The W
Views: 95561490
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.4.14 2327
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why Dems in '04 could be in trouble
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (18 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Edwards, Dean Speak at California Democratic Party Convention
Saturday, March 15, 2003
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Democratic activists booed presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards on Saturday as he expressed support for disarming Iraq by force, then wildly applauded anti-war statements by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Speaking at the annual California Democratic Party convention, Edwards, of North Carolina, criticized President Bush for failing to get world support for military action against Iraq but added, "I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat, and I believe he must be disarmed including the use of military force if necessary."

The crowd booed loudly and briefly interrupted his remarks with cries of "No war! No war!"

Hours later, Dean issued an apparent challenge to Edwards and other Democratic presidential hopefuls who voted for last fall's congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"What I want to know is what in the world some of these Democrats are doing supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq," he said to sustained applause.

Sharpton attacked the potential war as "a very unneeded, a very misguided mission."

A few blocks away, about 400 anti-war activists rallied and marched.

Addressing about 1,800 Democratic activists on the second day of the state party's convention, Edwards approached the Iraq issue carefully.

"It is also a test of presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you, even your friends, what you believe," he said before expressing support for using force.

Edwards, Dean, and Sharpton were among six presidential hopefuls addressing the weekend event, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who spoke Friday. Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun were scheduled to speak Sunday.

The candidates devoted much of their time to attacking Bush's domestic agenda, and there they agreed. They said Bush's policies had favored the rich and created deficits, and accused him of failing to deliver on education, health care and the environment.

Not attending were three Democratic presidential hopefuls: Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bob Graham of Florida, and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. Lieberman and Gephardt cited schedule conflicts while Graham is recuperating from heart surgery.





There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Promote this thread!
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I still say the Democratic party needs a Goldwater-style cadidacy in 04. Something that won't pay off now, but will get new ideas out there, change the political spectrum, and pay off down the road.

I'm much more thinking of domestic rather than foreign policy though.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 290 days
Last activity: 290 days
#3 Posted on
Could someone please let Howard Dean borrow Dingbat Warrior's dictionary so he understands what the term unilateral means?
edit: In order to help Mr. Dean (who, if he's smart, has followed the Googlebot onto the Weinerboard), I have been able to obtain Dingbat's dictionary (nice to see the word destructivity scrawled throughout)

unilateral (adj): 1 a: done or undertaken by one person or party. b : of, relaing to, or affecting one side of a subject: ONE-SIDED c: constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party 2 : produced or arranged on or directed toward one side 3 : tracing descent through either the maternal or paternal line only 4 : having only one side.

Now, last time I checked, their were multiple parties allied with the United States. There are penalties set against Iraq, but that is because they violated agreements. I really don't know how our policy involves Sadaam's mother or father.
So, if Mr. Dean wants to argue against the war, fine, its his right. But the continued use of the word unilateral just kills his argument from the starting gate.

(edited by redsoxnation on 17.3.03 1138)


If it wasn't for war, you wouldn't know what peace was.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I still say the Democratic party needs a Goldwater-style cadidacy in 04. Something that won't pay off now, but will get new ideas out there, change the political spectrum, and pay off down the road.

Excellent point. The country is going Republican in a hurry much like the opposite was true in the 60's. The left has to figure out how to do something to stop the bleeding.


    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Could someone please let Howard Dean borrow Dingbat Warrior's dictionary so he understands what the term unilateral means?

Is it really worth the effort to waste time on Dean? He will not win the nomination...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 532 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#5 Posted on
For those doing early shopping for a Democratic nominee, allow me to narrow the field a bit. John Edwards may be the most useless human being in public office anywhere in the world, and that includes the DMV of every state in the Union. His capacity for smarmy self-service makes Bill Clinton look like Ghandi.

He's been an unpopular Senator in my home state and hasn't managed to show up half the time and posted a pretty undistinguised voting record. If anything, he's got ssupport because he 1) looks good on TV and 2) hasn't got a major scandal in his closet anyone can find, which is stunning given the massive corruption in NC politics coupled with his being a trail lawyer.

And this is the best they could field for President. Argh. Out of the bunch presently in the running he'll probably get the nomination, not because he has any ideals or vision (in fact, so far the only thing he seems to be promising is to be like Bush only shorter and with more hair) but because he's the least objectionable candidate.


(edited by Enojado Viento on 17.3.03 0912)



-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Not a chance. I actually think the nomination will go to Dick Gephardt. You heard it here first. The guy starts with fund-raising ability, and a really good national network.

Rational: Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, and Graham can not raise near the money needed. You can be loved and adored by the media, be super-popular, and be considered more "electable," but without the dough, you don't have a shot. McCain 2000 taught everyone that beyond a shadow of a doubt. And with all those candidates out there, you're going to need a lot of dough to break through. You don't need as many votes, sure, but your campaign expenses are going to be as big, if not bigger than, than a two-person race.

Edwards reminds people too much of Clinton. Not a good thing. Plus he's a bit Dan Quayle-ish. He's the guy the late-night talk show hosts are going to rake over the coals, and he doesn't seem to have the easygoing nature to counter that that Clinton displayed in 92. He's going to get knocked out early.

That leaves Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman. Lieberman is going to have a tough time winning the primary. He is way too right wing for your average Democrat. Plus he has no base. His natural base of the Northeast is going to go to Kerry. People think he will get a lot of Jewish support, but people don't realize that he is only going to get Jewish support from a certain segment of the Jewish community, and not that large of one. Plus the Jews that tend to be activists and doners in the Democratic party are overwhelmingly civil libertarians, who are not going to go anywhere near Lieberman. Plus, the organized Jewish community generally has some paranoia about actively supporting Jews for high office.

In short, Joe Goldberg, High School history teacher in Indianapolis will probably send the guy 20 bucks. But the big-name, big-money Jewish activists are not going to support him. Leave out the Jews and the Northeast, and the guy has nothing.

That leaves Kerry and Gephardt, which is who I think it will come down to. Sharpton will probably stick around too. From that, Kerry is going to grab the anti-war, civil libertarian, costal people, although Sharpton might suck off enough to make Gephardt competitive. Gephardt will get the Midwest and South. If the smaller candidates drop out early, and Gephardt looks like he's doing OK, labor is going to be 100% behind him. And Gephardt is going to get a boost from independent and even some Republicans voting in the Democratic primary in states with open primaries, because of the lack of Republican primary.

So that's my rational.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
Moe, I agree with pretty much all of that, except in the end, it'll be Kerry left standing.



Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Tell ya the truth, the longer this process goes on the more it starts looking like 1976. Carter came from nowhere to beat Mo Udall, George Wallace, Scoop Jackson, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen, Sargent Shriver, Jerry Brown, Robert Byrd(yes that Robert Byrd) and a cast of thousands for the nomination. Of course, that didn't work out to well for the good guys...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2355 days
Last activity: 458 days
#9 Posted on
Moe, do you count Wesley Clark and Joe Biden in the first group of candidates (no shot at raising enough cash?)

Because it seems to me that a General (Clark) running for the nomination could throw a wrench into things, if the war becomes protracted.




-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
I don't think Clark will run, and Biden has no political base.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3286 days
Last activity: 3280 days
#11 Posted on
While I think a Carter-like Democrat (and MORE Carter-like than Clinton) might be the best way to go for the Dems in 04, I do think the idea of the Democrats continuing to move father to the left would be interesting idea. It would at least make for some damn interesting politics and elections. It may be a dangerous thing for all parties involved, and I'm not a glutton for punishment, but hopefully it would allow Americans to further see the abject failings of liberalism.

DMC



"I'm on this Zoloft thing, right? But I'm on that to keep me from killin' ya'll!" -Mike Tyson
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2640 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Moe, I understand your rationale, but the base is absolutely eating from Dean's hand. It's like the man says: He's here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democrat party, socialized health care and all.

And you contend that McCain lost because of fundraising. I would say that McCain is more of a Lieberman figure - a little too centrist for the base.

Also - is CMB enough to defuse Sharpton? Will she split the black vote enough to marginalize the right reverend?



"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 559 days
Last activity: 559 days
#13 Posted on
Idunno. To talk about the "black vote" or the "Jew vote" or the "left-handed red-head vote" is total crap. It's not like those groups vote as a block. True, a majority of them may vote the same way, but a majority of a minority never guarenteed success. It's just one of those little things that annoy me when I hear it.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Do you know where your Chainmail, +1 vs. Cruiserweights is?

PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2640 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy
    Idunno. To talk about the "black vote" or the "Jew vote" or the "left-handed red-head vote" is total crap. It's not like those groups vote as a block.


Check the facts, hombre. Black people just don't vote Republican, period. The ratio is like 9-to-1.



"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3643 days
Last activity: 2709 days
#15 Posted on
As a Jew, I'll tell you that Jews almost always vote Democrat. However, seeing as the Democratic party and the anti-war movement are showing some pro-palestinian tendencies, I wonder if there will be a solid reversal this year. Anyways, 8 out of 10 Jews voted for Al gore in 2000.

Since I usually vote for the Republican party because I see it as the lesser of two evils, I can only hope that Gephart wins the nomination. His planning and vicious attacks on Bush obviously failed miserably at the midterm elections, and it looks like he has no intention of changing his ways. I don't think Americans are willing to buy the line that all Republicans want to kill old people, rob the poor, roll back the clock on civil rights, and leave people to die anymore. The democrats need something new....something different.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3368 days
Last activity: 3368 days
#16 Posted on
Its too far ahead to think about the 2004 election. For starters, the war is going to change things either way. If Bush gets the quick win like Daddy did and not have an economic policy then its anyone's ballgame, I'd think Bush would win by a landslide though, because Sept. 11th will carry over liked in the mid-terms.

However, if the war goes on for months then Bush is in trouble. Anti-war sentiment has been starting to catch fire in a number of places like Universities again, this time they can vote. I also believe the Republican will be screwed, because they will have too much blood on their hands and not enough excuses on why some people had to die in a quick win war. The country may have been going Republican, but I think it has stopped. The UN resolution really hurt Bush in a number of ways. Even though polls people hate Saddam, polls showed more than people wanted some backing on taking him out. I know the initial days of the war will give him big numbers, but after a month it will be drop, big time.

Even if US does win within a month or so, the political fallout internationally will be terrible. Instead of the US dictating exports and imports the EU, Russia and even Japan, if we don't do something about North Korea soon, could start slapping us around. Remember, EU currenancy is as strong if not greater than the dollar now. If the US doesn't mend fences during the war then expect the economy to really suck. This may allow for almost anyone to go after Bush and win. The Dems don't need a polarized view points such as anti-war or pro-war they need someone who can be a great communicator and compromiser. They need fucking Clinton in there to work things out.

All these candidates can come and go in the next few months, but I just see someone else coming out of nowhere. Surprisingly, I think it will be someone who goes in there, because Bush forced him to and not because he wanted to.

A Fan-Always cloudy is the future.
NIKO
Chorizo








Since: 24.4.02
From: Amherst, Massachusetts

Since last post: 3372 days
Last activity: 3282 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Lieberman is going to have a tough time winning the primary. He is way too right wing for your average Democrat. Plus he has no base. His natural base of the Northeast is going to go to Kerry. People think he will get a lot of Jewish support, but people don't realize that he is only going to get Jewish support from a certain segment of the Jewish community, and not that large of one. Plus the Jews that tend to be activists and doners in the Democratic party are overwhelmingly civil libertarians, who are not going to go anywhere near Lieberman. Plus, the organized Jewish community generally has some paranoia about actively supporting Jews for high office.


Plus, apparently Kerry is (part) Jewish.



Freedom Fries? Fuckin' FREEDOM FRIES???
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Really? Who knew.

Dean is Jewish too.





It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Arrogant Superpower?
Next thread: An open letter to Ralph Nader voters
Previous thread: Let's do away with the IRS in the U.S.
(2225 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Just because people are brought up on charges by Belguim doesn't mean they will care. Belguim is ignoring the sovereignty of other countries and the charges usually have no basis and are just frivolous.
- Zeruel, War Crimes (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why Dems in '04 could be in troubleRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.178 seconds.