Democratic standstill

[Guest Trivia247]

Its becoming increasingly apparent that there isn't a strong Democratic name that can inspire the party.

 

its diffifcult to try to defeat a Sitting Wartime president...and despite the Iraqi conflict may be overwith relatively quickly the real war that we been on since 9/11 would continue . With the War on Terror and using Iraq perhaps as a Decent staging area to send attacks and strikes to other countries that promote terrorism, a strong Opposition will need to find a common sense moderate ground to gain support from the American people. Now President Bush is Popular the Democrats would need someone of Equal calibur to try to oust him.

 

Unfortunately from what I see lately the Democratic Canidates lining up doesn't inspire to much. Tom daschie seems to have alienated himself from everyone, his openly critical stance against Bush has made him appear to be critical on the War and our Troops there. The Democratic Canidate will have to be someone not of the extreme end but someone Middle ground and moderate, to put a spin of Common sense, not Critical comments or mud slinging.

 

now the election is clearly a long ways off, but usually around this time in a Presidental term you do see the names start to appear in the media on who maybe the ones that pose the threat

 

Will have to see of course....

 

Who do you think among the current canidates that made their official bid in running have a chance in Hell in going toe to toe With G.W?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm sorry, remind me for a second...

 

From which university did you recieve your degree in political science?

 

Hush.

 

Howard Dean looks to be the front runner for the Democrats. He's quite progressive and extremely intelligent; his biggest flaw is that he comes off as insulting (albeit completely correct, usually) in direct debate, even with other democrats. He'll give Bush a run for his money in 2004 for sure, especially if the economy hasn't rebounded by then.

[Guest Trivia247]

I'm sorry, remind me for a second...

 

From which university did you recieve your degree in political science?

 

Hush.

 

Howard Dean looks to be the front runner for the Democrats. He's quite progressive and extremely intelligent; his biggest flaw is that he comes off as insulting (albeit completely correct, usually) in direct debate, even with other democrats. He'll give Bush a run for his money in 2004 for sure, especially if the economy hasn't rebounded by then.

Didn't realize I needed a degree to ask a question?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, I was questioning your stupid opinion with the question.

 

You state, as if it is a fact, that you know what kind of candidate will be needed by the democrats to win. You also state that the party is in a 'standstill', which couldn't be farther from the truth. Right now, five candidates (each of them quite strong) are duking it out in the early primaries. I don't think ANYONE who is watching it could possibly consider the party in a standstill, of all things.

 

Also, as judged by the elections of 2002, a moderate candidate will NOT work for the democrats. Why would you even VOTE democrat if he's gonna be middle-of-the-line? Why not vote... let's say... REPUBLICAN?

 

Your logic doesn't make any sense, and it's contradictory to any and all past events.

[Guest Trivia247]

No, I was questioning your stupid opinion with the question.

 

You state, as if it is a fact, that you know what kind of candidate will be needed by the democrats to win. You also state that the party is in a 'standstill', which couldn't be farther from the truth. Right now, five candidates (each of them quite strong) are duking it out in the early primaries. I don't think ANYONE who is watching it could possibly consider the party in a standstill, of all things.

 

Also, as judged by the elections of 2002, a moderate candidate will NOT work for the democrats. Why would you even VOTE democrat if he's gonna be middle-of-the-line? Why not vote... let's say... REPUBLICAN?

 

Your logic doesn't make any sense, and it's contradictory to any and all past events.

Well Since im Only human I can make mistakes

 

I should try to pose questions when im not half awake hehehehehe

 

I looked to me that it looks like a standstill, because it appeared that Democrats seem tainted for either their action in critizing Bush of the war, too Inaction in Not agreeing but not disagreeing, to Supporting like Liberman and others.

 

When I mean Moderate I was thinking along the lines of a Canidate that no only tries for his own democratic base but tries for those whom are middle ground. As you said it would be difficult to Vote for the Democrats if you are moderate. And if the Canidate didn't sound like he or she agreed with the ideals that the voter Has they wouldn't vote for them. I think at a attempt should be made, when you go for a National Office like President to try to reach out past your own Base to other voters that might prove to be the difference.

 

If I had a choice from the 5 now I would think Liberman would be strong enough. Thinking along the lines that because he isn't a dove in this conflict he could conceivably pick up where Bush would leave off if Liberman somehow won the presidency and continued the War on Terrorism.

 

Its just my guess but I think the WOT is gonna be inherited by many presidents down the line because Homeland security and protections of the citizens will be a Hot Topic for voters and rightly so .

 

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I looked to me that it looks like a standstill, because it appeared that Democrats seem tainted for either their action in critizing Bush of the war, too Inaction in Not agreeing but not disagreeing, to Supporting like Liberman and others.

 

The only time the democrats were truly at a standstill was after the midterm elections. There have been several candidates who have shot themselves in the foot, but that is not the party as a whole.

 

When I mean Moderate I was thinking along the lines of a Canidate that no only tries for his own democratic base but tries for those whom are middle ground. As you said it would be difficult to Vote for the Democrats if you are moderate. And if the Canidate didn't sound like he or she agreed with the ideals that the voter Has they wouldn't vote for them. I think at a attempt should be made, when you go for a National Office like President to try to reach out past your own Base to other voters that might prove to be the difference.

 

That's obvious; the way you win an election is to take the undecided members. However, the way to accomplish this is not to be a moderate; quite contrarily, if you are a moderate, you tend to lose votes (as evidenced by the election of 2002), because the public sees you as weak and not having a stance.

 

If I had a choice from the 5 now I would think Liberman would be strong enough. Thinking along the lines that because he isn't a dove in this conflict he could conceivably pick up where Bush would leave off if Liberman somehow won the presidency and continued the War on Terrorism.

 

Lieberman is far too weak a candidate to run by himself. He'd be a great VP, though.

 

Add to that the fact that he isn't a WASP, and you've got about a 5% chance that he'd be elected.

 

Also, nobody is simply going to drop the war on terrorism to the floor; they may persecute it in different ways, but it's always going to be on the agenda. That's obvious.

 

However, people aren't going to vote for a candidate simply because he has expressed views that he wants to bomb (insert country here). He has to have a strong domestic policy above all else.

[Guest MrRant]

You know.... you are kind of an asshole.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Who on this board isn't?

[Guest MrRant]

Not many people are out and out assholes. More try to be an asshole then are real assholes. Banky for example tries and fails horribly.

 

You fall into the really being an asshole catergory.

[Guest Trivia247]

Tries thickening my skin heheheehe

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Why, because I disagree with you?

 

If you're on the other side of the fence, you're always going to see the guy arguing the opposite viewpoint as an asshole. Perhaps my style of debate is rather assholish, but for that I do not apologize. Look at your righty friend Mike for one of the biggest assholes in debates; why don't you say that to him?

 

...pardon me if I'm not in a great mood right now, I get somewhat nervous whenever they say an American soldier has died. I've got enough friends out there to make it a rather tumoltuous (God, sp?) time. I don't ever take too kindly to people who spew utter uninformed trash, (see: RobJohnstone) and add onto that a world of shit and you've got...

 

Tyler... THE ASSHOLE!

 

Thanks, shut up.

[Guest MrRant]

I really don't care whether you agree or not. Insulting someone for not phrasing things right makes you an asshole.

 

Mike is an asshole when he posts too but I have never seen him complain about the way someone is posting.

 

And its Tyler the ASSHOLE~! .

 

With flare don't forget. Flare is all important to the asshole culture. You should know that.

 

PS. Mike is not a "friend" of mine.

[Guest Trivia247]

Why, because I disagree with you?

 

If you're on the other side of the fence, you're always going to see the guy arguing the opposite viewpoint as an asshole. Perhaps my style of debate is rather assholish, but for that I do not apologize. Look at your righty friend Mike for one of the biggest assholes in debates; why don't you say that to him?

 

...pardon me if I'm not in a great mood right now, I get somewhat nervous whenever they say an American soldier has died. I've got enough friends out there to make it a rather tumoltuous (God, sp?) time. I don't ever take too kindly to people who spew utter uninformed trash, (see: RobJohnstone) and add onto that a world of shit and you've got...

 

Tyler... THE ASSHOLE!

 

Thanks, shut up.

Hell even in your Assholish way as its put, you still were good enough to answer my question. So im not taking offense by it.

 

But since everyones got a opinion, (even those that don't make sense heh heh) they are able to express it. Including lil ol me and my warped questions of whats going on in the World......

 

Refuses to Shadddup.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I apologize if it sounded like I was bashing the phraseology... I meant to bash the utter nonsensical "DEMS R DED" overtones.

 

Fuckers.

 

Nah, it's all good though, I should have openly placed the...

 

- Tyler the ASSHOLE~!

 

...tags on the ends of my posts. I came here in a bad mood and further spread it by posting angrily.

 

BAH! DIE!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, and where was the "BAN PLZ~!"?

 

I'm disappointed with you, Rant

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Actually, I'd consider Rant to be the dick of the CE folder, if only for being extremely critical of opposing viewpoints to the point of disregarding the issue at hand and getting his ad hominem on or (more usually) adding nothing to discussion but narrow, oftentimes hateful or absurd views.

[Guest MrRant]

Name an absurd view.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Republicanism.

 

*rim shot*

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Any and all of your suggestions, which were, as much as you try to backpedal, serious, as to the manner in which to treat Iraqi POWs, Al-Queda and Taliban members captured, and, well, just about anyone who you feel has done wrong.

 

EDIT:

Republicanism.

 

*rim shot*

 

Good one.

[Guest MrRant]

Who said I was a republican? I never once said I was. That would be an assumption.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Ah, but see, it was a joke, and... and...

 

Fuck you. You killed it.

[Guest MrRant]

I don't remember an Iraqi POW post as I believe in Geneva. Taliban and Al-Queda I think should be taken care of one way or another. I just would like it to be entertaining.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I don't remember an Iraqi POW post as I believe in Geneva.  Taliban and Al-Queda I think should be taken care of one way or another.  I just would like it to be entertaining.

There you go. Entertainment before Pragmatism = Absurdity.

 

EDIT: I'll add that, despite our disagreements, I'm somewhat honored to have made someone's sig.

[Guest MrRant]

So I believe in vengence, so what? I guarantee you if someone raped my daughter they would be dying the most horrible... torturous (sp) death that my mind could think up.

 

Edit: Your welcome.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Boy, these late-night CE skirmishes are fun. They go away as soon as they crop up, until everyone wakes up and the fight escalates.

 

(goes to bed)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I H8 U

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'll give this a mighty try and attempt to steer this topic back on course.

 

Howard Dean is a way-too-far left kinda guy. We're talking past moderate Demo and into the realm of San Francisco Demo. The 'lol Bush sux lol oil lol' crowd would love the guy, but giving him center stage is suicide for the party. I already think Nancy Pelosi as choice as party leader for the house (I didn't want to say House Party Leader, as that brings a really bad movie of the 90s to mind) will just result in more Republicans coming in, but whatever.

 

I still think John Kerry is the obvious choice for the Demos. Sure, he's more Bush Lite than Dean, but what he's missing from Bush is the "Don't Mess With Texas" gene, which is probably going to create a massive international mess for us which will take years to repair, but will no doubt leave the isolationists masturbating for more.

 

The war probably won't go away for another 18 months after the election. It will also, no doubt, be a huge issue on the minds of the public. I'm sleepy and thus I won't split hairs, but I will say Kerry has a Vietnam track record and was trying to give alternatives to war a chance (although I don't know what his thoughts were regarding the UN. I doubt he'd do much different if France were being such a prick in his face.)

 

I mean, seriously who are you going to vote for on a ballot? A real-life war hero, or the guy who started wars so that he could be one?

 

Other than that, I think the rest of the problems with current leadership comes not with the man in the Big Chair (although boy, he can be embarassing at times) but with the people in his administration. Aside from Colin Powell, not many people in the Presidential cabnet have long records of experience in their areas. Add to that the irritants of John Aschroft's subdued fascist agenda and the deserved mistrust that arises when you realize that this whole crowd is like a melting pot of Corporate America. When the President is on such a first-name basis with a corrupt business leader like Kenneth Lay of Enron (or, as the Prez refers to him, "Kenny boy"), red flags are raised in peoples' minds.

 

Kerry pisses off the San Francisco liberal crowd by saying he still believes he did the right thing in voting to give Bush military powers on Iraq, but the Dems need to make sacrifices here to regain majority. People approve of the job the Bush Administration is doing, so they're going to have to walk in that same direction (although I don't think anyone would cry foul if the Patriot Act were repealed.) At the same time, I highly suspect the populace at large only likes how the administration is doing it's job, and the scores would be much lower if asked to judge them as people. So you need to find those points and exploit it.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

The problem in the midterm elections were not that the Democrats were too moderate. It was that all they did was complain about Bush, without ever offering an alternative solution and then passing the things that Bush wanted passed anyways. If any party flubs their campaigns as much as the Democrats did in November (the Minnesota Senate race comes to mind), they would lose too.

 

If the Dems go with an anti-war platform in 2004, they will lose again. Barring a complete botching of the Second Gulf War, the American public is very in favourite of it. Terrorists aren't going away anytime soon. They can attack the Republicans for poor-handling of the war, but attacking the motives behind it is political suicide. The Dems would be viewed as Anti-American.

 

If the Dems are to win in 2003, they HAVE to focus on the economy. Bush may know how to fight a war, but the general public doesn't believe he knows how to pay for it. The Dems have to exploit this. They didn't in 2002 beyond finger-pointing, and it cost them.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I hope it's not Joe Lieberman, he too is Bush-Lite. Who ever the Democratic Candidate is, he has to be able to prove that he will make a better President than Bush. Some things that he might be able to point out: a stagnant economy that Bush was not able to improve (no I don't blame Bush for the economy, but I do hold him accountable if the economy does not improve), another terrorist attack, a long and costly war in Iraq. It's those things that could bring Bush down.

 

Also, the Democratic candidate must be good at debate. The thing that killed Gore was that all three presidential debates was him agreeing with Bush most of the time and looking like a jerk. Bush I believe is not very good at debate, call it a hunch. So the Democratic candidate must be good at debate. If Bush comes off as not having the right comeback to any points, then it could swing soem votes.

[Guest DrTom]

Rant, I disagree with Tyler on just about everything, and I don't think he's an asshole. He's a bit abrasive at times, but then again, so am I (and probably even moreso), and I've never had a problem with people being abrasive.