Our liberal recipe for disaster - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rgr22j · 08-22-2003, 09:50 AM

My first "new thread," so I'm sorry if I inadvertantly do anything wrong!

I thought the subject would grab some attention, so I'll clarify a few things first, so we can get on to the discussion!

First, this is a post about the Democratic candidates for the 2004 election, not about how liberals do this or conservatives do that. Second, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a liberal. Third, my post will follow the following structure : assumptions, hypothesis, and support. Last, and most importantly, I apologize in advance for any offense that might be taken from my post. I mean only to start a discussion and nothing more!

Assumptions: Let us assume that George W. Bush will be the Republican candidate for president, and Ralph Nader will receive approximately the same percentage of votes he did in the last election. Let us also assume that there will be no new issues (new terrorist attack, for example) that may change everything.

Hypothesis: If Howard Dean or John Kerry win the Democratic primary, we are sure to lose the general election against George W. Bush. Instead, we should promote a young, Southern, governer. The first and third facts are critical; the second is helpful. What we don't need are older, well-to-do, Northeastern WASP liberals, like Howard Dean (son of a well-to-do family, governor of a tiny extremist state) and John Kerry (married into ketchup money, Boston liberal).

Instead, I will present Alvin's general theories for winning presidential elections and conclusions.

Support: First let me state Alvin's three theorems for general elections, which come out of both my studies in presidential elections and out of personal observation.

1. The best predictor of the future is history.
2. 30% of the electorate will always vote Democrat, 30% Republican, with the 40% remaining to be fought over.
3. Self-identified centrists/moderates/independents are actually liberals. The real fight is over weak conservatives.

#1: I think this is a general rule of thumb for life, but especially so in politics. A northeasterner has not won the presidency in decades. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 were all non-northeastern, governors of larger states.

Next, say what you like about Bush and Gore, but the general perception was that Bush was a through-and-through Texan (despite his expensive northeastern education) and Gore a stuffy elitist northeasterner (despite hailing from Tennessee). This perception played so poorly in Tennessee that Gore did much worse than normal for a "home state" candidate.

Dean, the frontrunner, is a governor, that's true, but a governor of a tiny, very leftist state. The northeast is in general solidly liberal; the "home state" effect will be completely ineffectual. Clinton brought some geographical spillover into a normally Republican area.

Moreover, Clinton played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist which worked well against the elder, stuffy, arrogant Bush 41. Similarly, Bush 43 played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist, which worked well against the "elder," stuffy, arrogant Gore. Dean and Kerry both come off as stuffy, arrogant northeastererns, i.e. the "My East Coast Ivy League education means I know what's best for you Californians/Texans/Floridians" an image which, I believe, will be exploited by Republicans.

Carter, Reagan, and Bush 43 all parlayed this image into political gain -- American voters like the idea of somebody siding with "the little guy." In Carter's case it was the unassuming "Peanut Farmer from Georgia," and in Reagan's case the "Plainspoken Actor from California." In all three cases the opposition attempted to paint them as stupid and dumb, all of which played poorly to the American public. Americans, in general, don't like other people boasting of their intelligence. Bush 41, as well, tried to portray Clinton as a dumb Arkansas hick, not a Washington insider, which backfired as well.

So, in conclusion (#1!): Be a young, excitable governor, and do not portray the opposition, however justified, as dumb. Dean and Kerry fail miserably at this case.

#2: We can debate numbers, but you get the general idea.

Conclusion #2: Don't try to carry the extremist issues. Dean is easily the most far left of the Democratic candidates, despite what the mass media might try to tell you. It appears that they've resigned themselves to backing Dean, since it looks like he'll win the primary. I believe there's still time, though.

#3 is what, in my opinion, kills the Democratic party. By focusing on "centrists" -- who are really liberals -- what both parties fight over is actually weak liberals. If Democrats win, they don't gain many additional votes, and waste time and energy on voters that would've voted for them anyway. Instead, we should poach weak conservatives, i.e. non-religious Republicans.

Clinton, for example, stole weak conservatives -- he supported gays in the military, but pandered to weak conservatives by instituting a half-hearted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He curried favor by taking a hard line against Iraq (and indeed, bombinb Baghdad) but appeased the liberals by stopping short of an all-out war. Somewhat brilliantly, he took the "moderate" line while letting Hillary carry out the far left issues, like the socialized Hillarycare. In this he got support by association (and some opposition by association), but at the same time, looked far more conciliatory, stealing away weak conservatives.

For all the bluster about Bush 43 (and attempts to paint him as fascist and extreme right-wing), about the worst we can accurately describe him as is center-right. He is not a free-trader (steel tariffs, for example), yet not a protectionist. He proposes tax cuts, but hugely expands government (so much for fiscal conservatism!). At best, merely lukewarm in his religious beliefs. But that last one may be my suspiciousness getting in the way!

Last, the liberation of Iraq is still popular with the American public. This is where I believe, Democrats are doomed. We don't quite realize that the American public links Iraq with national security. Most Americans, after all, still believe Iraqis were the ones who hijacked the planes flown into the WTC. Even more, the relentless media pounding of how much the rebuildling of Iraq is going to cost only strengthens the idea that invading Iraq was not about oil (it appears we'll need a lot of it to break even) and instead, a humanitarian effort. The American public likes these kinds of "morally uplifting" stories. Anti-war stances are only detrimental to poaching weak conservatives.

Conclusion #3: It's easier to choose a different candidate (or at least, moderate his/her agenda) than change the American public. Attack weak conservatives, and only brush over so-called "centrists."

So what do these three conclusions tell us? Well, either we need to select a new candidate (please tell me that Dean and Kerry are not the best we have to offer), or throw our support behind John Edwards (not a governor), or Joe Lieberman (pro-liberation, Jewish, but older and from CT). Even with the last two, I still think they'll lose against Bush.

I look forward to suggestions and criticisms. I apologize for the length -- I've cut it down from it's original size by more than half, and it's still excessive!

-- Alvin

Darkblack · 08-22-2003, 10:23 AM

I will be voting for Dean. It is about time a Democrat actually acted like a democrat and not a weak republican. We need to get out of this mentality that a Southern has to run the country. I think he will do a great job and has a good chance of winning.

I also don't think Nader will pull the Votes he did last time. I think a lot of people learned their lesson.

mml · 08-22-2003, 10:56 AM

I appreciate the thought and time you put into your post. I tend to agree with much of what you said and I find it disheartening. However, I agree with Darkblack that Nader will not pull as many votes as last time so it really becomes a numbers game. The Democrats do not have a "sure thing" or even someone close to a "sure thing" to even win the nomination let alone the election so the party must find a way to envigorate the electorate. If it is not with the ideal candidate it must be on the failures and foibles of the current administration.

Right now, the candidate who is doing this the best and envigorating voters the most is Dean. I am not a Dean fan, but whoever the candidate is could learn a little from him, in that to get voters motivated to come out they are going to have to want Bush out. It may have to be an ugly campaign, but let's be honest we have some real ugly ducklings to work with. Let's hope one grows into a swan.

archer2371 · 08-22-2003, 11:14 AM

Wow Alvin, that's a pretty darn good assesment of how the election will go. You're probably right on those situations, but anything can happen. I laud your efforts of not falling into the rhetoric that can sometimes plague the Tilted Politics board. Good job man.

onetime2 · 08-22-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rgr22j
Most Americans, after all, still believe Iraqis were the ones who hijacked the planes flown into the WTC.

-- Alvin

Overall, I think a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. I disagree with some points but agree with your assessment of the current crop of challengers. Any strategy that gives serious weight to the above quote is way off base, however. Even if it were true (which I doubt) it is certainly not true of the section of the population that actually votes.

America likes:

the underdog

lineage (perhaps some ingrained love of being ruled? I don't know)

basic concepts

The war on terrorism is a basic concept to America. "We" are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys. The President will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to naming who "they" are.

The economy is still a big weak point with Bush. Even though I know a President has little direct influence over the economy, the American people believe in responsibility for things under a leader's watch and there needs to be somone at fault for bad things.

Personal attacks against Bush will not work. They didn't work with Clinton and there was a heck of a lot more ammunition. Bush still is not a great communicator, a similar strategy to the one that ousted his father may work if he falls into the trap of not coming across as sympathetic on a key issue (gonna be difficult though because Clinton reinforced in the current crop of politicos from both parties that almost everything is forgivable if you're sympathetic).

Your candidate needs to have a nationally recognized name (most of the current candidates do not have that) and a lineage of success. Whether it be political, corporate (don't forget how well liked Steve Forbes was by Americans), or even from the entertainment field (Arnold is popular even though he doesn't seem to stand for anything). Americans love successful people.

Bush is at least somewhat vulnerable but only to a good candidate with a great election team.

Nad Adam · 08-22-2003, 11:39 AM

Is it legal for an american presidential candidate to recive finacial support from outside of the country? I'll put in 50€ on anyone who has even a chance of beating Bush.

The_Dude · 08-22-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nad Adam
Is it legal for an american presidential candidate to recive finacial support from outside of the country? I'll put in 50€ on anyone who has even a chance of beating Bush.

dont think you can do that.

but you can try to donate to a PAC (i dont know if this is legal, but i'm thinking this is)

back to the thread.

i really dont give a damn who wins the primary, as long as they can beat gwb in the general elections. right now, i'm a howard dean supporter. this is the primary season, which means that the candidates have to appeal to the extremists in the party (mostly extremists vote in primaries).

i think dean will tone down his platform once the primary season is over (that's considering he wins the primary

).

also, as you mentioned, he has the media backing him. this could be very very useful in the states that could go either way. media could scrutinize on what a pathetic job bush is doing is domestic and international affairs and that should push the states to vote democrat.

a lot of voters are retrospective and i'm assuming that they didnt have the time of their lives under gwb, which is another thing going for the dem's. unless bush gets extremely lucky and hit the jackpot on the economy, a lot of unemployed and dissatisfied people are gonna switch camps.

the war in iraq.

looks like we'll be there for a while now (years?) and we're losing soldiers at the rate of 1/day and the bombings and the sabotages continue. this is not what the american people want. if the death rate of US soldiers in iraq continue, the public might rethink their support for the war.

any, that's my rant.

Nizzle · 08-22-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Any strategy that gives serious weight to the above quote is way off base, however. Even if it were true (which I doubt) it is certainly not true of the section of the population that actually votes.

On the contrary, search the Internet for the Knight Ridder poll taken in February. A bleak number of Americans interviewed (17%) knew that Iraq was not involved in the bombing of the WTC. Almost all Americans interviewed expressed an understanding that Iraq and Al Queda were linked.

Quote:

The Knight Ridder survey appears to reveal a quite different reality. Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi; another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.

"Please try to answer my next questions about Iraq to the best of your
knowledge. But if you're not sure of an answer, that's okay -- just tell
me and I'll go to the next question. Do you think Iraq and Al Queda --
Osama bin Laden's organization -- are allied and working together to
plan new acts of terrorism, or not?"

Are allied 65%
Are not 16%
Don't know 19%

.
"As far as you know, how many of the September 11th terrorist
hijackers were Iraqi citizens: most of them, some of them, just one, or
none?"

Most of them 21%
Some of them 23%
Just one 6%
None 17%
Don't know 33 %

Of course, it's just a poll. But it's still disturbing.

The_Dude · 08-22-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

The most recent European poll on attitudes toward Bush, done by the YouGov organization for the Sunday Times of London last weekend, found an equal number - 45 percent - regarded Bush and Saddam as the "greatest threat to world peace." Last month, a poll by Germany's independent Forsa polling agency found much the same: 38 percent thought Saddam was the greatest threat; 37 percent picked Bush.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...in/5253315.htm

europeans are so much smarter than us!

rgr22j · 08-22-2003, 12:32 PM

Thanks for all the replies -- I was a bit apprehensive about sticking my neck out but so far everyone has proven me wrong!

The point about Nader not receiving as many votes is well taken -- I was probably wrong about making the assumption (actually, I'd assumed he would be insignificant, but I didn't want to offend Nader supporters!). I do think that more voters will want their vote "to count" (ah, the two-party system) and will shy away from voting for Nader (who they really want) and instead against Bush ("good enough"). So I should probably drop that assumption.

Quote:

(onetime2) Any strategy that gives serious weight to the above quote is way off base, however. Even if it were true (which I doubt) it is certainly not true of the section of the population that actually votes.

I totally agree with the first sentence -- I didn't mean to imply that a candidate should base strategy on misinformation (what a campaign strategy, eh?). If I can dig up the poll I'll send it along.

What I mean is that the American public still links Iraq with national security issues. I think there's the idea out there that we invaded Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda hid out there, which is "close enough" for me. But improbably, instead of pressuring Saudi Arabia next (where most of the hijackers came from), we went into Iraq. Now, in general, Iraq is better off without Saddam. But the idea that Iraq is next after Afghanistan -- presuming that we're fighting terrorism -- is a non-sequitur. The general perception, though, has become blurred, so that the American public believes that Iraq had a major hand in 911. So while we know that's almost certainly not true (maybe a little tiny financial boost, at best), I think that running on an anti-war, purely anti-Bush platform is a recipe for disaster. We want to be the party of solutions, not of carping.

Before the pro-war guys jump on me, though -- I think the liberation of Iraq was right, and a good thing. I believe we'll find evidence of WMD someday. But it's a bit enraging that there's this double standard applied to Saudi Arabia, who we haven't laid a finger on, but was much more involved in 911 than Iraq. It's fine to go into Iraq on humanitarian terms, a la Bosnia and Kosovo, but the momentum of retaliation, i.e. the support of the war against Afghanistan, should have been directed at Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

But that's way off on a tangent, sorry about that. I agree that personal attacks on Bush won't work. Look what happened to the lunatic Clinton-hating wing of the GOP -- they squandered all the political advantage of sweeping into the House after the Contract With America and got Newt booted. Just recently, the Bush-hating on the Democratic left opened the gates for "moderate" Republicans to win big in the midterm elections. Instead, the proper issue is to hit hard on the economy and propose alternative solutions -- not just to bash Bush. Focus on domestic issues -- where Democrats typically poll stronger -- and away from foreign policy, where Republicans typically win. Yes, the president doesn't have much to do with the economy, but again, in one of those quirks of democracies (and sports, and the military, etc.), if the team is doing badly, the president/coach/general is the first to go. Thus focusing on the economy hurts Bush personally, without looking like one is purely vindictive anti-Bush.

I guess I'm just afraid that Dean's popularity springs from the fact that he's the most anti-Bush, and that, I think, is a mightly narrow platform to run on. I agree that he's the most dynamic and invigorating. However, I think Dean pulls too far to the left to draw in that 21% of swing voters needed to win a general election. If he does win, the running mate will be critical.

-- Alvin

Nizzle · 08-22-2003, 12:38 PM

It is true that the majority of Americans are misinformed about Middle East specifics. To be blunt, "all them Arabs look the same to me" is what it comes down to.

It will be a grave mistake for the Democratic party to grind this point in. People do not like to be told they are ignorant. Ignorance is generally a willful act, unfortunately.

I also think it will be a mistake for the Democratic party to base any portion of their campaign on debasing Bush and his handling of foreign affairs. The Democratic party needs to shift the focus onto what is really important right now, but everyone has lost sight of -- our growing economic concerns, our failing social security and health coverage, and civil liberties that are rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of so-called Homeland Security.

mml · 08-22-2003, 01:11 PM

It may really be too premature to determine what a winning strategy will be. I think it will depend on where the economy is, what is happening in Iraq and Afganistan and obviously who the candidate for the Democrats is. Clearly Leiberman is not going to be a "fire and brimstone - go out and condemn Bush" kind of guy whereas Dean might be effective doing that. My earlier comments about the campaign being ugly refer to the fact that the Democrats can win if they can turn out the numbers. If their candidate can't do that in and of himself then you have to find another way. Frankly, if the candidate is just "Bush Light" and doesn't show clear differences, many voters just won't care.

It certainly will be interesting and so is this thread - some well thought out points by just about everyone.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-22-2003, 02:14 PM

As a republican I like Kerry, he has military experience, and seems to have a decent head on his shoulders. Dean scares me, God help this country if he gets elected.

The_Dude · 08-22-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
As a republican I like Kerry, he has military experience, and seems to have a decent head on his shoulders. Dean scares me, God help this country if he gets elected.

now u know what i go thru EVERY DAY!

onetime2 · 08-22-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
On the contrary, search the Internet for the Knight Ridder poll taken in February. A bleak number of Americans interviewed (17%) knew that Iraq was not involved in the bombing of the WTC. Almost all Americans interviewed expressed an understanding that Iraq and Al Queda were linked.

Of course, it's just a poll. But it's still disturbing.

The last sentence is important and the important part of my post about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 was that the majority of those who will actually go out and vote know that it wasn't Iraqis that were on the planes.

As far as other's posts about Saudi Arabia, we could barely get some international support to go into Iraq, no way in hell could we have gone into Saudi Arabia. Going into Iraq is a strategy that will destabilize Saudi Arabia (if we can create a successful democracy there). Sometimes the war is won not on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of the people.

Nizzle · 08-23-2003, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The last sentence is important and the important part of my post about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 was that the majority of those who will actually go out and vote know that it wasn't Iraqis that were on the planes.

Were it only true. Voter turnout for the 2000 Presidential election was 51.3%. That's shockingly low, but actually up from about 49% in 1996.

Considering that less than 20% of people surveyed were able to distinguish Iraq from Al Qaeda, I think the numbers speak for themself. If all 50% of eligible Americans that won't be voting belonged to the group of Americans who couldn't distinguish Iraq from Al Qaeda (83%!), that leaves 33% still voting who don't understand what is going on. That's a pretty alarming figure.

vermin · 08-23-2003, 03:19 AM

Quote:

...John Kerry (married into ketchup money...

Thought this was very funny.

Quote:

3. Self-identified centrists/moderates/independents are actually liberals.

I disagree with this assumption. I think most centrists lean away from liberal ideals (want less government involvement in their lives, don't like massive tax increases) but are put off by the way Republicans are portrayed as pro-corporate fat cat, anti-environment, religious exteremists in the (very liberal) press.

Just an opinion.

smooth · 08-23-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vermin
Thought this was very funny[...]in the (very liberal) press.

Just an opinion.

This never ceases to amaze me so I have to ask: what would a conservative press actually look like?

I mean, if we don't have one now, what would indicate to you that it was conservative if it were to become so?

onetime2 · 08-23-2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
Were it only true. Voter turnout for the 2000 Presidential election was 51.3%. That's shockingly low, but actually up from about 49% in 1996.

Considering that less than 20% of people surveyed were able to distinguish Iraq from Al Qaeda, I think the numbers speak for themself. If all 50% of eligible Americans that won't be voting belonged to the group of Americans who couldn't distinguish Iraq from Al Qaeda (83%!), that leaves 33% still voting who don't understand what is going on. That's a pretty alarming figure.

That only counts registered voters. Try adding in those that could be registered but choose not to be. 105 million turned out with 205,000,000 residents over the age of 18 (granted not all can vote but most could if they wanted to).

Nizzle · 08-23-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
That only counts registered voters. Try adding in those that could be registered but choose not to be. 105 million turned out with 205,000,000 residents over the age of 18 (granted not all can vote but most could if they wanted to).

76% of the Voting Age Population was registered to vote, and only about 60% of them showed up.

The Knight Ridder poll presumably did not take into account registration status. If only 17% of the total VAP understands the basics of the Middle East events, that means only 34,850,000 do. Even if every single one of these people showed up at the polls, they would make up only 33% of the turnout.

My point is that with such vast ignorance, the end result is your voting majority are going to reflect this ignorance.

Here are the '00 voter turnout statistics, for anyone who wants to challenge my math.

Quote:

2000 vap: 205,815,000
2000 reg: 156,421,311
% reg of vap: 76
turnout: 105,586,274
% to reg: 67.5
% to vap: 51.3

onetime2 · 08-23-2003, 04:49 PM

Nizzle,

Would you happen to have the method of polling used by Knight Ridder in that poll? And the exact wording of the questions used?

Not that I'm defending the ignorance of the American people (far too many people are underinformed on subjects where information is readily available), but the wording of the polls and the analysis after the fact often leave much to be desired.

For example, the terminology around most Americans believing that Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked leaves quite a bit of wiggle room. Did they all believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime were one in the same? Are some of those believing that they are linked informed of the differences but still of the belief that they are linked even though there is no definitive evidence? Do they consider them linked because they are looking at it from an overall "War on Terror" perspective?

The key point is that Iraq and the war on terror are not (at this time) a winning issue as far as the next election goes.

Nizzle · 08-23-2003, 05:03 PM

I'm not claiming the poll statistics are valid, just contesting the logic that they don't matter because they don't vote. If the numbers from the poll accurately represent what Americans of voting age believe, then they could make up 66% of the projected voter turnout in 2004. It's just this math I want to make sure we have clear.

The poll itself is from the reputable Princeton Survey Group, and is of about 1,200 Americans of VAP.

Statistics like this are useful but can't be relied upon as fact. All it means is that of the 1,200 people they talked to, 83% of them were muddled about the Middle Eastern conflict.

It's up to those who consume these statistics to use them responsibly.

smooth · 08-23-2003, 05:48 PM

Nizzle,

We can assume that their survey was of a representative sample. That would mean that 83% of the population studied is muddled within a certain margin of error (whatever they stated it to be).

Nizzle · 08-23-2003, 06:27 PM

The margin of error was stated as 3-6%.

The survey is widely available on the Internet if anyone is interested in the details. There were other questions asked that I did not feel were relevant to the discussion.

edit: fixed typo

rgr22j · 08-24-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vermin
I disagree with this assumption. I think most centrists lean away from liberal ideals (want less government involvement in their lives, don't like massive tax increases) but are put off by the way Republicans are portrayed as pro-corporate fat cat, anti-environment, religious exteremists in the (very liberal) press.

Just an opinion.

You might be right -- I admit it's my one of more shaky theorems (as if any are solid!), but in my experience self-identified centrists typically vote Democrat. So perhaps the assumption that they are liberals is incorrect, and I should say that they tend to vote Democrat (rather than be liberal). But I think my basic points still stand, that 1) there are very few "true" centrists -- those that do typically try to portray themselves as "above" partisan politics, and 2) this does the Democratic party a disfavor, as they expend a massive amount of resources trying to capture the vote of "centrists" that would have voted for them anyway.

-- Alvin

JBX · 08-24-2003, 04:06 PM

Boy, we need a viable 3rd party.

onetime2 · 08-24-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JBX
Boy, we need a viable 3rd party.

God I wish there was. And so long as we're dreaming, imagine not needing to have a war chest the size of a small city's economy to run for national office.

mml · 08-25-2003, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JBX
Boy, we need a viable 3rd party.

Probably not going to happen any time soon. The real solution is to get involved. Whether you like him or not, Bill Clinton saw a Democratic party that did not match up with his and many others needs and beliefs. He got involved and helped to change the Democratic party, moving it more to the center where his beliefs were(I am sure many will disagree with the center statement).

The two party system creates a stronger governement, by limiting the number of coalitions that need to be built in order to effectively govern. In many multi-party systems, smaller often fringe groups gain a great deal of power that does not represent the majortiy of citizens. So don't bitch about your party, get out there and help change it.

Scipio · 08-25-2003, 03:44 PM

If there was a third party, they would only end up screwing their own ideological tilt. That is, if they can even manage to do anything at all.

There are two ways it could happen. One, if it were broad based, it would have no real importance, but it would shift the national vote in one way or the other. A third party could also have some small amount of success by having a strong regional base. There's no reason to think this might happen, but they could at least win a few electorals for their man, and send some legislators to DC.

Johnny Rotten · 08-25-2003, 09:07 PM

I personally think Gore is the best Demo option, if only because he is a nationally-recognized figure who hasn't had any screw ups that are still fresh in people's minds. He had some ties with tobacco lobbyists, which may be natural considering his home state, but still. People know him, his record is pretty clean, and he doesn't look confused when he talks. Kerry and Dean are question marks in the minds of my fellow West Coasters.

guthmund · 08-26-2003, 08:44 PM

That was a very well informed opinionated post, rgr22j. It's nice to get some viable discussion on the politics board every once in a while.

You're absolutely right about Howard Dean. Anti-Bush campaigning is only going to get him so far....on the other hand, he's hitting a cord among the people.

I've watched him on the shows and read some of his speeches and right now, he seems like the most viable Democrat out there. If the economy continues to go down the shitter or recover very very slow and if this prolonged military venture drags it's feet anymore than I think we're all going to see just how far Dean can run on his Anti-Bush platform.

Gore would be a nice stable choice for the nomination, but as he isn't running and if none of the other Democrat candidates seperate themselves from the rank and file, I think Dean is the nominee.

And with Dean as the hopeful, I just don't think he's got enough rocks in his basket to bring down President Bush.

It's certainly shaping up to be an interesting election.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-26-2003, 09:12 PM

Do the Dem's have debates pre-primary's? Because that looks like it could be Dean's weak point, he got his ass handed to him on meet the press.

Another thing that just came to my mind was the Minnesota Govenor's election of 98' when Jesse ran. He let the other two parties go out it and sling all the mud, he cleaned house in the election. Now not saying it will be the same case in 04', but if all the Dem's can do is talk shit to Bush do you think that'll hurt them?

smooth · 08-26-2003, 10:53 PM

Did you watch Meet the Press?

I know that FOX commentators are claiming he stumbled all over the place but I actually saw it and I don't know what those people are talking about.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-26-2003, 11:10 PM

I saw it, he did seem a little uninformed on a few issues, most importantly foreign policy issues.

smooth · 08-26-2003, 11:35 PM

Well I still don't know which issues you are referring to; perhaps you could list the points he missed that you felt he should have known so we can discuss them.

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-26-2003, 11:39 PM

If memory serves it was specifics on the Afganistan/Iraq troop involvements, stuff of that nature, thats all that really stood out.. hehe I am seeing if they got it on kazaa.

smooth · 08-26-2003, 11:43 PM

Let me help you out--Go here to read the entire transcript (apologies for the length):

Transcript for June 22
Guest: Former Governor Howard Dean, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender
Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO ?NBC NEWS? MEET THE PRESS.?
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, June 22, 2003
GUEST: Former Governor HOWARD DEAN, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News
This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
In case of doubt, please check with MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS (202)885-4598 (Sundays: (202)885-4200)
Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, June 22, 2003

[snip]
Russert: And we are back, talking to Governor Howard Dean. Texas Democrat Martin Frost said the other day, "We need a candidate who is credible on national security. I think Howard Dean has the appearance of being another McGovern." Worried about your national security experience and views. The headlines: "Foes Warn Of Dean Debacle; Will Dean '04 Be A Disaster For Hill Democrats?" And they talked...they point to comments like this, Governor, and I'll show you and our viewers, from April. "We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military." Do you, as a potential commander in chief, really believe that the United States will not always have the strongest military?

Dean: What I said was, if we don't begin to use diplomacy as part of our foreign policy, we won't always have the strongest military. And that's absolutely true. And there have been many other people who know a great deal about national security, including President Clinton, who have said that's true. We have got to take on a different posture in the world where we don't simply push everybody aside who disagrees with us without trying to actually accomplish some things through diplomatic means.

Russert: But we will always have the strongest military under President Dean.

Dean: Oh, under President Dean, we certainly will always have the strongest military, because this is a long-term phenomenon, not a short-term phenomenon. In foreign affairs, there's a phenomenon called encirclement, where...and it's a historical phenomenon. A single, very great power with no obvious rivals in the world who exercises that power unilaterally and in contempt of other countries will result in the formation of an alliance of other second-tier powers to contain the power of that great military power. That's exactly what I was talking about in that quote, and that's absolutely true. It will happen over a period of years. Should I become president...

Russert: It will happen? We will have a secondary military power?

Dean: If we continue following George Bush's military policy and defense policy, will become a secondary military power. Under President Dean, that won't happen for two reasons. First of all, it's a long-term phenomenon. And secondly I will begin to set us on a path where cooperation as part of our foreign relations and our diplomatic policy. This president has essentially pushed aside people who disagree with him, using our military might, and using threats and intimidation. In the long run, that does not work.

Russert: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

Dean: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that we're one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than they're getting.

Russert: But how many troops...how many men and women do we now have on active duty?

Dean: I can't tell you the answer to that either. It's...

Russert: But as commander in chief, you should now that.

Dean: As someone who's running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary.

Russert: How many troops would have in Iraq?

Dean: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I can't tell you exactly how many it takes. General Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000. Maybe that's the right attitude. Tim, you have to understand, and I know you do understand, that as you run a campaign and as you acquire the nomination and as you go on to be president, you acquire military advisers who will tell you these things. And, no, I don't have a military background. Neither did Bill Clinton. George Bush had a National Guard background. Ronald Reagan did not have a military background. I will have the kinds of people around me who can tell me these things. For me to have to know right now, participating in the Democratic Party, how many troops are actively on duty in the United States military when that is actually a number that's composed both of people on duty today and people who are National Guard people who are on duty today, it's silly. That's like asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is.

Russert: Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not if you want to be commander in chief. But we now have 9,000 troops...

Dean: So your perception...your position is that I need to know exactly how many people are on duty today in the active military forces...

Russert: Well, have a sense...

Dean: ...six months away from the first primary?

Russert: If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military.

Dean: I do have a sense of the military.

Russert: ...of how many people roughly...

Dean: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we don't have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops, and I'm prepared to assume the burden and have the proper people around me advising me on what needs to be done.

Russert: All right, Afghanistan, we have 9,000. You would bring it up to what level?

Dean: Well, I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They don't all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops. They don't all have to be American because we have got to start taking over the security functions from the warlords in order to prepare the way for a unified Afghan police force that's a national police force.

Russert: There is concern about your awareness and positions on national security. You must acknowledge that.

Dean: Sure there are. Because just like President Reagan, President Clinton, and President Bush, I do not have extensive experience in national security.

[snip]

edit: that was way too fucking long so I erased the issues you didn't bring up.

smooth · 08-26-2003, 11:43 PM

You can read a rebuttal here .

[snip]

"People who saw the show or read the transcript might well ask: What was the big deal?

The New York Times and The Washington Post pulled out the following "embarrassing" details: Russert quizzed Dean on the exact number of U.S. military personnel on active duty. Dean said there were between one and two million. The correct number is, in fact, right in the middle-1.4 million. Russert asked Dean how many troops are currently stationed in Iraq (a constantly fluctuating number). Dean said it was "in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops." The number is really 146,000, the Times pointed out.

How would President Bush do on a similar pop quiz? My guess is our current commander in chief couldn't answer those questions. But Russert made a big deal of Dean's failure to produce the precise figures from memory.

[snip]

What's really going on here?

Certainly Tim Russert has a reputation for being a tough interviewer, and for not letting anyone off the hook.

But as comedian and media gadfly Bob Sommerby pointed out on his website The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com), Russert's treatment of another governor who was running for President was completely different. In his first interview with candidate George W. Bush in 1999, Russert actually supplied some numbers:

Russert: "In your speech, you said that arms reductions are not our most pressing challenge. Right now, we have 7,200 nuclear weapons; the Russians have 6,000. What to you is an acceptable level?"

Bush: "That's going to depend upon the generals helping me make that decision, Tim. That's going to depend upon the people whose judgment I will rely upon to make sure that we have a peaceful world."

But if it was OK for Bush to fob off detailed policy discussions on a future team of advisers, for Dean the rules were different.

Before his combative interview with Dean, Russert went to Bush Administration officials at the Treasury Department to ask for budget data to attack Dean's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts. Predictably, the Administration generated figures that showed a reversal of Bush tax policy would be a disaster for middle class Americans.

Parroting the Bush line, Russert challenged Dean: "Can you honestly go across the country and say, "I'm going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent [for married couples with two children] or 107 percent [for married retirees] and be elected?"

Dean stuck to his guns. "Were those figures from the Treasury Department, did you say, or CBO [the Congressional Budget Office]?" he asked. "I don't believe them."

Russert persisted: "But in the middle of an economic downturn, Howard Dean wants to raise taxes on the average of $1,200 per family."

Dean was vindicated the next day. In a short piece on June 23, The Washington Post noted the release of the Treasury Department report, calling it "a highly selective analysis of the cost to families of rolling back scheduled tax cuts" and quoting a Brookings Institution economist who poked holes in the figures. "The research was prepared at the request of Meet the Press," the Post noted, adding: "The analysis does not include single people or lower income couples, two groups that benefit little from Bush's cuts."

[snip]

mml · 08-27-2003, 09:41 AM

I missed that interview Smooth, thanks for the info. While Gov. Dean is not my ideal candidate, he really is getting a raw deal. His point about not having exact figures in right on the money. I am sure that if you go back throughout Dem. and Rep. primary races, very few would know those numbers and obviously President Bush did not know similar facts during his run.

Thanks again

SkanK0r · 09-01-2003, 12:23 AM

I don't know much about any of the democratic candidates, but based on that interview, I think I can agree with mml - the questions asked were specifics about numbers of troops, and I don't see that as particularly pressing. If the interviewer asked him "What is your plan for Iraq?" and he faltered, I would see that as a problem. But quizzing him with "How many fingers am I holding up?"-style questions isn't really fair if it's done to make him look like a fool.

08-22-2003, 09:50 AM	#1 (permalink)
rgr22j Crazy	Our liberal recipe for disaster My first "new thread," so I'm sorry if I inadvertantly do anything wrong! I thought the subject would grab some attention, so I'll clarify a few things first, so we can get on to the discussion! First, this is a post about the Democratic candidates for the 2004 election, not about how liberals do this or conservatives do that. Second, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a liberal. Third, my post will follow the following structure : assumptions, hypothesis, and support. Last, and most importantly, I apologize in advance for any offense that might be taken from my post. I mean only to start a discussion and nothing more! Assumptions: Let us assume that George W. Bush will be the Republican candidate for president, and Ralph Nader will receive approximately the same percentage of votes he did in the last election. Let us also assume that there will be no new issues (new terrorist attack, for example) that may change everything. Hypothesis: If Howard Dean or John Kerry win the Democratic primary, we are sure to lose the general election against George W. Bush. Instead, we should promote a young, Southern, governer. The first and third facts are critical; the second is helpful. What we don't need are older, well-to-do, Northeastern WASP liberals, like Howard Dean (son of a well-to-do family, governor of a tiny extremist state) and John Kerry (married into ketchup money, Boston liberal). Instead, I will present Alvin's general theories for winning presidential elections and conclusions. Support: First let me state Alvin's three theorems for general elections, which come out of both my studies in presidential elections and out of personal observation. 1. The best predictor of the future is history. 2. 30% of the electorate will always vote Democrat, 30% Republican, with the 40% remaining to be fought over. 3. Self-identified centrists/moderates/independents are actually liberals. The real fight is over weak conservatives. #1: I think this is a general rule of thumb for life, but especially so in politics. A northeasterner has not won the presidency in decades. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 were all non-northeastern, governors of larger states. Next, say what you like about Bush and Gore, but the general perception was that Bush was a through-and-through Texan (despite his expensive northeastern education) and Gore a stuffy elitist northeasterner (despite hailing from Tennessee). This perception played so poorly in Tennessee that Gore did much worse than normal for a "home state" candidate. Dean, the frontrunner, is a governor, that's true, but a governor of a tiny, very leftist state. The northeast is in general solidly liberal; the "home state" effect will be completely ineffectual. Clinton brought some geographical spillover into a normally Republican area. Moreover, Clinton played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist which worked well against the elder, stuffy, arrogant Bush 41. Similarly, Bush 43 played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist, which worked well against the "elder," stuffy, arrogant Gore. Dean and Kerry both come off as stuffy, arrogant northeastererns, i.e. the "My East Coast Ivy League education means I know what's best for you Californians/Texans/Floridians" an image which, I believe, will be exploited by Republicans. Carter, Reagan, and Bush 43 all parlayed this image into political gain -- American voters like the idea of somebody siding with "the little guy." In Carter's case it was the unassuming "Peanut Farmer from Georgia," and in Reagan's case the "Plainspoken Actor from California." In all three cases the opposition attempted to paint them as stupid and dumb, all of which played poorly to the American public. Americans, in general, don't like other people boasting of their intelligence. Bush 41, as well, tried to portray Clinton as a dumb Arkansas hick, not a Washington insider, which backfired as well. So, in conclusion (#1!): Be a young, excitable governor, and do not portray the opposition, however justified, as dumb. Dean and Kerry fail miserably at this case. #2: We can debate numbers, but you get the general idea. Conclusion #2: Don't try to carry the extremist issues. Dean is easily the most far left of the Democratic candidates, despite what the mass media might try to tell you. It appears that they've resigned themselves to backing Dean, since it looks like he'll win the primary. I believe there's still time, though. #3 is what, in my opinion, kills the Democratic party. By focusing on "centrists" -- who are really liberals -- what both parties fight over is actually weak liberals. If Democrats win, they don't gain many additional votes, and waste time and energy on voters that would've voted for them anyway. Instead, we should poach weak conservatives, i.e. non-religious Republicans. Clinton, for example, stole weak conservatives -- he supported gays in the military, but pandered to weak conservatives by instituting a half-hearted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He curried favor by taking a hard line against Iraq (and indeed, bombinb Baghdad) but appeased the liberals by stopping short of an all-out war. Somewhat brilliantly, he took the "moderate" line while letting Hillary carry out the far left issues, like the socialized Hillarycare. In this he got support by association (and some opposition by association), but at the same time, looked far more conciliatory, stealing away weak conservatives. For all the bluster about Bush 43 (and attempts to paint him as fascist and extreme right-wing), about the worst we can accurately describe him as is center-right. He is not a free-trader (steel tariffs, for example), yet not a protectionist. He proposes tax cuts, but hugely expands government (so much for fiscal conservatism!). At best, merely lukewarm in his religious beliefs. But that last one may be my suspiciousness getting in the way! Last, the liberation of Iraq is still popular with the American public. This is where I believe, Democrats are doomed. We don't quite realize that the American public links Iraq with national security. Most Americans, after all, still believe Iraqis were the ones who hijacked the planes flown into the WTC. Even more, the relentless media pounding of how much the rebuildling of Iraq is going to cost only strengthens the idea that invading Iraq was not about oil (it appears we'll need a lot of it to break even) and instead, a humanitarian effort. The American public likes these kinds of "morally uplifting" stories. Anti-war stances are only detrimental to poaching weak conservatives. Conclusion #3: It's easier to choose a different candidate (or at least, moderate his/her agenda) than change the American public. Attack weak conservatives, and only brush over so-called "centrists." So what do these three conclusions tell us? Well, either we need to select a new candidate (please tell me that Dean and Kerry are not the best we have to offer), or throw our support behind John Edwards (not a governor), or Joe Lieberman (pro-liberation, Jewish, but older and from CT). Even with the last two, I still think they'll lose against Bush. I look forward to suggestions and criticisms. I apologize for the length -- I've cut it down from it's original size by more than half, and it's still excessive! -- Alvin

08-22-2003, 10:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I appreciate the thought and time you put into your post. I tend to agree with much of what you said and I find it disheartening. However, I agree with Darkblack that Nader will not pull as many votes as last time so it really becomes a numbers game. The Democrats do not have a "sure thing" or even someone close to a "sure thing" to even win the nomination let alone the election so the party must find a way to envigorate the electorate. If it is not with the ideal candidate it must be on the failures and foibles of the current administration. Right now, the candidate who is doing this the best and envigorating voters the most is Dean. I am not a Dean fan, but whoever the candidate is could learn a little from him, in that to get voters motivated to come out they are going to have to want Bush out. It may have to be an ugly campaign, but let's be honest we have some real ugly ducklings to work with. Let's hope one grows into a swan. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

08-22-2003, 11:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Wow Alvin, that's a pretty darn good assesment of how the election will go. You're probably right on those situations, but anything can happen. I laud your efforts of not falling into the rhetoric that can sometimes plague the Tilted Politics board. Good job man. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-22-2003, 11:39 AM	#6 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	Is it legal for an american presidential candidate to recive finacial support from outside of the country? I'll put in 50€ on anyone who has even a chance of beating Bush. __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

08-22-2003, 12:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	It is true that the majority of Americans are misinformed about Middle East specifics. To be blunt, "all them Arabs look the same to me" is what it comes down to. It will be a grave mistake for the Democratic party to grind this point in. People do not like to be told they are ignorant. Ignorance is generally a willful act, unfortunately. I also think it will be a mistake for the Democratic party to base any portion of their campaign on debasing Bush and his handling of foreign affairs. The Democratic party needs to shift the focus onto what is really important right now, but everyone has lost sight of -- our growing economic concerns, our failing social security and health coverage, and civil liberties that are rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of so-called Homeland Security. __________________ Nizzle

08-22-2003, 10:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	I will be voting for Dean. It is about time a Democrat actually acted like a democrat and not a weak republican. We need to get out of this mentality that a Southern has to run the country. I think he will do a great job and has a good chance of winning. I also don't think Nader will pull the Votes he did last time. I think a lot of people learned their lesson.

08-22-2003, 01:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	It may really be too premature to determine what a winning strategy will be. I think it will depend on where the economy is, what is happening in Iraq and Afganistan and obviously who the candidate for the Democrats is. Clearly Leiberman is not going to be a "fire and brimstone - go out and condemn Bush" kind of guy whereas Dean might be effective doing that. My earlier comments about the campaign being ugly refer to the fact that the Democrats can win if they can turn out the numbers. If their candidate can't do that in and of himself then you have to find another way. Frankly, if the candidate is just "Bush Light" and doesn't show clear differences, many voters just won't care. It certainly will be interesting and so is this thread - some well thought out points by just about everyone. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

08-22-2003, 02:14 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	As a republican I like Kerry, he has military experience, and seems to have a decent head on his shoulders. Dean scares me, God help this country if he gets elected. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-23-2003, 04:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Nizzle, Would you happen to have the method of polling used by Knight Ridder in that poll? And the exact wording of the questions used? Not that I'm defending the ignorance of the American people (far too many people are underinformed on subjects where information is readily available), but the wording of the polls and the analysis after the fact often leave much to be desired. For example, the terminology around most Americans believing that Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked leaves quite a bit of wiggle room. Did they all believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime were one in the same? Are some of those believing that they are linked informed of the differences but still of the belief that they are linked even though there is no definitive evidence? Do they consider them linked because they are looking at it from an overall "War on Terror" perspective? The key point is that Iraq and the war on terror are not (at this time) a winning issue as far as the next election goes. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-23-2003, 05:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	I'm not claiming the poll statistics are valid, just contesting the logic that they don't matter because they don't vote. If the numbers from the poll accurately represent what Americans of voting age believe, then they could make up 66% of the projected voter turnout in 2004. It's just this math I want to make sure we have clear. The poll itself is from the reputable Princeton Survey Group, and is of about 1,200 Americans of VAP. Statistics like this are useful but can't be relied upon as fact. All it means is that of the 1,200 people they talked to, 83% of them were muddled about the Middle Eastern conflict. It's up to those who consume these statistics to use them responsibly. __________________ Nizzle

08-23-2003, 05:48 PM	#23 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Nizzle, We can assume that their survey was of a representative sample. That would mean that 83% of the population studied is muddled within a certain margin of error (whatever they stated it to be). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-23-2003, 06:27 PM	#24 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	The margin of error was stated as 3-6%. The survey is widely available on the Internet if anyone is interested in the details. There were other questions asked that I did not feel were relevant to the discussion. edit: fixed typo __________________ Nizzle

08-24-2003, 04:06 PM	#26 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	Boy, we need a viable 3rd party. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

08-25-2003, 03:44 PM	#29 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	If there was a third party, they would only end up screwing their own ideological tilt. That is, if they can even manage to do anything at all. There are two ways it could happen. One, if it were broad based, it would have no real importance, but it would shift the national vote in one way or the other. A third party could also have some small amount of success by having a strong regional base. There's no reason to think this might happen, but they could at least win a few electorals for their man, and send some legislators to DC. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

08-25-2003, 09:07 PM	#30 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	I personally think Gore is the best Demo option, if only because he is a nationally-recognized figure who hasn't had any screw ups that are still fresh in people's minds. He had some ties with tobacco lobbyists, which may be natural considering his home state, but still. People know him, his record is pretty clean, and he doesn't look confused when he talks. Kerry and Dean are question marks in the minds of my fellow West Coasters. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

08-26-2003, 08:44 PM	#31 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	That was a very well informed opinionated post, rgr22j. It's nice to get some viable discussion on the politics board every once in a while. You're absolutely right about Howard Dean. Anti-Bush campaigning is only going to get him so far....on the other hand, he's hitting a cord among the people. I've watched him on the shows and read some of his speeches and right now, he seems like the most viable Democrat out there. If the economy continues to go down the shitter or recover very very slow and if this prolonged military venture drags it's feet anymore than I think we're all going to see just how far Dean can run on his Anti-Bush platform. Gore would be a nice stable choice for the nomination, but as he isn't running and if none of the other Democrat candidates seperate themselves from the rank and file, I think Dean is the nominee. And with Dean as the hopeful, I just don't think he's got enough rocks in his basket to bring down President Bush. It's certainly shaping up to be an interesting election. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

08-26-2003, 09:12 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Do the Dem's have debates pre-primary's? Because that looks like it could be Dean's weak point, he got his ass handed to him on meet the press. Another thing that just came to my mind was the Minnesota Govenor's election of 98' when Jesse ran. He let the other two parties go out it and sling all the mud, he cleaned house in the election. Now not saying it will be the same case in 04', but if all the Dem's can do is talk shit to Bush do you think that'll hurt them? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 08-26-2003 at 09:16 PM..

08-26-2003, 10:53 PM	#33 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Did you watch Meet the Press? I know that FOX commentators are claiming he stumbled all over the place but I actually saw it and I don't know what those people are talking about. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-26-2003, 11:10 PM	#34 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I saw it, he did seem a little uninformed on a few issues, most importantly foreign policy issues. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-26-2003, 11:35 PM	#35 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Well I still don't know which issues you are referring to; perhaps you could list the points he missed that you felt he should have known so we can discuss them. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-26-2003, 11:39 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	If memory serves it was specifics on the Afganistan/Iraq troop involvements, stuff of that nature, thats all that really stood out.. hehe I am seeing if they got it on kazaa. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-26-2003, 11:43 PM	#37 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Let me help you out--Go here to read the entire transcript (apologies for the length): Transcript for June 22 Guest: Former Governor Howard Dean, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO ?NBC NEWS? MEET THE PRESS.? NBC News MEET THE PRESS Sunday, June 22, 2003 GUEST: Former Governor HOWARD DEAN, (D-Vt.) Presidential Contender MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS (202)885-4598 (Sundays: (202)885-4200) Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, June 22, 2003 [snip] Russert: And we are back, talking to Governor Howard Dean. Texas Democrat Martin Frost said the other day, "We need a candidate who is credible on national security. I think Howard Dean has the appearance of being another McGovern." Worried about your national security experience and views. The headlines: "Foes Warn Of Dean Debacle; Will Dean '04 Be A Disaster For Hill Democrats?" And they talked...they point to comments like this, Governor, and I'll show you and our viewers, from April. "We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military." Do you, as a potential commander in chief, really believe that the United States will not always have the strongest military? Dean: What I said was, if we don't begin to use diplomacy as part of our foreign policy, we won't always have the strongest military. And that's absolutely true. And there have been many other people who know a great deal about national security, including President Clinton, who have said that's true. We have got to take on a different posture in the world where we don't simply push everybody aside who disagrees with us without trying to actually accomplish some things through diplomatic means. Russert: But we will always have the strongest military under President Dean. Dean: Oh, under President Dean, we certainly will always have the strongest military, because this is a long-term phenomenon, not a short-term phenomenon. In foreign affairs, there's a phenomenon called encirclement, where...and it's a historical phenomenon. A single, very great power with no obvious rivals in the world who exercises that power unilaterally and in contempt of other countries will result in the formation of an alliance of other second-tier powers to contain the power of that great military power. That's exactly what I was talking about in that quote, and that's absolutely true. It will happen over a period of years. Should I become president... Russert: It will happen? We will have a secondary military power? Dean: If we continue following George Bush's military policy and defense policy, will become a secondary military power. Under President Dean, that won't happen for two reasons. First of all, it's a long-term phenomenon. And secondly I will begin to set us on a path where cooperation as part of our foreign relations and our diplomatic policy. This president has essentially pushed aside people who disagree with him, using our military might, and using threats and intimidation. In the long run, that does not work. Russert: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty? Dean: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that we're one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than they're getting. Russert: But how many troops...how many men and women do we now have on active duty? Dean: I can't tell you the answer to that either. It's... Russert: But as commander in chief, you should now that. Dean: As someone who's running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary. Russert: How many troops would have in Iraq? Dean: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I can't tell you exactly how many it takes. General Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000. Maybe that's the right attitude. Tim, you have to understand, and I know you do understand, that as you run a campaign and as you acquire the nomination and as you go on to be president, you acquire military advisers who will tell you these things. And, no, I don't have a military background. Neither did Bill Clinton. George Bush had a National Guard background. Ronald Reagan did not have a military background. I will have the kinds of people around me who can tell me these things. For me to have to know right now, participating in the Democratic Party, how many troops are actively on duty in the United States military when that is actually a number that's composed both of people on duty today and people who are National Guard people who are on duty today, it's silly. That's like asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is. Russert: Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not if you want to be commander in chief. But we now have 9,000 troops... Dean: So your perception...your position is that I need to know exactly how many people are on duty today in the active military forces... Russert: Well, have a sense... Dean: ...six months away from the first primary? Russert: If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military. Dean: I do have a sense of the military. Russert: ...of how many people roughly... Dean: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we don't have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops, and I'm prepared to assume the burden and have the proper people around me advising me on what needs to be done. Russert: All right, Afghanistan, we have 9,000. You would bring it up to what level? Dean: Well, I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They don't all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops. They don't all have to be American because we have got to start taking over the security functions from the warlords in order to prepare the way for a unified Afghan police force that's a national police force. Russert: There is concern about your awareness and positions on national security. You must acknowledge that. Dean: Sure there are. Because just like President Reagan, President Clinton, and President Bush, I do not have extensive experience in national security. [snip] edit: that was way too fucking long so I erased the issues you didn't bring up. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 08-27-2003 at 12:03 AM..

08-26-2003, 11:43 PM	#38 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	You can read a rebuttal here . [snip] "People who saw the show or read the transcript might well ask: What was the big deal? The New York Times and The Washington Post pulled out the following "embarrassing" details: Russert quizzed Dean on the exact number of U.S. military personnel on active duty. Dean said there were between one and two million. The correct number is, in fact, right in the middle-1.4 million. Russert asked Dean how many troops are currently stationed in Iraq (a constantly fluctuating number). Dean said it was "in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops." The number is really 146,000, the Times pointed out. How would President Bush do on a similar pop quiz? My guess is our current commander in chief couldn't answer those questions. But Russert made a big deal of Dean's failure to produce the precise figures from memory. [snip] What's really going on here? Certainly Tim Russert has a reputation for being a tough interviewer, and for not letting anyone off the hook. But as comedian and media gadfly Bob Sommerby pointed out on his website The Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com), Russert's treatment of another governor who was running for President was completely different. In his first interview with candidate George W. Bush in 1999, Russert actually supplied some numbers: Russert: "In your speech, you said that arms reductions are not our most pressing challenge. Right now, we have 7,200 nuclear weapons; the Russians have 6,000. What to you is an acceptable level?" Bush: "That's going to depend upon the generals helping me make that decision, Tim. That's going to depend upon the people whose judgment I will rely upon to make sure that we have a peaceful world." But if it was OK for Bush to fob off detailed policy discussions on a future team of advisers, for Dean the rules were different. Before his combative interview with Dean, Russert went to Bush Administration officials at the Treasury Department to ask for budget data to attack Dean's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts. Predictably, the Administration generated figures that showed a reversal of Bush tax policy would be a disaster for middle class Americans. Parroting the Bush line, Russert challenged Dean: "Can you honestly go across the country and say, "I'm going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent [for married couples with two children] or 107 percent [for married retirees] and be elected?" Dean stuck to his guns. "Were those figures from the Treasury Department, did you say, or CBO [the Congressional Budget Office]?" he asked. "I don't believe them." Russert persisted: "But in the middle of an economic downturn, Howard Dean wants to raise taxes on the average of $1,200 per family." Dean was vindicated the next day. In a short piece on June 23, The Washington Post noted the release of the Treasury Department report, calling it "a highly selective analysis of the cost to families of rolling back scheduled tax cuts" and quoting a Brookings Institution economist who poked holes in the figures. "The research was prepared at the request of Meet the Press," the Post noted, adding: "The analysis does not include single people or lower income couples, two groups that benefit little from Bush's cuts." [snip] __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 08-27-2003 at 12:01 AM..

08-27-2003, 09:41 AM	#39 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I missed that interview Smooth, thanks for the info. While Gov. Dean is not my ideal candidate, he really is getting a raw deal. His point about not having exact figures in right on the money. I am sure that if you go back throughout Dem. and Rep. primary races, very few would know those numbers and obviously President Bush did not know similar facts during his run. Thanks again __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

09-01-2003, 12:23 AM	#40 (permalink)
SkanK0r Crazy	I don't know much about any of the democratic candidates, but based on that interview, I think I can agree with mml - the questions asked were specifics about numbers of troops, and I don't see that as particularly pressing. If the interviewer asked him "What is your plan for Iraq?" and he faltered, I would see that as a problem. But quizzing him with "How many fingers am I holding up?"-style questions isn't really fair if it's done to make him look like a fool.