(Obvious follow-up from Gore thread.)
― the pinefox (the pinefox), Friday, 27 September 2002 09:09 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dr. C (Dr. C), Friday, 27 September 2002 09:30 (twenty-three years ago)
― rener, Friday, 27 September 2002 09:35 (twenty-three years ago)
― 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)
― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:29 (twenty-three years ago)
Only if he could have the previous First Lady ...
― Mooro (Mooro), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:31 (twenty-three years ago)
― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:32 (twenty-three years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:39 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 27 September 2002 13:37 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 27 September 2002 13:39 (twenty-three years ago)
― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 27 September 2002 14:44 (twenty-three years ago)
― the pinefox, Friday, 27 September 2002 14:54 (twenty-three years ago)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Friday, 27 September 2002 17:55 (twenty-three years ago)
― Paul (scifisoul), Friday, 27 September 2002 18:10 (twenty-three years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 27 September 2002 18:55 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 27 September 2002 19:57 (twenty-three years ago)
― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 28 September 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― rosemary (rosemary), Saturday, 28 September 2002 02:59 (twenty-three years ago)
He is disqualified.
― Nicole (Nicole), Saturday, 28 September 2002 03:09 (twenty-three years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:54 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 28 September 2002 09:21 (twenty-three years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 28 September 2002 09:23 (twenty-three years ago)
Tell us more about him.
― the pinefox, Monday, 30 September 2002 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)
― mary b. (mary b.), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)
― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 28 October 2002 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)
― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)
― Dan I., Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
;^)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)
― ch. (synkro), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 6 November 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)
Huh?
― Dave B (daveb), Thursday, 7 November 2002 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 14 November 2002 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 17 November 2002 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)
"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)
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)
― Leonard, Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)
"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)
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
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)
― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)
were the Bourbons or the Romanovs this blatant and shameless?
― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)
― maura (maura), Thursday, 28 November 2002 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 06:21 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
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)
...man I'm a dumbass
― B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:30 (twenty-two years ago)
― B, Thursday, 28 November 2002 08:31 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:06 (twenty-two years ago)
Oh, and McCain should run, in stead of Bush.
― David Allen, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:16 (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)
― Tad (llamasfur), Monday, 16 December 2002 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 16 December 2002 06:20 (twenty-two years ago)
This deserves a thread of its own.
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 17 December 2002 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― g (graysonlane), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)
― g (graysonlane), Tuesday, 17 December 2002 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
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)
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)
― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792
― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― black plastic (black plastic), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)
If so, I think the Democrats should field that candidate.
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
But now I'm not so sure.
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)
Clark will not run. He just wants attention.
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)
― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)
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)
― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)
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)