Democratic candidate debates

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

First of all, The intensely humorous "LOLZ DEMZ R DUM THEY CANT WIN GO BUSH" crap by some people here is played out. Obviously, if you hate all these guys, there's no reason to comment, ok? Thanks

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1654EDT0581.DTL

 

Democratic presidential candidates hold early debate with hopes of bringing down Bush

 

The nine Democrats vying for the White House clashed over the U.S.-led war against Iraq, health insurance and President Bush's tax cut in an ultra early primary debate in which they hope to distinguish themselves from the pack.

 

The recent conflict -- and the divisions among the candidates over the war -- were evident Saturday in the opening questions. Disagreements among the nine also emerged as the 90-minute debate moved toward topics such as candidate Dick Gephardt's plan to roll back Bush's 2001 tax cut to finance health care.

 

Moderator George Stephanopoulos focused initially on Bush's decision to order U.S. forces to lead a coalition to disarm Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. He highlighted former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's statement earlier in the day that Saddam really wasn't much of a threat to the country.

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut took issue with that assessment. "Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and, most particularly, to his neighbors," Lieberman said. "We did the right thing in fighting this fight, and the American people will be safer as a result of it."

 

But Al Sharpton argued that "we could have disarmed Hussein by working with the United Nations."

 

Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, the former Illinois senator, focused on the expense of keeping U.S. forces in Iraq and the reconstruction of the war-torn nation.

 

The start of the debate was dominated by a heated exchange between Dean and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Dean criticized a statement that Kerry's aides had issued earlier in the week questioning his ability to be commander in chief. Many of the other candidates made a plea for the two to stop squabbling, fearing that it would make the Democrats look bad.

 

"We're not fighting each other," said Florida Sen. Bob Graham. "We're trying to select one of us to be the opponent of George Bush."

 

The debate shifted to the issue of Gephardt's health insurance proposal, the cornerstone of his campaign that would require businesses to provide health care for their employees at a cost of more than $200 billion a year. The plan would repeal all of Bush's 2001 tax cut.

 

Lieberman said he was unwilling to raise taxes to pay for health coverage. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina questioned a plan that would leave the decisions to "big corporate America and assume that they do the right thing. That sounds like Reaganomics to me."

 

Gephardt defended his proposal, arguing that his plan would stimulate the economy and contending that the Bush tax cuts have been a failure. He made his case with a call to his fellow Democrats.

 

"I think if we're going to win this election, we cannot be Bush-lite," said Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader from Missouri. "We can't come along and say, 'Well, I'll keep half the Bush tax cut, or I'll keep three quarters of the Bush tax cut. The Bush tax cuts have failed. They are not making the economy better, they are not helping people get jobs, they're not covering anybody with health insurance."

 

Earlier in the debate, Lieberman delivered another message to all the candidates hoping to unseat Bush in 2004, an argument certain to be part of his campaign platform.

 

"No Democrat will be elected president in 2004 who is not strong on defense, and this war was a test of that strength," Lieberman said.

 

Kerry revisited that challenge on national security toward the end of the debate, saying, "I'm the only person running for this job who's actually fought in a war. I'm not ambivalent about the war, Joe."

 

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former mayor of Cleveland, declared he was the only candidate ready to "say it's time to cut the waste, the fat, the bloat out of the military."

 

The debate came before most of the candidates have fully developed their positions for next year's election. But with no clear front-runner, there is intense rivalry for the nomination, even among the longshots.

 

"The way to move a donkey is to slap the donkey," Sharpton, warming up for the debate, told delegates at the state party convention Saturday afternoon. "I'm going to slap the donkey until the donkey kicks and we are going to kick George Bush out of the White House."

 

In the final segment of the debate, Stephanopoulos zeroed in on the foremost criticism of each candidate and asked them to offer a defense to charges of personal weaknesses. He asked Kerry about his aloofness, Graham about his lack of charisma, Edwards about his lack of policy experience, Sharpton if he's a racial polarizer and Gephardt if he's "been around the track too many times."

 

Gephardt responded, "George, you really know how to hurt a guy." He highlighted his experience and said if voters are looking for a fresh face, he's not their candidate.

 

When Stephanopoulos asked Lieberman if he's too nice to take on Bush, Lieberman responded, "I'd like to come over there and strangle you, George." But then said a candidate doesn't "have to be a screamer to be tough."

 

I still say Kerry. Dean is too moderate, he's extremely conservative in some areas. I do like the tolerance for homosexuals, though. But Kerry is a true liberal, and I hope to hell he's going to win the nomination.

 

See, if we have Dean and Bush, it'll be one conservative and one half-conservative. The conservatives will vote for Bush, just because Dean is half liberal. The liberals would rather throw their vote away, and vote Nader or something. Dean ends up losing badly.

There needs to be a clear contrast. We have a two-party system for a reason.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Whoa, how do you figure Dean is a half-conservative?

 

Everything I have seen has suggested the exact opposite.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Have you seen his gun platform? It's not any different than Bush's. And the NRA backs him, and I think that they are hypocritical and morally bankrupt organization who's sole purpose is to bribe politicians, and bully those it cannot buy.

 

Don't get me wrong -- given a choice between Dean and our Papa Bush's spawn, Dean is the clear choice. But I'm interested in seeing the pack of dems move towards the left . . . and so am not willing to support a centrist just yet.

 

I went into that debate with a slight favoritism towards Dean -- he's very popular around here in San Francisco but everyone here is also too wrapped up in anti-war stuff to care about any of the other issues -- but I was really just eager to see these people addressing a national audience. I've only seen them each, individually, talk about whatever issue they happened to be pulling out of their ass at the time.

 

I left the debate with my interest in Dean shaken somewhat . . . not because he performed badly, but because everybody else did well. Even Al Sharpton! In fact, in much the same way as Boy George won over the other Al by not proving to the world that the bacteria living inside my rectum could beat him at chess, Sharpton made a huge advance Saturday night. That was rather scary.

 

I'll tell you one thing though -- this election isn't going to be won by appealing to the flying monkey right. History shows that Democrats win when turnout is high -- and the Dems are all fired up to get this traitorous, treasonous, deserter piece of shit and his brown-shirted buddies out. The election is going to be won by somebody who can hold the left and appeal to the center.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I suppose I focused on healthcare in regard to Dean, which was a rather liberal view of his. He's also environmentally conscious and anti-war, not to mention interested in fiscal responsibility. I do wish I'd have seen this debate, though.

 

From reading that article, I'd have to agree that all of these candidates sound a lot stronger than they did prior to the debates. Hopefully, we're learning... and hopefully, we don't put Lieberman up there.

[Guest Vyce]

Dean is more clearly liberal than any of them with regards alone to his stance on the war.

 

But it doesn't really matter - Dean doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

My vote for Kerrey in 2004. If for nothing else, his help with veds and he isn't a Kennedy.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Dean is more clearly liberal than any of them with regards alone to his stance on the war.

The war isn't going to last more than a few more months. I don't think the war is a very important issue, really. Certainly not a gamebreaker.

[Guest DrTom]

LOLZ DEMZ R DUM THEY CANT WIN G... oh, fuck.

 

I'll be voting third party in 2004 by the looks of things.

[Guest JHawk]

Tell me Jesse Ventura's changed his mind about running.

[Guest RepoMan]

Have you seen his gun platform? It's not any different than Bush's.

I don't take gun control to be that big a deal. Tim Hagan of Ohio was very anti-gun control while running on pro national health care, anti IMF, anti war platform.

 

Dean, Kucinich, or Sharpton would make me vote Democratic. Other wise I hope Nader gives it another go.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Go Green Party.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

First of all, The intensely humorous "LOLZ DEMZ R DUM THEY CANT WIN GO BUSH" crap by some people here is played out. Obviously, if you hate all these guys, there's no reason to comment, ok? Thanks

Certainly there is a reason to comment. This is a forum for debate, not your personal soapbox, and you have neither the authority nor the ability to exclude points of view you find objectionable. Suck it up.

Not one of these candidates has the faintest prayer of winning, and deep down, every leftist knows it just as well as I do. Democrats are dumb, and they can't win. Lieberman is the least offensive of the lot, but I doubt the DNC will give him the nomination after the debacle in 2000. It'll probably go to Kerry. Dean is out of the running right now, and Al Sharpton is just a bad joke which has gone on far, far too long. Giving the nomination to Kerry, of course, is practically electoral suicide. You can't win with a guy who throws someone else's medals on the steps of the Capitol. But the other choices are worse. The only real question here is, by how staggering a margin will the President be re-elected in 2004?

 

You're welcome.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Marney is correct. Bush is going to be re-elected by a HUGE margin. I just not voting Bush and hope Kerry goes the Nod so atleast I vote for someone who isn't a Bush.

 

The only way Bush can possiblely lose is if Powell runs in 2004. And the chances of that happening are as slim as Bin Ladin winning in 2004.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Lieberman is the least offensive of the lot

No way, if Lieberman is the nominee Nader is going to jump in and give the Green Party a real test if they can actually grow, or if they'll never get anywhere higher than 3%. Lieberman will drive away a lot of Democratic voters, and Nader would be stupid if he didn't try to catch them, especially if Bush turns the economy around in the slightest bit.

 

But I just can't see the Democrats as backing Lieberman, as much as they've gone to the center. The hardcore family values people won't vote for a Jew, no matter how much he rails on Doom, and they risk alienating some of the left. But at the same time, I have a horrible feeling that Lieberman some how gets the nomination.

 

P.S. "Democrats are dumb." Wow. You sure convinced everyone.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You could do worse than Senator Lieberman. Howard Dean and John Kerry are perfect examples, although Dick Gephardt isn't bad. One can work with someone like him.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Sorry, but as a guy who likes both video games and pro wrestling (and I know that doesn't make me sound like the most intelligent soul, but hey, you're the one who comes to a wrestling board for political discussion) I've had enough of Lieberman telling me that what I'm doing is bad, is killing kids, and needs to stop.

 

Gephardt, sure. Worse has happened.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh, please. All Bush has to do is continue doing things like this and supporting bigots like Santorum, and he'll be just as vulnerable as anyone else... perhaps moreso.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The President has not made any personal statement on Santorum's comments. The White House statement is clearly and pointedly equivocal. You may derive from it what you wish.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As the leader of the White House, one might derive that Mr. Bush had something to do with that statement.

 

And quite frankly, after they hung Lott out to dry, their failure to condemn Santorum's comments was despicable. Apparently, black people have more of a right to be defended than gays do.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"The President has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a Senator and as a member of the Senate leadership."

"The President believes the senator is an inclusive man."

"[Homosexuality is] not a matter that the president concerns himself with. He judges people for how they act and how they relate."

- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

 

Read between the lines.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm not going to put words in Bush's mouth, but this is the guy who said "evolution is just a theory," so I think even Vegas would put heavy odds on Geroge intentionally refusing to show disagreement for some reason, whether political or personal.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Heh heh heh. I did notice that, and yet, I think it's obvious after Lott's crucifixion that they should have openly -- not in a veiled way -- distanced themselves from Santorum and his opinions. If I'm not mistaken, Santorum never apologized for his comments (or even retracted them), and they were not demanded to do so by any conservative pundit not named Andrew Sullivan, nor the White House.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm not going to put words in Bush's mouth, but this is the guy who said "evolution is just a theory,"

"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."

- President George W Bush in 2002

 

If you're going to quote the President of the United States, kindly do so correctly. I'm quite convinced of both the fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection, and I find nothing to disagree with in his remark.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Alright you got me there. I had my news stories mixed up.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

NP.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

As much as I would like the Santorum thing to become a big issue, it's already off most of the national radar. He had his week of scandal and it's probably not going to come up again unless he does something else boneheaded. Sucks, but unfortunately it seems to be the way things are going.

 

If Lieberman gets the nominaton, I don't know who the hell I'll vote for. I'm uneasy with Bush, I won't for Nader on general principle, but I think Lieberman's a tool to boot.

 

Write-in: Frank Stallone.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The potential for volatility among Democrats is suggested by a poll conducted April 10-16 by the Pew Research Center showing that 69 percent of Democrats cannot name any of the nine candidates. Kerry, the most frequently named, is named by just 9 percent of respondents. Nine percent think Al Gore is running.

The president has 71 percent job approval. Ronald Reagan had 58 percent in 1984, when he swept 49 states.

- George Will

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

And G.W. currently has lower approval ratings than his Dad did at this time. So?

 

Edwards looks acceptable, although he doesn't have a lot of experience, and I'm not sure if a doctor is the best person to run a country. Either one would probably be better than Bush however, I mean shit.. if Democrats are dumb, then this man is a moron.

 

In a perfect universe, either McCain or Powell would win. Or, in a really perfect universe, McCain would run with Powell as VP and win.

[Guest Choken One]

Jesus...And I really wanted to vote next year...

 

 

Never liked Bush and I don't like losing MY money...

 

Hate Lieberman because he tries to tell me what is wrong...

 

I hate to say it...

 

If Bush is Supposdely "AUTOMATIC" then at least give us Al Sharpton for the fun of it...

 

A Bush/Sharpton debate would OWN...

[Guest NoCalMike]

A Bush/Sharpton debate would OWN...

yah, azif Bush is going to debate without spoonfed questions. He will weasel is way out of anything having to use his brain.