Democratic standstill

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Why thank you, Tom. Hah.

 

I kinda disagree, Jobber. Kerry is way too moderate to win in a national election, and even though he does have the Vietnam history, people see him as a pompous, rich asshole. I think he'd get beat if we ran him.

 

The thing about Dean is that he's a great speaker and doesn't come off as too pompous (until he insults someone). He's got some quite SF Lefty views (legalizing same sex marriages, which I agree with anyway), but I don't think we can win with a moderate anyway. I would question the fact that you consider him a little too far over the edge; I think he's got an almost perfect balance.

 

I can throw up some of his stances (from his website) on the issues if you'd like. They don't seem to utterly commie leftie to me, anyway...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

But can the Dems win with a liberal? It just doesn't seem like either party can elect someone who runs has a staunch conservative or liberal. You almost have to run in the middle.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I think it works a lot better for the Republicans than the Democrats, frankly. 2002 proves that.

 

If anyone is interested about his platform, the site is http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?sec...out&page=issues

 

He's got some good ideas, frankly. I don't think he's too overly liberal to win... especially with his fiscal conservativity.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Dean has said he will still be speaking out against the war after the shooting has begun. The others have taken a "Well, this is sad, but now we've got to come together and show support" stance. I think that may leave him open to backlash.

 

Regardless, they all rolled through California a week or so ago. Here's the stories that followed:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...13/MN245131.DTL

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...14/MN203566.DTL

 

And Finally, the important one...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...16/MN125264.DTL

 

Presidential hopeful Howard Dean electrified the state Democratic convention here Saturday when he leveled a verbal barrage against the Bush policies in support of the war in Iraq -- fists raised, roaring, "We want our country back!"

 

But North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, also a candidate for president, got a different reception entirely from the 1,800 delegates here when he raised the issue of Iraq. A resounding chorus of boos and chants of "No war!" erupted with his statement: "I believe Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and must be disarmed (with) military force if necessary.

 

(...)

 

But Democratic strategist Garry South, a former senior adviser to Gov. Gray Davis, cautioned that the loud anti-war stand of Democrats in California could be bad news for the party nationally in 2004.

 

"The Democrats in this room are not particularly representative of the larger Democratic electorate," he told reporters. "It's not helpful to electing a president if Democrats become seen as not concerned enough with the defense of our country.

 

"I understand there's a lot of anti-war sentiment among people in this room, " said South, "but there are plenty of grounds on which to criticize this administration."

 

(...)

 

Indeed, the level of anti-war fervor was evident in the reception for Dean, the former Vermont governor and a physician, who fired up partisans chanting "We want Dean, We want Dean" almost as soon as he took the stage.

 

From his opening shots, his ammunition was aimed not only at Bush -- but also at other Democrats whom he suggested had waffled on the war.

 

"What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing, supporting the president's unilateral intervention in Iraq," he said, as delegates got to their feet. "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

 

Although he is only in single digits in some national polls and is an unknown to most voters, delegates jammed Dean's information booth, snapping up souvenir prescription bottles and "The Doctor is In" signs.

 

"He's the only one who is a straight shooter, and called the Bush administration on the war," said Corey Johnson, one enthusiastic Dean delegate.

 

See, the problem is, I don't think the people clogging traffic, chanting slogans, and looting McDonalds are the clear majority of Democrats.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I agree with that point; he's not gonna win with a primarily anti-war campaign.

 

However, Dean also seems to know what he's doing in regards to being sufficiently against the war but on the same page as voters.

 

Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past six months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

 

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

 

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

 

That was his official statement when the war began...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

For the record, I think they should run Dean with a charismatic Bush-lite such as Edwards.

 

A Dean-Edwards ticket would be very appealing, at least to me.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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?

Oh, they'd have a shot in 2004. You'd have to be an idiot --- or not born in 1991 --- to think otherwise.

 

But, odds are, an anti-war candidate will get the nomination.

 

And we saw how well that turned out for the Dems in 1972.

-=Mike --- and there actually was real anti-war sentiment back then

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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.

Didn't you complain, not too long ago, that I personally insulted you?

 

Just checking.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Mike, stepping aside from your obvious repub standing, who do YOU think would have the best shot, out of these candidates, to dethrone Bush?

[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.

Didn't you complain, not too long ago, that I personally insulted you?

 

Just checking.

-=Mike

Only because it was a stupid tactic to use in debate. I could care less what you say about me, as long as you don't dodge the question at hand (which you often do).

[Guest TheMikeSC]

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.

Have you noticed that the only one who calls me an ass is, well, YOU?

 

Sounds like you're projecting here.

 

But, this isn't a flaming folder --- even though you give great material.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Yawn.

 

Keep reading the thread and you'll notice you're wrong.

 

Thanks, though.

 

I suggest you actually read the whole thread before you go through and reply, it saves you from such circumstances of stupidity.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

For the record, I think they should run Dean with a charismatic Bush-lite such as Edwards.

 

A Dean-Edwards ticket would be very appealing, at least to me.

Oh, I'd LOVE a Dean-led ticket.

 

Hate those close elections.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yawn.

 

Keep reading the thread and you'll notice you're wrong.

 

Thanks, though.

 

I suggest you actually read the whole thread before you go through and reply, it saves you from such circumstances of stupidity.

Well, since one of us has to be the adult, I'll no longer reply to you.

 

It's not like it's mental exercise, anyway.

-=Mike --- bored of you

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Teehee!!! OMG!!! MIKE AMS TEH SMARTZORZ!!!

 

Answer the question posed to you in an attempt to have a decent conversation. Looking at the possible candidates for the dems, who would you think has the best chance at winning in 2004?

[Guest NoCalMike]

If the war on Iraq ends anytime soon he will have to start dealing with issues at home, and so far he has failed miserably, in my opinion. It is not too far off to say his fate could be sealed like his father's, high approval rating as we win the war rather quick, yet when faced with issues on the home front, complete failure. It is too early to predict, but I'd say the war itself will not be the huge question, rather the aftermath of the war and what will be done from maybe fall 2003 until election time in 2004.

 

For the democrats to win, they need to oppose the current administration BOTTOMLINE. We saw where passive attitudes got them in the last elections. Personally I am not keen on voting for a democrat or republican(I voted Green last time) however, I'd say you need a nominee that the left can identify with. The problem last time is that no one in the democrats party was really inspiring. The Issue of war as evoked strong emotions on BOTH SIDE of the issue and if the right has Bush who is adamently FOR THE WAR and the left puts forth someone who is sort-of against it, but not all the way, it will be another horrible failure. Right now the left are the easier targets because the Right Wing is being successful in putting forth the lie that if you aren't for Bush/War then you are somehow unamerican. I am not saying Bush really feels this way at heart, but that is one point that will probably be painted against the left in the forthcoming elections. I was kind of all over the place with this post.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, since one of us has to be the adult, I'll no longer reply to you.

 

It's not like it's mental exercise, anyway.

                -=Mike --- bored of you

[Guest TheMikeSC]

If the war on Iraq ends anytime soon he will have to start dealing with issues at home, and so far he has failed miserably, in my opinion. It is not too far off to say his fate could be sealed like his father's, high approval rating as we win the war rather quick, yet when faced with issues on the home front, complete failure. It is too early to predict, but I'd say the war itself will not be the huge question, rather the aftermath of the war and what will be done from maybe fall 2003 until election time in 2004.

 

For the democrats to win, they need to oppose the current administration BOTTOMLINE. We saw where passive attitudes got them in the last elections. Personally I am not keen on voting for a democrat or republican(I voted Green last time) however, I'd say you need a nominee that the left can identify with. The problem last time is that no one in the democrats party was really inspiring. The Issue of war as evoked strong emotions on BOTH SIDE of the issue and if the right has Bush who is adamently FOR THE WAR and the left puts forth someone who is sort-of against it, but not all the way, it will be another horrible failure. Right now the left are the easier targets because the Right Wing is being successful in putting forth the lie that if you aren't for Bush/War then you are somehow unamerican. I am not saying Bush really feels this way at heart, but that is one point that will probably be painted against the left in the forthcoming elections. I was kind of all over the place with this post.

Let's just remember that the last 2 times the Dems ran a liberal candidate, they got absolutely annihilated in the election.

 

Absolutely annihilated.

 

Yes, the economy is bad. It was bad when Bush took office, 9/11 made it worse, and it has not improved. Can this hurt Bush? Absolutely.

 

But, the current candidates for the Dems don't appear capable of generating mass appeal --- and having goofs that they CAN'T attack (Sharpton and Braun) is only going to make it that much worse.

 

As for the right putting forth the "lie" that if you're anti-war, you're anti-American, remember one little thing:

 

In Vietnam, when Nixon INCREASED the bombings, his polls went up constantly. Americans are almost always going to support a war that it fought properly --- and this war won't be fought like Vietnam was.

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

The economy was not bad when Bush took office, though. It was in a slag, yes, but it was not horrible. 9/11 sure didn't help, but all Bush offered for the economy was telling people to go shop. Those were his words of wisdom. Oh and the tax cuts that didn't really help one bit, yet Bush wants to further that plan.

 

As far as running a liberal candidate. I am not saying the Democrats should go get a lefty liberal, but the one HUGE ISSUE that will probably still be stuck in everyone's mind is the war, and there NEEDS TO BE OPPOSITION. I'd say the War and the Economy are two things that the Democratic candidate should be critical of, since that is what most americans are gonna identify most with in the 2004 elections(barring something else major going down before then). Other than that, the democrats and republicans can stick to their middle of the road agenda.

[Guest Vyce]

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.

After reading the Israel post a couple days back, I'm thinking you don't want Lieberman to get elected for entirely different reasons.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That's utterly stupid.

 

Lieberman is more of a Republicrat than anything. He's a good balance on a ticket whose president is farther to the left, but nothing more.

 

Assuming Dan is anti-Semetic (thusly assuming that's his reason for not backing Lieberman) is not only insulting, it's also flame baiting to him.

 

You should be ashamed.

[Guest Vyce]

That's utterly stupid.

 

Lieberman is more of a Republicrat than anything. He's a good balance on a ticket whose president is farther to the left, but nothing more.

 

Assuming Dan is anti-Semetic (thusly assuming that's his reason for not backing Lieberman) is not only insulting, it's also flame baiting to him.

 

You should be ashamed.

I should be ashamed of a lot of things, and yet I'm not.

 

Tyler, spare me the grief, and just go read the Israel thread again.

 

Young DeathAngel here seems to have a problem with Jews. But hey, that's my perception, maybe I'm wrong. I tend to think anyone who downplays the Holocaust may be a little insensitive towards Jewish folk, but that's just me.

 

I'm not flame-baiting him, BTW, I could care less if he responds to my post or not. If he were to come here and bitch at me, it's not as if I'm going to spend a few dozen posts or so arguing with him.

[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.

After reading the Israel post a couple days back, I'm thinking you don't want Lieberman to get elected for entirely different reasons.

If you mean I don't want Lieberman to be the candidate because he is Jewish... that has nothing to do with it. Religion is the last thing I consider in a candidate. I voted for Gore and Lieberman in the last election. If I trully was anti-semetic, then I would have never voted for those candidates. Lieberman is a little too conservative for my taste, it has nothing to do with his religion. If he did get the nomination, then more than likely I would vote for him, depending really on the platform he was running on. I just feel that if he did get the nomination, it would be very identical to Bush's and that is a recipe for defeat.

 

I agree with the notion that Lieberman makes a great complimentary running mate, ie Vice President.

 

I am I correct to think that you are hinting that I am anti semetic? Where did that come form? That is very insulting too me. I would never hate someone for being Jewish, unless of course that person was a complete asshole and didn't show me the common respect all people deserve . But never would I hate entire race of people base on race, religion, or anything else for that matter.

[Guest Powerplay]

I don't know why, Dan, but I think Vyce has mistaken you for Death Angel, who really did say some Anti-Semetic comments back in the Israel thread. But you aren't him. WUZUPWITDAT?

[Guest Crazy Dan]

No kidding... man I am a man of mistaken identity, or something. But I had to defend myself.

[Guest Some Guy]

Hey Tyler, where did you get your degree in Political Science? Mine's coming next year from Slaem State College. I disagree Tom, Tyler acts like a dick all the time. He always runs around whinign about ad honinem attacks but gives out way more than he takes.

 

Anyway, Kerry is propably going to get the designation of the guy who loses to Bush in 2004.

The Dem convention is in Boston (way to reach out there, why not just hold the fuckign thing in Harvard Yard, you'd think for a party that is losing support they would go otu and try to get new supporters instead of going t a liberal stronghold) and Kerry is a Mass Liberal. Mass Liberals don't win against strong GOP candidates. Bush killed Dukakis in 88 for example. Kerry is a lying asshole, he can't even keep is heritage straight. All fo the sudden he's Jewish and no longer Irish. WTF? Talk about a slave to public opinion, the guy lied to the heavily Irish Catholic Boston area for years about being Irish.

I wouldn't trust Kerry if I were the Dems. He, along with vitrtually all teh Liberals in the runnign have wavored, trying to have it both ways so much on the war that they can't be taken for their word on anything. How can you sign of on Presidential war power and then not support the war and then support the war and then not support the war and then support the war and then not support the war, but support the troops. They're all full of shit.

Not a single Dem candidate that I've seen have an once of charisma, Clinton had it in spades, but these guys are boring and stone faced just like Gore.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

University of Pittsburgh.

 

Nice comments, though; it certainly shows how much you don't know about the Dem campaigns. Why even comment when you know jack shit?

 

As far as the little hissy fit over my debate style goes, I seldom whine about ad hominem attacks when my opponent doesn't simply attack ad hominem and ignore the topic of debate. As you'd see if you took off your rose-colored "REPUBS RULE, YO!!!!!!!!!!!" glasses, those who I criticize often do that. Believe it or not, I'm not a fragile little child who is immediately mortally wounded by an ad hominem attack by some random loser on the 'net, it just turns out that I'd rather debate than trade insults.

 

Now be gone.

[Guest Vyce]

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.

After reading the Israel post a couple days back, I'm thinking you don't want Lieberman to get elected for entirely different reasons.

If you mean I don't want Lieberman to be the candidate because he is Jewish... that has nothing to do with it. Religion is the last thing I consider in a candidate. I voted for Gore and Lieberman in the last election. If I trully was anti-semetic, then I would have never voted for those candidates. Lieberman is a little too conservative for my taste, it has nothing to do with his religion. If he did get the nomination, then more than likely I would vote for him, depending really on the platform he was running on. I just feel that if he did get the nomination, it would be very identical to Bush's and that is a recipe for defeat.

 

I agree with the notion that Lieberman makes a great complimentary running mate, ie Vice President.

 

I am I correct to think that you are hinting that I am anti semetic? Where did that come form? That is very insulting too me. I would never hate someone for being Jewish, unless of course that person was a complete asshole and didn't show me the common respect all people deserve . But never would I hate entire race of people base on race, religion, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, I have made a mistake, and I freely admit it - I mistook you for DeathAngel.

 

My fault entirely, and I apologize.

 

You are not anti-Semitic. Forgive me for the confusion.

 

Now that I have made an ass of myself, I shall be away!

 

P.S. - Lieberman is actually my favorite of the Dem candidates, but then again I'm conservative, so there you go.

[Guest Some Guy]

Where did I ever take the stance that "REPUBS RULE, YO!!!!!!!!!!!". Hell where did Iever say I was a Republican?

 

I commented on Kerry, because I have seen the guy as Senator of my state. I didn't comment too much on the others because I don't know all that much about them. Besides that from what I've seen of them they are uncharismatic and boring. I read the Dean website and I'm unimpressed with him. he seems like just another tax and spend Dem. Universal healthcare doesn't work and is not popular. Remember Clinton losing big on that one?

 

I do know that he is a doctor though, as he sees fit to remind us in every other sentence.

 

Dean runs an uncomplicted and very small state. They have low crime because they have very few people and no large cities.

 

Gay unions is another unpopular stance that he supports.

 

What exactly is "creative diplomacy"? Carter/Clinton style appeasement? He says in tha National Security section that we ahould use the military as well to protect ourselves from terrorism, well that what's the President is doing. Why does he oppose it?

Here's why:

If a policy of containment, coupled with UN inspections, is sufficient to protect our interests, that is preferable to the inherent bloodshed and unpredictable consequences of war. If war does prove necessary in self-defense, we must lay out the evidence in advance and do all we can to minimize civilian casualties and protect our troops and allies from the risks of chemical and biological attack. We must also forge the broadest possible coalition not only to win the war, but also to create a secure, stable, united and democratic Iraq in its aftermath.

 

Containmetn didn't work, the UN refused to back it's own laws and we have the broadest coalition possible. Bush laid out the evidence way in advance of the attack and teh UN still refused to be a part of this. We are also minimizing civillian casualties as well as our own. He's full of shit.

 

He is also a liar. Bush's $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut has nothing to do with the downfall in teh economy, know why? Because the vast majorit of it has not been instated yet and won't be until '08.

 

He cut taxes in Vermont, yet argues that tax cuts are bad for the country. Huh?

 

He says that prisons don't work. What are we supposed to do with criminals then?

 

I tend to agree with him on gun laws. It's a state decision to make, not a national thing.

 

I assume he's pro-choice (the link won't work) and that's fine with me.

 

And this Administration has gutted the Clean Water Act, resulting in a loss of 20% of our wetlands.

 

I find it very hard to believe that Vermont (presumably) has lost 20% of it's wetlands during int eh last 2 years.

 

That is why we must take another look at the Kyoto Protocol to find ways to cooperate with other countries instead of opposing them on issues as monumentally important to the earth's future as global warming. In an act of diplomatic and environmental petulance, the Bush Administration wrongly refused to look at the agreement. While there are legitimate concerns about provisions of the agreement - particularly with regard to the level of commitment of developing nations - such a foolish, unilateral move was the wrong way to achieve our long-term objectives.

 

I'm sure that Bush never looked at it. Bullshit. he read it and decided that AMerica would pay virtually the whole bill and get little in return. Clinton never signed it and neither did any other country for that matter. In what otehr way than "unilateral[ly]" can one country refuse to sign a treaty? That was a pot shot at the war, an incorrect pot shot but it was one nonetheless.

 

Lieberman is another waving Dem, like Clinton he changes his mind depending on who is in front of him.

 

I really think that Sharpton is the way to go. The Dems are going to have a hard time winning and sending out a sure loser will help their party in teh long run. It will shut up Sharpton (assuming anything could shut this clown up), who the Dems hate and give them four more years to get these other guys known on a national level.

 

EDIT:

"Birthday: 16 May 1984 "

 

Assuming that is your birthday it would make you 18. How did you manage to get a college degree at such a young age?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm in the process, as are you.

 

Unfortunately, I seem to be more informed on quite a few issues than you do. Go figure. Guess age doesn't matter much, does it?

 

He is also a liar. Bush's $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut has nothing to do with the downfall in teh economy, know why? Because the vast majorit of it has not been instated yet and won't be until '08.

 

And yet, the portions of it which have been instituted have been utterly destructive.

 

He says that prisons don't work. What are we supposed to do with criminals then?

 

Prisons alone don't work, and even you know that. They have to be coupled with treatment. (especially in drug-related crimes).

 

He cut taxes in Vermont, yet argues that tax cuts are bad for the country. Huh?

 

The circumstances were quite different. Tax cuts aren't the way to go for our nation right now, unless they're payroll tax cuts (which immediately give more money in the hands of consumers).

 

I find it very hard to believe that Vermont (presumably) has lost 20% of it's wetlands during int eh last 2 years.

 

He's not speaking about Vermont.

 

I'm sure that Bush never looked at it. Bullshit. he read it and decided that AMerica would pay virtually the whole bill and get little in return. Clinton never signed it and neither did any other country for that matter. In what otehr way than "unilateral[ly]" can one country refuse to sign a treaty? That was a pot shot at the war, an incorrect pot shot but it was one nonetheless.

 

Really had nothing to do with the war. It's more of a stance on Global Warming, which was... well, what the topic at hand happened to be. Perhaps we front the bill, but even if we do, it's going to help the environment. I don't see the problem with preventing global warming.

 

Lieberman is another waving Dem, like Clinton he changes his mind depending on who is in front of him.

 

Agreed, and that's why I think he'd only be a VP at best.

 

I really think that Sharpton is the way to go. The Dems are going to have a hard time winning and sending out a sure loser will help their party in teh long run. It will shut up Sharpton (assuming anything could shut this clown up), who the Dems hate and give them four more years to get these other guys known on a national level.

 

I don't think it'll be as tough as you think.

 

Bush's re-election numbers, even facing an unnamed-as-of-yet democrat, are only at 55% right now. It's going to be a close race either way, and I think Dean is the way to go.