So, Who *Should* Run Against Bush?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

And what should candidate and / or Democratic party strategy be, starting today?

(Obvious follow-up from Gore thread.)

the pinefox (the pinefox), Friday, 27 September 2002 09:09 (twenty-three years ago)

You

Dr. C (Dr. C), Friday, 27 September 2002 09:30 (twenty-three years ago)

PINEFOX FOR PREZ!

rener, Friday, 27 September 2002 09:35 (twenty-three years ago)

NOOOO!!!!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 27 September 2002 10:35 (twenty-three years ago)

"Now, I have nothing against Mz.Kitten, you might recall they tried to call me. But when an international crisis arises, well, Mr.Bush can consult with Mz.Kitten, Jay-Z and Ms.Heidi, and I'll be consulting with the people that really matter- Mr.Puttin, Mr.Blair, Mr.Schroder and Lloyd Cole"

(paraphrased from memory, that damn quote is nowhere to be found on the 'net)

Daniel_Rf, Friday, 27 September 2002 10:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Not Lieberman, I hope. On issues like family values he seems more reactionary than Bush, if that's possible. And that's just one aspect of his conservatism.

Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:29 (twenty-three years ago)

PINEFOX FOR PREZ!

Only if he could have the previous First Lady ...

Mooro (Mooro), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:31 (twenty-three years ago)

The Pinefox and Chelsea would make a good match, I think. And she is at Oxford, after all...

Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:32 (twenty-three years ago)

hillary for prez, pf for first lady

mark s (mark s), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:39 (twenty-three years ago)

It is has to be John Cusack, obv.

Dave B (daveb), Friday, 27 September 2002 13:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I was going to start a grass-roots campaign to put my father in the White House when I was in high school. Maybe I'll revive that.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 27 September 2002 13:39 (twenty-three years ago)

It seems that anyone when stacked up against Bush looks like a complete moron, simply because they're in a competition with him. In fact, it's gotten quite beyond a joke.

Andrew (enneff), Friday, 27 September 2002 14:44 (twenty-three years ago)


Mooro / Nicole / Mark S: all OTM - sigh: if only all 3 could happen at once.

the pinefox, Friday, 27 September 2002 14:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Madonna!

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 27 September 2002 17:55 (twenty-three years ago)

a big porcupine, literally run up against

Paul (scifisoul), Friday, 27 September 2002 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Of who else is running so far Edwards is the only name mentioned I'd put money on. Kerrey'd do at least as well as Gore while being a much better candidate. Gephardt and Daschle would get nowhere quick - half the country hates them already. Gray Davis - this is a joke right? Al Sharpton is a more viable candidate! So, again, John Edwards John Edwards John Edwards. Even Nader likes him.

James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 27 September 2002 18:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Hanle y!

Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 27 September 2002 19:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Uncle Duke is clearly the only man for the job.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 28 September 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If Cusack were president, I'd leave the country.

rosemary (rosemary), Saturday, 28 September 2002 02:59 (twenty-three years ago)

If Bedtime for Bonzo proved anything, it's that actors who make films with monkeys make lousy presidents. Cusack not only starred with a monkey in Being John Malkovich, he also starred with orangutan Julia Roberts in that craptastic film w/CZJ a year or so back.

He is disqualified.

Nicole (Nicole), Saturday, 28 September 2002 03:09 (twenty-three years ago)

"actors who make films with monkeys make lousy presidents" - ahem, you're forgetting James Polk.

James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Eric B?

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 28 September 2002 09:21 (twenty-three years ago)

He already served two terms.

James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 28 September 2002 09:23 (twenty-three years ago)


So, is John Edwards the right answer?

Tell us more about him.

the pinefox, Monday, 30 September 2002 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

four weeks pass...
kerry/edwards=hottt

mary b. (mary b.), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

William Shatner for Prez!
He Will Stop THE fighting!

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Suffice it to say, the field narrowed considerably last night. Candidacies are either going to be dropped because they're clearly unfeasible (Gephardt, Daschle, Gray Davis) or the prospective nominee thinks/knows the odds will be better in 2008 (John Edwards is the biggie here). Gore's the front runner even more so now, and he's doomed even more so now. Considering the success rate of other ex-Clinton administration figures post-Clinton (comparable to the Seinfeld curse), this puts him in a bind. A few things for the Dems to consider, and why 2002 was as bad (or worse) for them as everone's is saying it is.
1 - The notion of a centrist/'accomidationist' approach seems to taking the ideological fall for the 2002 results. Gephardt's toast, Daschle might as well be (does Hillary want his job?). Never mind that it's won for them, and would win for them again. Of course part of the problem was no one in the Democratic leadership actually seemed to believe in the Clinton line, with exception of Gore on odd-numbered days. If the party had taken a strictly contrarian (anti-war, pro-taxes), as many are calling for them to do now, the results would have been even worse. What the Democrats need to do is actually come up with an economic plan and serious anti-terror plan of their own, and not simply react/follow Bush's lead. Here I would give the advantage to Kerry, who already been outspoken about the war, in a non-Cynthia McKinney (and the Dems better hope the Green's actually nominate her in 2004 by the way) conspiratorial 'anti-American' way. Kerrey's criticism's and opposition to Bush on the war on terror, haven't come from the standpoint of being anti-war (a la Wellstone RIP) or simply beholden to special interests (a la Cleland), they have come from the standpoint that this is an ineffective way to fight this war. If the Dems go after Bush from this angle, they'll have a shot of at least holding their own on the national security debate, which is all (maybe more than) they can hope for.

2 - Until the Democrat's figure out that they need to at least be competitive in statewide races in the south, the electoral balance will be tipped towards the Republicans, 50-50 nation or not. If Gore's smart he'll use Lieberman's somewhat spurious loyalty as an excuse to drop him in '04 and pick up a southern Democratic senator (Graham's a good choice, if a little bit too blatant a strategic move). The last Democratic president who didn't speak with a southern accent was John Kennedy.

3 - There's a real chance that Jeb Bush, who sealed Terry Mac's fate with his landslide, will be the GOP nominee in 2008, meaning W. will keep Cheney on in the VP slot to prevent anyone else (Powell, Rice) from getting momentum/front runner status. If the Dems don't get over their hatred of Bush, which is becoming as self-destructive as the Republican's hatred of Clinton in the nineties (although probably will never get that self-destructive if only because Bush isn't sly enough to exploit it like Clinton). Guess what? Most American's like Bush. A lot. So simply shouting "Bush is a stupidhead!" or "Bush is evil!" isn't the most effective means of drawing people to your side. Selling your arguments and attacking the president aren't the same thing, and refusing to accept that he's president (a la, again, the Republicans in the nineties) is simply going to leave you more unprepared when the guy gets reelected.

4 - Suddenly I recall an SNL sketch from 1991, the gist of which was 'the race to be the guy Bush beat's in 1992', with the prospective Democratic front-runners of the time (Gephardt, Bentsen, Bradley, Gore in DLC mode) pleading out (Phil Hartman as Cuomo going "I've got mob ties!"). This might very well be the prospect for 2004, with the same potential irony in that a president who appears unbeatable now may be very beatable when the time comes (although I doubt it). It would be very surprising if come next winter the only opposition to Gore are the 2004 equivalents of a non-telegenic ex-Congressman no one's heard of who's biggest accomplishment is beating cancer (which is all well and good, but I don't hear anyone nominating Lance Armstrong for president), a scandal ridden governor no one's heard of from a small southern state no one's heard of, and Captain Moonbeam, who everyone's heard of but not for the right reasons.

4 - I heard a very bitter Democratic official whine that when in two years America is in the middle of a depression and entrenched in a Vietnam like quagmire in Iraq, the Republican's will take all the blame, the flipside of which is when in two years the economy's recovered completely and Iraq is defeated in less time than it takes to complete the NHL playoffs - which is the more likely scenario - the Republican's will take all the credit. If the Democrat's don't wake up, and the Green's don't realize that they aren't helping their causes in any way (does anyone think that Nader's relentless attacks on the Democrat's might play at least a small part in the Democratic vote base being less than enthused? does anyone think that at least part of the Republican funds cordoned off for dirty tricks don't go into the coffers of the Green party?), the government will drift further right, and the left will find itself even more marginalized and irrelevant, which is saying something.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

JAMES WHY WEREN'T YOU RUNNING FOR OFFICE???

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't count to five!

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Guess what? Most American's like Bush. A lot. So simply shouting "Bush is a stupidhead!" or "Bush is evil!" isn't the most effective means of drawing people to your side.

Sorta what I've been saying elsewhere today (lots of good points here in general as well!).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't Powell already say he wasn't going to stick around for Bush's next term, if there is one? The extent to which Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft pushed him out is quite sinister, but he hasn't let on yet whether the bitterness I'm sure he feels (which he's been reported to feel) is strong enough to incite him to any great revolt during the next campaign. I'm not sure what that could be (obv challenging the incumbent is out, at least as a Republican) - would he switch? This is probably just fantasy on my part, but his party ties have never been that strong, and he's the only person I can imagine right now realistically challenging Bush who'd be at least somewhat desirable (being pragmatic here). Otherwise I can't come up with anything better than your Nu Stealth Clinton-type scenerio.

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

So who you vote is determined by who and not what issues your voting on?
I don't understand American politics.

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

That's the definition of a Democratic Republic, Noodles.

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

It shouldn't be Hillary, it shouldn't be Gore, and it shouldn't be any of the other faceless losers mentioned above. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic party disbanded entirely?

Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

ch. - I've always thought a little too much was made of the rift between Powell and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., although Rumsfeld is such a backroom Machiavelli I could be wrong. Powell was cautious, vaguely against the first war against Iraq, so the present circumstances aren't that different in that regard. Could/would he drop out as Sec. o' State in the second term (or even before that). It's possible - it's pretty rare for a two term president to serve both terms with the same Secretary of State (in which case my guess is Dick Lugar would replace him, although Rumsfeld might be the front runner, albeit just about the least diplomatic Secretary of State imaginable, which might be just what Bush is looking for come to think of it). They're clearly looking for a job for Giuliani so who know's (supposedly his name was being bandied about as a replacement for Pitt, but that'd be like getting Michael Vick and using him solely as a punt returner). If Powell did leave the Bush administration (and I'm don't really see this happening - Powell coveted State for years) I don't see him making the jump and running against Bush - he's a military man and would never do anything that would impugn his sense of loyalty, like say switch sides against a wartime president. Consider that John McCain, who dislikes Bush and is merely a member of the same party instead of an actual member of the cabinet and who wants the presidency a lot more than Powell ever has, isn't even considering doing this.

Dan - what exactly is your problem with Hillary, John Edwards, or John Kerrey? (John Edwards - faceless?) Presuming you're a democrat and/or leftist.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Bring Back Bradley!

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't have a problem with Hillary. Now that Wellstone's dead she's probably my favorite politician in the nation. But she's unfeasible. Do you realize how deep the hate that almost half the American populace has for her goes? I don't know why so many Americans hate her (seriously, what did she ever do? Am I forgetting something? Could Whitewatergate really have been that damaging?), but they do, STILL. So, unfortunately, she's a guaranteed loss.

Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)

fuck I had the answer in September... Madonna. Think about it!

seriously, what is wrong with moonbeam? i liked him in '92 (granted I was only 12)

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan are you aware that your favorite politician voted to give "The Reich" permission to go to war w/ Iraq?!

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I live in the south, Sean Hannity lives an area code away (or did) = I am aware how much people hate Hillary. Still, I don't think the hate is as strong or widespread as it was a few years ago (of course she's not in the White House any more, har har, would be the anti-Hillary response). She has handled her Senate seat very well (hint hint Jean Carnahan). Drawing out this hate could in a way help her / the Democrats in that it would certainly backfire against the Republicans (it did in the latter half of the nineties). As to why they hate her I'm not really sure, but primarily it's because 1) she's an unapologetic liberal (or was in 92) 2) she's a woman 3) she's married to the guy who won the White House twice, which the Republicans had really really gotten used to having. There may be ideological reasons the Republican's were so over the top in their hatred of Bill Clinton but 90% of it was he beat them, and the first time he did it they couldn't accept it and the second time he did it they had to accept it (look here Democrats! gaze upon your future!). I don't think Hillary would win, but I don't think she'd do any worse than Gore and she'd certainly fire up the Democrats' base more, which should be priority number one considering yesterday.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Ch, I think I was aware of that, which should be an indication of how relative my use of the word "favorite" was. If you're pissed at "Reich", let me just say this: I meant that a hell of a lot more than "favorite" applies to Hillary for me.

Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

The reason why they shouldn't run Hillary is because it would give the Republicans a chance to run against Bill Clinton, which is exactly what they want (and part of the reason why there must be drooling in the RNC over the prospect of Bush-Gore in 2004). It has to be, of the probables, Kerrey or Edwards. Both would make great candidates. If I were the DNC, I would lean towards Edwards, because he has the folksy, populist charm that they sorely need. With that kind of package many of the Democrats ideals would seem much more attractive to voters, I believe.

Condoleeza Rice would have a much better chance of being president than Hillary Clinton.

Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:47 (twenty-two years ago)

actually dan i was just ribbing you. here, let me put this on:

;^)

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

("ribbing"(?) = teasing, obv. i have no idea where i learned that word)

ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Rice might have as good a chance of being on a national ticket. Republicans might think they want to run against Clinton, but they shouldn't. They couldn't beat him (or his policies) in 92 or 96 and if Gore had had enough sense to run as Clinton-lite in 2000 (the way Bush the Elder ran as Reagen-lite in 88) he'd have won in a cakewalk (instead he tried to be him own man, whoever that is).

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I hadn't heard these rumors of Jeb running in 2008. I had been reading that Cheney would step down in 2004 (most likely not by choice) and be replaced by Rice, who would then be setup for her own run in 2008 (obviously). As many have previously said, a Republican minority or female candidate (or in this case both) will be our first non-white male President because liberals would consider voting for them (I know that I would).

Yes, Clinton didn't lose, but I think that revisiting his presidency would ultimately hurt the Democrats. And weren't Hillary's popularity numbers always lower than Bill's?

Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:05 (twenty-two years ago)

if rice becomes the first black and female president in our history, then the democratic party would probably cease to exist because democrats have pratctically staked their modern existence on courting the "minority" vote.

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Harry Belefonte would call her an Aunt Jamima.

Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

that sounds a lot more compelling than the Bush-Gore debates (sigh).

Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You'd vote for Rice because she's balck and female? So that'd outweigh her general rightwingness and hawkishness?

Huh?

Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 7 November 2002 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

The Note rules.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 14 November 2002 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Not that this - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1459-2002Nov17.html - changes anything but it does indicate just the level of antagonism Gore is facing from within his own party. I still think he gets the nod, but clearly he'll be a weaker candidate in 04, while Bush has clearly gotten stronger. I also don't understand how the Democrats can basically announce they're not interested in moderate and swing voters AND keep Terry Mac. It's the worst of both (leftist and centrist) worlds.

James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 17 November 2002 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)


"Bush is evil".

the pinefox, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Al Gore calls Fox News' bluff:

"The introduction of cable-television news and Internet news made news a commodity, available from an unlimited number of sellers at a steadily decreasing cost, so the established news organizations became the high-cost producers of a low-cost commodity," said Mr. Gore. "They’re selling a hybrid product now that’s news plus news-helper; whether it’s entertainment or attitude or news that’s marbled with opinion, it’s different. Now, especially in the cable-TV market, it has become good economics once again to go back to a party-oriented approach to attract a hard-core following that appreciates the predictability of a right-wing point of view, but then to make aggressive and constant efforts to deny that’s what they’re doing in order to avoid offending the broader audience that mass advertisers want. Thus the Fox slogan ‘We Report, You Decide,’ or whatever the current version of their ritual denial is."

!!

maura (maura), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Democrats whining about Fox News being biased is almost as boring as Republicans whining about NPR being biased.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

But NPR is biased.

Leonard, Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

And so is Fox News! Hyuck hyuck...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

if you read the article, he actually makes some good points about just how precisely the right-wing agenda is disseminated --

"Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, The Washington Times and the others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the zeitgeist. And then pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these R.N.C. talking points are woven into the fabric of the zeitgeist."

watch this happen with calls to increase taxes on those making under $12,000 a year. there was an editorial in the WSJ last week that called these people 'lucky ducks.'

also it's not like npr is constantly proclaiming that it's bias-free.

maura (maura), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

But it's naive to pretend this is any different than what the Democrats do - how many NY Times columnists basically regurgitate DNC memos? I think what irritates Gore and others on the left so much about Fox News and talk radio (but not so much the Washington Times) is how successful they are - MSNBC tried to pitch Phil Donahue as a liberal Bill O'Reilly and nearly ended up with a zero rating. They refuse to believe that maybe a large number of people sincerely hold right wing views and enjoy being the choir being preached to (something hardly unique to the rightwing). It's a bit disingenuous for rightwing media to keep promoting themselves as underdogs waging a crusade against the liberal mainstream media, but that doesn't mean that the mainstream media (the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Big 3 networks, CNN) don't tilt left. For Democrats to whine about it is silly.

James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think that any of the outlets you cited 'tilt left' at all anymore, actually. Maybe in a social sense -- the NYTimes' coverage of women at Augusta, outraged coverage of bias crimes, etc. But in a political sense? I mean, Rush Limbaugh was an analyst for MSNBC on election night. The term 'objectivity' has come to truly mean 'toeing the party line,' especially when it comes to issues involving this White House.

Which shouldn't be surprising, in a sense; the concerns that own all the outlets you cited are of course big businesses, and the GOP has done much to curry favor with that sector of the populace.

maura (maura), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, yeah, the New York Times is so liberal ... maybe someone should tell Bill Safire that he's "regurgitat[ing] DNC memos." I also suppose that Howell Raines's cheerleading for Clinton's impeachment was part of some DNC plan, too. Right. And even if there is such a thing as a "liberal media" (and maybe there is, Noam Chomsky seems to think so), there is simply no liberal or Democratic media outlet that is as brazen and shameless as Fox or the Washington Times. And I challenge anyone here to name one (no, The Village Voice or any of a number of city alt-weeklies don't count).

Maura: I read that WSJ editorial as well, about repealing the Earned Income Credit and the standard deduction. I've never seen such blatant, sickening greed and class-warfare outside of an Ayn Rand novel. A true "let 'em eat cake" low, which is really saying something considering how looneytunes the WSJ's editorial pages are.

Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yeah, right-wingers' bleating about "liberal media" really boils down to, "we were being obnoxious assholes in front of an open mike or a loaded video-camera." or they're pissed off when some journalist or other is slightly skeptical about one of their hobby-horses. they basically won't be happy till the American media is indistinguishable from Brezhnev-era Pravda -- and considering outfits like Fox, The Washington Times, and Clear Channel, that day might not be so far off.

Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

People are *seriously* talking about increasing taxation for those earning under $12000? Fucking HELL!

RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, gotta plug up that budget deficit somehow ... and can't repeal that tax cut for the wealthy, or deep-six the right-wingnut wet-dream of permanently repealing the estate tax (so that generation after generation of the wealthy can pass on their financial legacy without a single cent of tax being paid on their appreciated assets).

were the Bourbons or the Romanovs this blatant and shameless?

Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

it's starting to spread ...

Who caught the meme? Former Attorney General Ed Meese.

How do we know? He said it on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

How did he say it? From the Nov. 26 broadcast:
Well, it's very unfortunate that we have the situation in our country now, where as I believe someone pointed out a short time ago on your program [Note: Chatterbox tried and failed to track down who that is], that we now have a constituency that pays no taxes whatsoever. And it makes it very easy for demagogues on the left to try to raise taxes. And soon we're going to have only an even smaller faction paying the taxes.

Wow.

maura (maura), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparently there's a rumour going about in the US, I hear, that the Democrats will cite the newest campaign finance reform regarding 'soft moey' usage in the weeks before an election, and attempt to peg talk radio as a paid political advertisement fo rthe conservatives and shut it down until the election's over. Kind of scares me. Another rumour is that there will be legislation introduced to require radio stations to carry bipartisan talk shows, or rather three hours of Rush requires three hours of Gore.....imagine that.....

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

well, there was (is?) the fairness doctrine, which mandates equal time for opposing political opinions, although i don't know exactly how in-depth that gets.

maura (maura), Thursday, 28 November 2002 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

That was repealed because of various court cases. Some concluded it was constitutional, others never questioned the constitutionality, but ruled in favor of those opposing it. Eventually the courts shot it down in '84, and it was repealed in 1987. Several times people have tried to reinstate it, but it's never quite passed. And for that matter, is the Fairness Doctrine really fair?

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 06:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Or is that a thread on it's own?

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 06:21 (twenty-two years ago)

It does strike me as treading to into anti-Free Speech territory.

Tad - I wouldn't be surprised if Washington City Paper, nevermind the Village Voice, had a higher circulation than the Washington Times (in Washington at least; I know nationally that rightwingers buy it because they think they need to 'support' it or something, I don't know why since Rev. Moon isn't about to let it go under). Name another conservative columnist at the Times besides Safire. Are you saying Raines isn't liberal? Isn't using the Clinton impeachment to define the political spectrum a bit 1998? Or is Zell Miller liberal?


The tax the poor issue was one that was floated around Bush's inauguration in regards to a looming disaster for the Republicans (did Judis and Teixiera mention this? Has anyone read that book yet? I know it's selling well, but I don't know anyone who's actually read it, and I'd like to know the gist of their thesis. It can't be all about immigration) - that there's a growing percentage of voters who receive benefits from the government and don't pay any taxes (ie. the poor) for whom the old 'tax and spend' charge isn't going to work come election time (this was the motivation behind the Bush tax cut - not help the fatcats or spur the economy. It was to box the Democrats in down the road). That said, you have to wonder what the Republicans are thinking with a 'tax the poor' (which is the only way to describe it) movement - have they no sense of self-parody? Isn't this the same sort of 'let's accidentally show America how scary conservatism can be' move the GOP pulled in '94 with talk of orphanages? Admittedly, the Republicans don't have a Newt-like figure to frighten the public (the Democrats are dreaming if they think Bush is ever going to be anything less than the American public's favorite frat brother)
Also, I might be naive, but I think Gore's adopting the single-payer healthcare stance is a very smart move; it may not work for Gore but it'll pay off for the Democrats in the long (and maybe even the short) term. The Democrats' future lies in embracing the safety net, smartly (ie. not simply reverting to Tip O'Neill era liberalism, playing into the Republicans hands).

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 November 2002 07:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Democrats scare...so do Republicans for that matter........


I have this strange lurking feeling that despite the 'differences' in issues and politics, the parties are all the same. And for that matter, should there even be any parties? I think it was Franklin, (or maybe Jefferson, either way) that warned the Framers about developing political partis, or categorising themselves as such because of the unnecessary ill affects it may have on associating yourself with a particular group.

Israel has a problem with too many parties. I heard an Israeli ambassador commenting on the state of the political society in Israel and I think his words were "Having this many parties or factions has its benefits, everyone having a voice, for example. Every group is represented. But the negative affects...well...it doesn't work."

What do you guys think? Should we all be like the state in the US (the name is slipping my mind) that has maintained a nonpartisan label for quite some time? Or are labels and categorisations something not to be avoided?

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Democrats scare ME, that is...and so do Republicans for that matter...just to clarify...

...man I'm a dumbass

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)

It was George Washington I think.

James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Either way...

B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:31 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/politics/15CND-GORE.html - Merry Christmas DNC!!! (and belated Happy Hannukah Joe Lieberman!)

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Does it really matter? Are there any real differences between the parties?

Oh, and McCain should run, in stead of Bush.

David Allen, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Quaint

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:16 (twenty-two years ago)

damn ...

(and no more Naderite "there's no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans" nonsense, please? it's so 2000 and it wasn't all that even then)

Tad (llamasfur), Monday, 16 December 2002 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Basically confirms what a lot of people suspected in '88 and what the worst-ran presidential campaign since Dole '96 (which was the worst-ran presidential campaign since Bush '92 which was the worst-ran presidential campaign since Dukakis '88 which was the worst-ran presidential campaign Mondale '84...): Al Gore never really, really, really wanted to be president (which is 'what it takes'). It was his daddy's dream for his son. If he maintains his position of prominent Bush critic then he could be the best friend the Dems have had since Trent Lott.

James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 06:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Meanwhile, Guardian today says Hillary C is favourite for 2008!!

This deserves a thread of its own.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 17 December 2002 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right, there are huge differences between the two parties. That's why the Democratic criticism of the Bush administration has been so deafening.

The DNC will give you Lieberman, you'll whine, you'll vote for him, and whether he wins or not, you'll lose.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Colin - if you really think the DNC is gonna lineup behind Lieberman you're even more naive than you're 'six o' one, half a dozen of the other' comment. I'm not so sure Lieberman will even make it past Super Tuesday, and Kerrey will negate whatever push he could hope to get out of New Hampshire.

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

must i say this again? all republicans are stupid and evil.

g (graysonlane), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.algop.com/2000/taxburden.html

g (graysonlane), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I voted for Nader in 2000 (Ohio was securely in the Bush column), and felt good when I cast my ballot. I've felt iffy ever since.

I'm desperately hoping someone else will emerge, because none of the names currently being bandied about are even remotely appealing to me. However, if Lieberman ends up being the D in 2004, I will have ZERO qualms about voting third-party.

J (Jay), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

(and no more Naderite "there's no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans" nonsense, please? it's so 2000 and it wasn't all that even then)

Didn't support Nader either.

And there STILL isn't a real difference. Both are equally afraid to make change at the risk of loosing reelection.

David Allen, Tuesday, 17 December 2002 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

six months pass...
This geezer Howard Dean?

the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Dean is pro death penalty, and has said some nasty things about the mentally ill in prisons, will find link post haste.

anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Dean is pro death penalty, and has said some nasty things about the mentally ill in prisons, will find link post haste.

http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

has anyone read anything bad about kucinich? i like what i've heard about him so far.

black plastic (black plastic), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Does anyone stand a chance? Really?

If so, I think the Democrats should field that candidate.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Pinefox, what do you think about Georges Brassens?

I don't know how to answer the question in the subject line. Most polls have "any Democrat" doing better against George Bush than any of the specific names out there. Maybe we should have a secret candidate who only appears via radio.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought you meant: what do I think of him as Dem candidate?

But now I'm not so sure.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:08 (twenty-two years ago)

General Wesley Clark. If he runs, I'll vote for him.

Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely Brassens's nuanced command of French irony would win him Stateside admirers.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

John Edwards could stand a chance against Bush.

Clark will not run. He just wants attention.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

this here thread=

James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

dean may be pro-death penalty but I don't think that the executive branch of the government has much control over it anyway since this is state regulated. He doesn't seem eager to kill all prisoners the way Bush did when he was governor.

Frankly right now Dean is probably the only Democrat who I think could beat Bush and that's because his stance on healthcare and his relatively conservative fiscal history make him appeal to a broader range of voters than you'd expect.

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

James asked me to stop saying it so I will

Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

M. Blount, you have just made my millennium;>

When I read this thread title, I was tempted (at first) to say "Anyone", as a trained monkey could not do a worse job than Bush. However, we only end up getting a bloated, suited hyena, instead. I'm sure someone mentioned Colin Powell already as a candidate, as he has the training and it would be good to have a Top Brother.

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.