|Gore endorses Dean.... yawwwwwwwnnnn||moneyman|
Dec 9, 2003 10:41 AM
|Be still my heart.
So, what's with Al not endorsing his old pal Joe Lieberman? I wonder why he didn't ask Dean to be his VP in 2000, considering that he thinks so highly of him now.
|So why bring it up. . .||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 10:48 AM
|. . .if it doesn't interest you?
Was Dean looking for the nod in 2000? Do Gore and Lieberman agree on any of this electon's key issues? (Is Lieberman a serious prospect in 2004?) Do you have anything actual thoughts on the topic, or just half-baked glibness?
|Just half-baked glibness, thank you||moneyman|
Dec 9, 2003 1:48 PM
|Gore's endorsement of ANYONE makes no difference to me. I want to know how this endorsement affects those who do or those who are considering supporting Dean.
Thoughts? Gore is a political opportunist whose loyalty only goes as far as his (perceived) importance in the leadership of the Democratic party. As far as opportunism goes, he spent eight years in study as the fawning lackey of the master of opportunism.
|Gore, despite his many faults, was more popular than Bush.||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 2:05 PM
|Not surprising that Republicans would struggle to portray him as irrelevant. Not particularly convincing either.|
|No struggle, really.||moneyman|
Dec 9, 2003 2:36 PM
|He is not running for anything. He IS irrelevant. Like Bush getting an endorsement from Newt Gingrich. If I was either Dean or Bush, I'd say "No thanks" to those two.
Dec 9, 2003 2:40 PM
How Dean Could Win . . .
By William Kristol
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27
Going into the final day of the college football regular season, Oklahoma was undefeated and ranked No. 1. The Sooners had the best defense in the nation, had outscored their opponents by an average of 35 points and had a nine-game winning streak against ranked teams. "OU: Among best ever?" USA Today asked (rhetorically) on Friday. Kansas State, by contrast, had three losses, and had never won a Big 12 championship. Oklahoma was favored by two touchdowns. Kansas State, of course, won, 35-7.
For the next 11 months, Republicans, conservatives and Bush campaign operatives should, on arising, immediately following their morning prayers, repeat that score aloud 10 times. Underdogs do sometimes win. Howard Dean could beat President Bush. Saying you're not overconfident (as the OU players repeatedly did) is no substitute for really not being overconfident. And if Bush loses next November, it's over. There's no BCS computer to give him another shot at the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.
Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.
But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.
And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?
But is Dean a credible alternative? Was Kansas State? Dean has run a terrific primary campaign, the most impressive since Carter in 1976. It's true that, unlike Carter (and Clinton), Dean is a Northeastern liberal. But he's no Dukakis. Does anyone expect Dean to be a patsy for a Bush assault, as the Massachusetts governor was?
And how liberal is Dean anyway? He governed as a centrist in Vermont, and will certainly pivot to the center the moment he has the nomination. And one underestimates, at this point when we are all caught up in the primary season, how much of an opportunity the party's nominee has to define or redefine himself once he gets the nomination.
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase t
|I've read some posts on this board saying similar.||BottomBracketShell|
Dec 9, 2003 2:51 PM
|One of the liberals was saying it especially about the demographics. But I just don't see it. As long as Bush has the war he'll be commander in chief and people won't want to fire him.|
|at least he got it out of the way early||gtx|
Dec 9, 2003 11:20 AM
|Hopefully the Dems will push Gore into the corner and not let him drag down another election. The only thing I really noticed is that Dean seemed kind of short next to Gore.|
|Could be the spark Dean's flagging capaign needs||128|
Dec 9, 2003 11:21 AM
|Gore needs to step aside. Why do the Dems push this guy? Hasn't he had his multi-generational-aristocratic run at the ring?
I was arguing here at work that it was just an endorssement (kiss of death?) while she argues it was an overture of Gore's '08 bid for the WH. I have not read the papers recently. What realistically can he offer the future of the D party?
Smart guy Gore, but the only person more impossible to listen to to is Lieberman. Geesum they can drone, I get lost in the low hum of their drabness and forget to listen. It's my superhero weakness: voices like that and certain Western New York eeac-sents. It;s like listening to a dower, drag rug nap.
|Do Dems push Gore?||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 11:34 AM
|I guess it depends on who you mean by Dems. The Democratic Party has distanced itself from Gores recent progresivism -- and vice-versa. That is why Gore's endoresement of Dean makes sense from a progressive (as opposed to a "D party") perspective. The two appeal to the same kind class of voter who has lost faith in the lets-out-Republican-the-Republicans strategy that "mainstream" Democrats have adopted. What does he have to offer the party? Perhaps an alterntative to this proven loser of a strategy.|
|I don't think Gore is perceived Progressive in the popular view||128|
Dec 9, 2003 12:29 PM
|He may want to sound that way, but I believe he scares away the centrists who view him as a sour reminder of Clinton's "transgressions" and perturbs the further Left for his connection to the Centrist Clinton. So whatt does he bring to the party?
I view the winning formula of the Republicans as speaking to the extreme wing of the party. Not sure what you reference as the R strategy the Dems have been unable to duplicate. Have the Democrats done that? Have they reached out to the extreme left? They havn't even tried to fail yet. The funny thing about Dean is, his firey anti-Bush rhetoric is speaking to the far left when his position is more centrist. (but not a Lieberman, hawkish, drooohning centrist)
So, sure, it depende on what Democrat means. And knowing what the Democratic strategy is, which I do not.
|Have you listened to Gore lately?||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 12:42 PM
|I don't think anyone who has would mistake him for a centrist, Clinton throwback.
I didn't mean to imply that the Democrats were trying to replicate the Republican stragegy of appealing to their extreme wing. I meant that they are trying to appeal to non-extreme Republican centrists. You might say that Dean is borrowing from a succesful Republican stragey, rather than trying to borrow Republican votes.
|You think the Dems need to move further leftward ?||HouseMoney|
Dec 9, 2003 1:25 PM
|Are you sure you're not a closet Republican?!
¦ ^ Þ
Republican Lite may be a "proven loser of a strategy", but offering a greater contrast by moving further to the left is a sure-fire recipe for Democratic election disaster. It may be emotionally satisfying for the far left segment of the party, but it won't sell across the country. (I guess we'll find out for sure in 11 months since I don't see Dean's quest for the nomination being derailed!)
Now, on to the endorsement. I don't really view it as a slight to Lieberman since Gore continues to veer more & more to the left, putting him at odds with Joe L's positions (although a phone call would've been appropriate). I think it's more curious as to why they made the initial announcement in Harlem, the Clintons' new turf. Politicians rarely do or say anything by happenstance.
|Gee, Republicans advise a proven losing strategy for Dems.||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 1:57 PM
I think that if people "across the country" are happy with the way things are and want a continuation of the GOP's policies, then they should vote for the GOP.
Republicans incessantly claim that the Democrats have no alternatives, then solemnly advise them not to offer any. Clever indeed.
As you say, we will see in 11 months if Dean can eclipse the GOP's razor thin advantage. As a Democrat, I'd rather the contest be between George Bush and a genuine alternative. Its not surprising that Republicans would prefer a contest between Bush and a (necessarily lame) wannabe.
|Loser of a strategy||moneyman|
Dec 9, 2003 1:54 PM
|For examples of progressive's success stories, see the following:
That ought to really help the Democrats solidify their support. Nice going, Al!
|That is a pretty shallow analysis.||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 2:00 PM
|Dean is a centrist who has inspired huge support from the far left. Hold that up to a mirror and which "loser" do you see?|
|Dean is a centrist?||moneyman|
Dec 9, 2003 2:34 PM
|I suppose part of that characterization comes from ones own point of view. For you, he's a centrist. For me, he is just to the right of.... you!
Also - how much support of the overall public is constituted by the far left? What percentage of the Democrats who vote make up the far left? 10%? 20%? I don't know. I tend to think that it is smaller rather than greater, although the progressives in the party, like you, may tend to overestimate that number.
But in no way would I see Dean as a centrist. Bring the troops back from Iraq right away? Sounds like McGovern. Nationalize health care? Sounds like HRC. Both of them would definitely be considered liberal.
Dec 9, 2003 3:22 PM
|After reading the article, I have to agree that he does not want to "nationalize" health care. Perhaps I misunderstood his intentions. Instead, he wants to bully American business into paying for their employee's health insurance, as well as providing coverage for anyone who can fog a mirror and have it paid for by the US taxpayer. Not technically nationalized, but the result is the same: The government is in control and individual options are out of the question.
Give me a few hours on the troop thing.
|What individual options are out of the question?||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 3:54 PM
|Dean advocates making sure that at least one option is available.
And how does he "bully American business into paying for their employee's health insurance"? With tax incentives? That is "bullying" them!? (Talk about your attitudes of entitlement.)
Don't bother with the troop thing, if this is the quality of response you are aiming for. Even if your analysis of Dean's healthcare stance were credible, it places him squarley in the mainstream.
|Dean's so mainstream middle-of-the-road that he has to||OldEdScott|
Dec 9, 2003 4:15 PM
|SAY OUT LOUD that he's a liberal. What does that tell you? Ho,ho.|
|Hey $$, my friend:||OldEdScott|
Dec 9, 2003 4:17 PM
|I've never seen you this jacked up on a political topic! What does that tell us, collectively? Ho, ho.|
|I don't like Dean||moneyman|
Dec 10, 2003 8:29 AM
|I don't like his personality or his policy. I think he's a mean, churlish man. While I wouldn't eliminate him from my list because of that, it is a consideration. I think his requirement that all companies provide health care benefits to all employees is unreasonable and a bit authoritarian. I don't like his stance on Iraq, or his ideas about the economy, i.e., "I'll rescind the tax cuts."
Its not that he's a Democrat, but rather who and what he is.
I don't know what that tells you, OES, individually or collectively. And really, I don't feel all "jacked up" about Dean, because I don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell to win the election. And I don't think you do, either. I think you and your fellow subversives have accepted the fact that he is the Bob Dole of 2004 and are licking your chops at HRC in 2008.
|You know what they say about friends and politics don't you?||Live Steam|
Dec 9, 2003 11:57 AM
|There are no friends in politics :O)
Hey I think it's wonderful news. So does Clinton and everyone else in the Dumocratic party that wants to see Bush win :O) Yes they want Bush to win. If Dean wins, her Witchdom will have to wait longer to get her fat a$$ in through the door at the White House. If Dean goes down in flames, she will be poised to take over the Dumocratic party. Well that's what the sick mind-trust of the Dumocratic party believe.
Someone here said something about sparking a flag? Yup that's the whole point. Send Dean up in flames. No matter. Dean never really had a chance. No Dumocrat does at the moment and that's the reality of it no matter what any of you want to believe. Her Hitlery will make a move, but I doubt it will be in this election unless some stroke of ill fate befalls us like another 9/11. She will then pounce on the opportunity like a leach at blood letting.
Oh money, Czar doesn't think you should have any interest in political news. Stick with the funny sheets. Oh they're pretty political too. I guess you can't escape it :O)
|Oops! Bet you wish you could take that one back.||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 12:09 PM
|Reading your post, one could get the impression that you actually believe in loony Clinton conspiracies! One might also wonder if you have nothing more intelligent to say about Hillary Clinton than calling her a "fat a$$" Ha ha -- who would be that infantile and stupid?
Then again, who would be stupid enough to conclude from my response to $$ that I don't think he should have any interest in political news? Not $$ himself, I'm sure. Why, I am surprised that despite your repeated self-immolation on this board, even you would draw such a conclusion.
|Take it back? Pourquoi? Money has a pretty good ...||Live Steam|
Dec 9, 2003 12:20 PM
|sense of humor. Besides my post was way more interesting than yours :O) and I have proof for my theory. But I can't tell you what it is or the Clintons will have me killed! LOL!!!
Your momma wears army boots! How's that for infantile? Hahaha!
|Ha ha. You were just clowing around. Of course! (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 9, 2003 12:28 PM
|heh heh. ;).........nm||rwbadley|
Dec 9, 2003 12:31 PM
|Steam, I'm serious: You're showing all the symptoms.||Cory|
Dec 9, 2003 1:12 PM
|I did a story several years ago about things the Secret Service looks for in letters to the president to determine if they're actual threats or just people blowing off, uh, steam. When you write on paper, do you keep going around the margins to add a few more thoughts, then grab odd scraps to continue? You're THERE, man.|
|Hey Steam, Rush says this is an ANTI-Clinton move,||BottomBracketShell|
Dec 9, 2003 1:28 PM
|because Gore hates Clinton. I think Rush is right. What say you?|
|And I also think||BottomBracketShell|
Dec 9, 2003 1:35 PM
|it's possible though I don't believe it that you're right, it's hard to know with the Clintons because they are always so clever about seeing several steps ahead. I was just asking because you and Rush are disagreeing.|
|It's important because of the money.||dr hoo|
Dec 9, 2003 12:21 PM
|Currently the average Dean contribution is $77 (or something like that). Think about just how MANY people have given to him to give him his total with that low average!
Gore brings connections to BIG money contributors. That's the importance of this, not the "Gore aura".
Heh, there's an oxymoron for you!
|I'll buy that. The Democrats should adopt my Red Sox theory:||128|
Dec 9, 2003 12:41 PM
|do what the Yankees do- buy it.|
|re: Gore endorses Dean, gets my vote Nm||jrm|
Dec 9, 2003 3:17 PM