling it like Rove will.
~Lieberman may in fact be moderate, but I'm fairly sure he lost running for VP, and is losing again now despite great experience... Perhaps the only more experienced moderate in the race was Gephardt.
~and experience told Gephardt to do the smart thing... retire.

The Reinventions
Those that should retire but are trying on new careers first...
~Sharpton makes for a fine preacher... may the Lord keep him.
~Clark was by all accounts a very distinguished man at one time... what happened?

The Fresh Faces
Calling themselves experienced outsiders...
~Let's get Braun out of the way first. Oh, we did.
~Dean screams fresh face. Literally. And that's not a bad thing. He has some moderate trends as in gun control (or lack thereof) and balancing budgets (no wait that's liberal now). But the guy wants to raise middle class taxes and that makes him liberal to middle America. Also unelectable. I'm old enough to remember every nominee that has promised to raise taxes for the past quarter century and am about to list all that became President: ________
~Kucinich is so fresh it's scary. Turnip truck fresh. I like him, but I think he may be liberal; I just can't read the little pie chart to tell. Like the smallest of fine print on an obscure document pointed to on the radio, Kucinich is a footnote in this race.
~And Edwards, yes Edwards. He's fresh alright. A few stumbles here and there only highlighted by his usually slick demeanor. He is most definitely moderate, on both taxes and spending. Good background in Sentate Intelligence but not too much. Still fresh. No special interests or otherwise outside the yearnings of the populous.

Well obviously I like him. Senator Edwards seems to be everything any sane moderate could hope for in a President. So what's the problem?

"Seems to good to be true" maybe? Or "I just can't see him as President yet"? Both probably acute observations most of you once held about Presidents Clinton and/or Bush. Heck, even Reagen.

So again, What the problem? I'm asking. Can we not make a deal to walk our talk for one election and elect a winning moderate?

For the love of God, please! Just this once!!!

Edwards....ISSUE MONKEY !!!

trying to step up the ladder by pretending to know the current issues.

If a new issue on the news...he jumps right on it like he felt that way all along.

Originally posted by smirkley
Edwards....ISSUE MONKEY !!!

trying to step up the ladder by pretending to know the current issues.

If a new issue on the news...he jumps right on it like he felt that way all along.

I don't see at all where you get that, since...

1) I've had his campaign book for close to a year and he was always saying what others are copying now about the middle class, taxes, and security issues.

and 2) why talking about the issues, rather than George W. Bush or another politicians record is a bad thing.

A populous candidate listens to people and acts accordingly on their behalf. It's called representation. If that's an "issue monkey" I'd rather have that than a dry-drunk know-it-all that does the opposite of what the people want, or a pander monkey that rides waves of emotion over intellect anyday.

Who are you for anyway? It's sad but I can't tell the diffence in a Dean supporter and a Bush supporter theses days. All Bash, no substance, no issues.

Originally posted by RANT
Who are you for anyway? It's sad but I can't tell the diffence in a Dean supporter and a Bush supporter theses days. All Bash, no substance, no issues.

I am registered independant, and vote for the person who I feel is right for the job....IMO...Edwards isnt!

On "issue pandering" assuming such a thing exists.

Let's say the USA was your company and you had to hire a new employee, like a salesman (or possibly keep the one you have).

Wouldn't you want that employee to listen and respond to both you and your clients? I think Bush fans may have a strong argument for their particular brand of cowboy diplomacy, but let's just say for argument's sake Bush is more of a door opener. Is Bush the 'closer' that Iraq needs? Or for that matter the man to control your company's spending? Or turn you a profit? Is Dean?

What if you could hire your own boss, which is most like electing a President. Has anyone ever had a unilateral, one minded style boss? I have. Was it as fun for you as it was for me? What about a neurotic boss? An angry boss? Or even a boss you couldn't bring to sales meetings or let talk to the public or employees because he's just not presentable. (Yes, this was all a former boss of mine.)

So even if we all agree that either all the candidates are good people at heart, or just as self serving as any politicians... don't you want the one that plays the game best? And has the least baggage? The "issue monkey" as it were (though I still don't think that's quite appropriate).

I prefer to call that person the winning moderate.

RANT, that is the most sensible post on the democratic field I've seen - good logic to me.

I think the coasties forget theres a land in between that does'nt buy what the far left is giving as a message.

Dean is the only one with a complete plan in place and ready to go. Please visit his website and read it yourselves. He is not your fathers democrat that much is for sure.

He also is not a Clinton wannabe like Edwards, or a facist rightwinger in lefty attire like Liebermann and Kerry. And Kucinich has some good idea's but isa bit to far to the progressive left to be electable.

Dean is the only real democrat with centrist leanings but still anchored in the CORE democratic ideals.

Please go to the website, read his platform, his papers on social services, balanced budgets and returning American jobs back to American workers.

www.DeanforAmerica.com


Don't be a sheep who squanders a vote based on 20 second sound bites from the rightwing owned TV news, they will only show you what they want you to see and hear. Use you mind and intelligence to determine who is the best person for the job, not sketchy information from some TV talkinghead whose own words come from an earpiece directed from a rightwing pundit offstage!!!

Be your own person and make up your own mind.

"Another Clinton" Whatever will I do with all that prosperity in peacetime?

I appreciate the "think for yourself" comment but in doing so and knowing Dean's positions I find myself sided with the majority of Americans finding him full of hot air and contrary to what I think.

So no thanks.

Also you can't really believe Dean is the only one with a plan can you? All but Clark, I imagine have them. I know Lieberman had his about 3 years ago, and Edwards a year. If Dean has a plan he should talk about it more (like Edwards) and the other candidates and Bush less. But sorry, the "I will raise taxes" thing is as far as most Americans care to hear Dean's plan. He's largely been dismissed from class already I'm afraid.

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT
"Another Clinton"

Whatever will I do with all that prosperity in peacetime?

I guess that depends on who yer' beddin' down there big feller!

Just saw him give over an hour talk in one New Hampshire gym, then the camera follow him to another speech. He really is a good stump speaker. I can see why James Carville said he was the best he's seen in his life. Way better than Clinton.

A couple stand out lines regarding my pet peeve, Healthcare costs:

He wants to ban pharmaceutical advertising from TV. All it does is add to our medicine costs, and confuse and pollute the public airwaves. THAT's a big reason Canada is cheaper to re-import.

And Hold LAWYERS responsible for non-meritorious malpractice suits! Not punish victims, and not punish Doctors with gross claims...but punish ambulance chasers with review boards, giving Lawyers filing non-meritorious claims a three strikes and you're out. That takes healthcare costs WAY down, from the view of malpractice insurance.

And Cut special interest lobbyists off at the knees! That just sounds fun, more than anything. But again, the insurance and drug lobby runs Washington like the mob. It's a crime, and should be outlawed.



Kerry to speak at 5:30.

Excuse me, Rant. Clark has a plan but since we're talking about moderates, I think Dean is the only one being real at this point. He's right, you can't promise everything. Edwards is trying to say he can balance the budget, run the war on terror, and keep middle class tax cuts. He also thinks he can start college programs and stop the bleeding of jobs everything he says cost money. I see dollar signs and big government and big spending. No matter how much he raises taxes there is no way to fund this crap, and that includes the President's new programs.

I want someone to stand up and say: NO NEW PROGRAMS UNTIL WE FIX THE # WE ALREADY GOT!
That's Dean, unfortunately. He's the moderate. He's the only one saying no more spending. He just isn't doing it effectively. I actually listened to him and found that I agree with him even though his personality puts me off. He's more like Clinton than Edwards so far as policy. Clinton's name should be in that blank because he promised to raise taxes during his campaign and he was elected. He not only balanced the budget but he created a surplus and 3 million + jobs. (Which he turned around and sent to Mexico by penning NAFTA but that's beside the point)

I know I'm more liberal than anything else. I don't need to pretend I want a moderate in the whitehouse, but if I did, it would be a real moderate. I don't want anyone that supported the war in Iraq, then decided it was politically profitable not to supply the troops. I don't want anyone that won't stand up for civil liberties--both Edwards and Kerry are politicans of the lowest kind. They voted for the war and for the patroit act. Pandering is a real word, my friend. We all should be sick of it. Kerry and Edwards only appear moderate because of their pandering in these past few months. I think Dean will shine again if he gets back on his economic message.

edit: Kerry is on cspan right now.



[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Saphronia]

I'll take any of them, in whatever ticket combo you want to throw together. I just don't see Edwards being the lead dog on the sled, though.

Originally posted by Bout Time
I'll take any of them, in whatever ticket combo you want to throw together. I just don't see Edwards being the lead dog on the sled, though.

Maybe not. It's getting close. In the south where Edwards once had huge leads, Clark is starting to monkey wrench votes from him. Which does nothing for Clark, but it does help Kerry. Edwards has owned NC to Ga and over to Louisiana for months, but Clark is making strides in Tennessee and South Carolica for example.

South Carolina is one where some polls once tracked Edwards as high as 50% but now it's a 4 way statistical tie with surges in both Sharpton and Clark.

All this split does is ensure statistical victory for Kerry. I sincerely hate to see southern voters splinter themselves out of a voice like this. They nominate Kerry like that by default.

Edwards would have to get "meaner" to take back the south. Kind of like the Kerry "Stop Dean" tactic up north. He needs to unify the south under a "Stop Kerry" banner.

I'm getting scared of Massachusetts uber liberal Kerry's chances with Bush. I'd almost rather have Dean. Like you BT I back any Dem that gets it, I just want one that will appeal to moderate Republican voters if at all possible. Statistically it's the only way to beat Bush.

....is that they all are an easy choice to beat Bush in a non-Diebold decided contest.
I also strongly believe that the Democrats have woken up: They followed the "work in unity, not partisanship for the relief of America" Trojan horse that Karl Rove pushed post 9/11. The result? They got it stuck so far up their @ss's they could taste it.
The first dismantler is a strong push to dispose of Cheney - expect more to come on Halliburton & the Energy Task force.
Next, look for a perfect storm of GOP defectors/CIA/Dem's with blood in their eyes to make the Clinton-crotch-sniffing-witch-hunt pale in comparison.......the major diff being that there's a mountain of proof to Bush being criminal.
Also, none of the 4 (Kerry/Clark/Dean/Edwards) are Liberal. I've debated the case for Dean not deserving that label, b ut in reality, the Right Wing has manipulated that word to mean everything they're not in support of.
The truth is this: have a social conscious is not Liberal, and budgeting for it in your governance style is not Liberal.
The reservation about Edwards as president comes solely from the fact that the Dem's need the Liberal wing come election day - Liberals are very pissed & Edwards has not shown the piss & vinegar seasoning they want on their presidential meat.

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by Bout Time]

I can buy that. I don't think any of the four are really liberal either. I'm using my Rove voice in the analysis.

For example, I love Ted Kennedy. I've met him and had pictures made with him. But if I were running for President I wouldn't trot him out. I don't know, that's my Kerry fear. With Dean it's going to be the gay marriage thing. I know it shouldn't matter, and I even support it strongly, but I'm Rove aware.

I think your piss & vinegar analysis is on target too. At least for the nomination, but won't play as well in the Presidential race. It may backfire.

Plus I submit that though there is a very vocal contingent of Bush voters that sincerely love the man (no matter what) the core constituency of Bush voters are not ideological beyond one simple theme: They hate liberals. Even psudeo. Give them ANY palatable alternative, especially an attractive one considering the disgusting relevance of the "Bush so handsome" female fox viewer vote.


[Edited on 26-1-2004 by RANT]

I don't see any of them being sour grapes & not supporting very vocally the Dem nomination, after they lose.
I just haven't decided which is the stronger ticket choice for VP: Edwards or Clark?
It will depend on the NH showing & what you've educated us on with the Southern states - if Edwards can't fend off Clark in the South, he's toast.

Originally posted by Bout Time
It will depend on the NH showing & what you've educated us on with the Southern states - if Edwards can't fend off Clark in the South, he's toast.

Yup, SC is win or bust. He's said that. If he loses SC he'll be endorsing Kerry reluctantly looking for VP. He REALLY was preparing for a Gephardt/Edwards ticket I believe at one time. Missouri will be a big factor in deciding what to do. If Edwards starts tracking to win there (with Gephardt labor votes) he may stay in even with a second place SC. Gephardt will be endorsing someone post New Hampshire.

The thing that will really throw off guesswork would be a Sharpton victory in SC. It's quite possible! And SC is about the only state it could happen. Then all the national frontrunners can "blow off" the SC results and move on.

But the thing about New Hampshire, if Clark and/or Shaprton drop out after... Edwards will sweep the south. At least the race would be less of a cake walk for Kerry/Dean. I'd love to see strong three person debates after NH. And I think we could all make better judgements.

Bottom line: Clark screwed Edwards when he entered the race, hurt Dean and helped Kerry.

That Republican messed up everything.

[Edited on 26-1-2004 by RANT]