The W
Views: 97624617
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 0059
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why are people voting Howard Dean? (Page 2)
This thread has 24 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.83
Pages: Prev 1 2
(1571 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (30 total)
PoorlyToldJoke
Longanisa








Since: 15.12.03
From: Cincinnati

Since last post: 3470 days
Last activity: 3453 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.91
The reason why Clark was fired, was because when the plans were drawn up to heavily bomb the civillian infrastructure in Kosovo, he disagreed, and said it would take too high a civillian casualty. He was shot down, so he went over the head of whoever was his commanding officer, and went directly to clinton, where he was shot down again, so he went onto CNN. I remember him taking his case to CNN, and I remember the Clinton white house being rather embarassed at essentially having to admit that their plan was to bomb everything that moved so that the ground forces could walk in without any resistance. For better or for worse, (for worse IMO) it worked. There wasn't a single casualty in Kosovo from enemy fire. Of course, we killed something along the lines of 40,000 civillians, all in the name of saving them. Clark was fired very shortly after that.

And, a year and a half is a long time in international politics. Who knows what information he was given that might have changed his stance on the issue. I don't think there is anything wrong with changing your mind, if given enough evidence one way or the other.

My vote is going to whoever has the D next to their name, as I believe that Bush is leading us down the path of destruction.

I think the more interesting war going on is the war within the democratic party. It;s The Clintons vs Al Gore vs The progressive side. The CLintons and gore it is mainly just a power struggle to see who runs the party, while whoring themselves like they were republicans. Then the progressive wing actually wants to offer an alternative to the republican party. Imagine that.
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3208 days
Last activity: 3201 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.01
    Originally posted by PoorlyToldJoke
    It;s The Clintons vs Al Gore vs The progressive side. The CLintons and gore it is mainly just a power struggle to see who runs the party, while whoring themselves like they were republicans. Then the progressive wing actually wants to offer an alternative to the republican party. Imagine that.

That's why I see Gephardt as the one with the (longshot) fighting chance. Other than Tom Daschle he's the name most associated with the '02 Republican landslide, therefore he has a realistic platform to attack the policies since with... while not alienating the moderate (read that: "majority of") democrats who aren't violently angry towards Bush but would like a change.

Simply put: Dick Gephardt is the only candidate that could even get me to pay attention to the election, because he's the only one that can make it interesting. Dean, Clark, and Kerry are all waaay too easy to pick apart.



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.57
    Originally posted by drjayphd
      Originally posted by Grimis
      Ever notice that the closer we get to actually having people vote, the more support for Dean falls?


    It's not like they're fawning over Bush, either.


We're dangerously approaching a California situation here. In 1998, Californians voted Gray Davis back into office, not because he was the best man for the job, but because things would have been that much worse with Bill Simon in office.

Substitute "Americans" for "Californians"; "George W. Bush" for "Gray Davis"; and "Howard Dean" for "Bill Simon" and you'll see how things are shaping up.




You really SHOULD think about going back to your old Yankees cap, yo!
ParagonOfVirtue
Salami








Since: 20.8.03
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 3233 days
Last activity: 2913 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54
    Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
    That's why I see Gephardt as the one with the (longshot) fighting chance. Other than Tom Daschle he's the name most associated with the '02 Republican landslide, therefore he has a realistic platform to attack the policies since with... while not alienating the moderate (read that: "majority of") democrats who aren't violently angry towards Bush but would like a change.


With all due respect to Gep for the years he has been a prominent name in the Democratic party, the way I saw it was his type of mediocre leadership that *caused* the Republican landslide in '02. And if he were to be nominated, I wouldn't expect any differently in '04. He doesn't have that 'it' factor for President, and he epitomizes the stigma that is 'Washington politics' way too much. I would vote for any of the eight if they were nominated, but Dick Gephardt isn't what the Dems need to get to the next level. Clark and Dean offer the type of fresh politics the party needs right now.

    Originally posted by It's False
    We're dangerously approaching a California situation here. In 1998, Californians voted Gray Davis back into office, not because he was the best man for the job, but because things would have been that much worse with Bill Simon in office.

    Substitute "Americans" for "Californians"; "George W. Bush" for "Gray Davis"; and "Howard Dean" for "Bill Simon" and you'll see how things are shaping up.


If this means we'll recall Bush in '06 and replace him with Martin Sheen, I'm all for it. :)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
    Originally posted by ParagonOfVirtue
    If this means we'll recall Bush in '06 and replace him with Martin Sheen, I'm all for it. :)


You know, the first season of The West Wing recently came out on DVD and I've been watching it lately and, I've gotta say, I really wish Josiah Bartlett was a real guy so I could vote for him.

And I've also gotta say that, of the eight real guys we've got now, Howard Dean sure as hell comes the closest.

EDIT: Oh, and there's a great interview with him in the new Rolling Stone that should do a good job of swinging anyone on the fence.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 15.1.04 2257)


THE 2003 FUZZIES!
The winners are in for the only awards that matter! They're Cash-tastic!!
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3208 days
Last activity: 3201 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.70
I'm just trying guage the voting patterns of a middle America so boring they almost put Gore into office. BY ALL MEANS make Dean the man. Those of us who are content with the guy in office want nothing more.



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Jesus, I'm as Liberal as they get, and even I can't watch the West Wing anymore without the gag reflex kickin in at least a couple times. Of course, the bad news is that the Republicans have the real life version, and it's even more extreme the other way.

The reason people are voting for Dean is this: they've invested too much in this guy. I agree it's a struggle between the NDP and the Progressives. And the vast majority of primary Democratic voters realizes that something is very wrong with the Democratic party of the Clintons: In their 12 years in power they have done three things:

1) pulled the ideology of the Democratic Party closer to the center

2) catered to a population (in terms of access, priorities, etc) significantly up the income stream.

3) made the Democratic party weaker than it's been since 1928.

Now, you average Democrat could handle one, or even two of these. But it's unforgivable to make your policy platform like the Republicans, get in bed with the same rich special interests as the Republicans AND lose. The Democratic base was desperatley looking for someone who realized this, and the first guy they saw was Howard Dean. Just the fact that this guy was not part of the Democratic establishment of the last 10 years was enough. Everything else was irrelevant. The guy could have been more PRO-war than Bush, as long he didn't frame it as "I agree with the president, but..." like every other Democrat was doing. Because that philosphy not only made the Democrats Republican-light, it also didn't get them back in power. Either/Or and you've OK. Lose AND sell out you can't do. Notice Dean throws in "take back this party" along with "take back this country" That's the message, and your average Democrat was desperate someone FINALLY was saying it.

Now the campaign goes on, and people start seeing this guys flaws and weaknesses, whatever they may be. They see where he doesn't toe the liberal line (which is a lot). But they've already invested too much time, money, and energy in this guy as the anti-Clinton to stop now. With the following caveat.

Now in order to keep the momentum and core exited, Dean's got to not "play the game" which he's started to do. Dean wasn't hurt by not having a black cabinet member. He was hurt by hemming and hawing over it. He should have just said what everyone was thinking, which was "Al, there's not any Black people in Vermont." Even a toned-downed, politicized kind of version of that responce would have been OK. But he played the "try to appease all the constituencies" game instead of telling the common-sense truth. He cannot afford to do that if he wants to keep his campaign going. There may be a lot of time, money, and energy invested in this guy, but he can't walk away from what brought him to the dance.

(edited by MoeGates on 15.1.04 2334)


I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.54
    Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
      Originally posted by PoorlyToldJoke
      It;s The Clintons vs Al Gore vs The progressive side. The CLintons and gore it is mainly just a power struggle to see who runs the party, while whoring themselves like they were republicans. Then the progressive wing actually wants to offer an alternative to the republican party. Imagine that.

    That's why I see Gephardt as the one with the (longshot) fighting chance. Other than Tom Daschle he's the name most associated with the '02 Republican landslide, therefore he has a realistic platform to attack the policies since with... while not alienating the moderate (read that: "majority of") democrats who aren't violently angry towards Bush but would like a change.

    Simply put: Dick Gephardt is the only candidate that could even get me to pay attention to the election, because he's the only one that can make it interesting. Dean, Clark, and Kerry are all waaay too easy to pick apart.


Gephardt's reputation is mud. He comes across as a whiny bitch all too often. He would benefit greatly from a personality transplant that would give him some of Dean's fire and passion. He also comes across as being to much in the pockets of the unions. Is he a bad guy? IMO, no. But he stands less of a chance than Dean or Clark. You can guage his chances by the vitriol the Rep's are hurling toward him and it is almost nil.



Perception is reality
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1178 days
Last activity: 975 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Jesus, I'm as Liberal as they get, and even I can't watch the West Wing anymore without the gag reflex kickin in at least a couple times.
It's not as bad as it was when Sorkin was there. I can actually watch it nowadays...



calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 469 days
Last activity: 1 day
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I like the show because its entertaining. When they start going on one of there preachy stance I just act the same way as when they take about warp drives is Star Trek. Its just bunch of babble that means something in the West Wing universe but meaningless in real life.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.83
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: You know... it's like he WANTS to lose
Next thread: Damned liberal media!
Previous thread: One down.....
(1571 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
No way has Fox peaked. Anne Coulter doesn't have her own show yet, right? -Jag
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why are people voting Howard Dean? (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.117 seconds.