|Anyone here ever post on||Jusme|
Dec 3, 2003 11:45 AM
They have a pretty lively U.S. politics board (and a million other places to have yourself beaten into submission.)
The place could use some fresh blood and could prove to be another fine outlet for the left-right love felt here.
But please do not neglect your RBR duties, of course.
|re: Anyone here ever post on||oldbutslow|
Dec 3, 2003 3:52 PM
|I prefer the DemocraticUnderground. They speak my kind of dribble.|
|DeomcraticUnderground has some ... uh ... good stuff.||OldEdScott|
Dec 4, 2003 6:39 AM
|The discussions and articles tend to be a bit more insiderish than the melees here. Along the lines of this, which also deals with something someone asked about the other day:
By NORMAN UPHOFF
When presidential advisor Karl Rove says that Gov. Howard Dean would be the easiest Democratic candidate for George Bush to beat in 2004 -- suggesting that Dean would be "another McGovern" -- he may be trying to divert attention from the fact that the 2004 race is shaping up with more similarities to the 1976 election than with the one in 1972.
In 1976, the incumbent was an unelected president with no clear electoral mandate, and while he was likeable and genial, he was widely considered to be "intellectually challenged." Voters were greatly dissatisfied with the way previous presidents had wasted American lives and wealth in a failed foreign misadventure. Having been misled by these presidents, voters urgently desired a chief executive who would speak openly and directly, not dishing out political pap.
Next year will, of course, be different in important ways from 1976. Gerald Ford was not personally responsible for the war in Vietnam and its costly aftermath in the way that George Bush is responsible for enmeshing the U.S. in a costly conflict of his own making. Ford had not willfully crippled the government's fiscal capabilities, creating unconscionable budget deficits for the next generation to bear; nor had he played "reverse-Robin Hood" by changing the tax structure to favor rich friends and contributors; nor did he have corporate albatrosses like Enron and Halliburton visibly hanging around his neck.
So we can expect a lot of "spinning" from Karl Rove and others who will try to frame the 2004 race as a reprise of 1972. But a more appropriate analogy is with 1976 -- or with 1992, when another governor from a small state came out of "nowhere" to beat a sitting president, also named Bush, because voters saw their interests and aspirations better projected by this new candidate.
Norman Uphoff is professor of government and international agriculture at Cornell University.
|Rove may be "righter" than I'd think at first glance.||Dale Brigham|
Dec 4, 2003 7:34 AM
|Will the 2004 election be like 1972 redux? Let's jump into Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine and journey to 1972. I know many of you whippersnappers were just a gleam in your pappy's eye then, but I was there as an interested observer (16 years old) for that election and as a voter in the aftermath ('76 election).
Nixon's Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP - one of the greatest acronyms in history) pulled out the stops to portray McGovern, a moderate-to-slighty-left Democrat from a low-population state who advocated pulling out of Vietnam, as a wild-eyed pinko who was in cahoots with feminists, homos, commies, and every other boogieman group they could find to smear him with. In their zeal to find more dirt on McGovern, a CREEP-funded group called the Plumbers were caught buglarizing Democratic offices in the Watergate building.
And, you know the rest. Nixon gets reelected, we abandon Vietnam, Watergate explodes and brings down the Nixon presidency, and I become a life-long Democrat (I leaned to the Repubs before that).
What matches up for 2004? 1) Dean is from a low-pop. state and relatively unknown; 2) Iraq is a perplexing foreign entanglement that divides the country's voters; 3) The Rove machine will skillfully paint Dean as a radical nut, that tactic winning the election for Bush; 4) I would not be at all surprised to see the Bush presidency ridden by scandal before it's done (in 2008).
|Main difference is, Dean's no McGovern.||OldEdScott|
Dec 4, 2003 8:08 AM
|McGovern wasn't a nasty infighter like Nixon, and it showed, painfully. Dean can throw punches in the clinches with the best of them.|
|McGovern was too decent to fight back against Nixon's goons||Dale Brigham|
Dec 4, 2003 9:12 AM
|George would not let his campaign make a big deal of his WWII military record (decorated B-24 pilot with the Ninth Air Force), which might have deflated some of the more imflammatory accusations (e.g., that McGovern was "yeller"). He simply thought it was nothing to take credit for. "I just did my job, like everybody else over there." What a man.
I hope Dean can counterpunch. It's going to get nasty. Maybe the practice he will get as the front-runner fending off the other Dems in the primaries will harden him to the task.
|Oh, Dean can counterpunch, all right. Ho, ho. nm||OldEdScott|
Dec 4, 2003 9:36 AM
|Correct if I am wrong...||oldbutslow|
Dec 4, 2003 12:23 PM
|but, Clinton and McAuliffe run the Democrat Party at the national level. If that is true, and I suspect it is, Dean doesn't stand a chance in you know what to win this election.
I can say a lot of bad things about Clinton, but he ain't stupid. In fact, he is a political genius. And I believe he has only one thing in mind and beloved Dean does not fit into those plans.
Of course, MHO only
|A good post ...||oldbutslow|
Dec 4, 2003 12:07 PM
|by a publised author. Certainly not representitive of the group as a whole. If you go there, you knows what I be talking about.|| |