Hillary Rodham Clinton not running...
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Anyone winning in the 2004 Democrat primaries is likely to be seen by most American Voters as a left wing extremist which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. :( To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. How so?
-
JoeSox wrote: Who are the leading Democratic candidates to run against GWB? Here are my opinions on the current crop: The three strongest, at this point, appear to be Dean, Gephardt and Kerry. Dean is Vermont's governor, Kerry and Gephardt are career Congressmen. To me, Dean is the most interesting: he's tough; his hands are clean on the Iraq mess (since, as a governor; he didn't have to vote for the war and then oppose it for political reasons like most everyone else on the list); his stance on the Iraq war is that we didn't need to do it immediately; he has a good record in Vermont; he's anything but a "tax-and-spend" liberal; he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; he's not a career Congressman. Kerry is generally shown to be on top of the polls, but he doesn't do anything for me. I think Gephardt has been running for President forever. There are 6 or 7 other candidates: John Edwards (NC Senator) : he is doing inexplicably poorly in polls - nobody seems excited about him, despite his being a young, attractive (i'm told) smart, moderate. It's only his first term as Senator, so maybe he should have waited. Joe Lieberman : He's so conservative on many issues that he's widely considered to be a Democrat in name only. Among other things, he's for legislating morality in Hollywood. Plus, as a devout Jew, he has almost no chance of being elected President. Al Sharpton : though I do a double take every time i see it, he is one of the better speakers in the gang. He has a sharp wit and since he has almost nothing to lose and isn't a career politician, he can say whatever he wants. It's too bad his entire past makes him irrelevant, because right now he's coming across really well - not at all the polarizing ass you'd expect. As a black preacher, he has zero chance of being elected, of course. Carol Moseley-Braun : a black woman. That's pretty much all I know about her. Graham : Florida congressman and a member of an important congressional security committee. While this makes him credible on national security issues, like Lieberman, he's seen as a Democrat in name only by many; i think he feels GWB didn't go far enough in Iraq. Kucinich : he comes from Ohio. And it looks like he'll be headed back there soon. I think I heard Joe Biden was running, too. Don't know anything about him. There are rumors that former UN allied commander General Wesley Clark might be considering a run, bu
I like Dean too. GWB might be riding high now but with the economy still pretty crappy with no clear signs of improving his approval rating should drop between now and the next election. Not sure if it'll be enough for the Democrats to beat him though. However, the continued terrorist threat is something he should definitely be losing sleep over. One terrorist act between now and the election and I think the Democrats could run a 3 butted monkey against him and have a chance.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: To me, Dean is the most interesting: I haven't heard him speak and I checked out his website and found this "We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care. We must balance the federal budget. We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives. We must guarantee every American equal rights under the law. And we must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy. Together, we can move forward with this new vision for America." http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_issues[^] :rolleyes: which is basically what all the rep and dem candidates are saying. I have always like Gephardt and noticed he is making civil rights part of his platform, which is good imo http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/main/issues.html[^] I visited the Libertarian website but I don't know if they have chosen their candidates yet, I think maybe July? but I am sure they will keep their core issues http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/home.htm[^] Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "Dream as if you'll live forever; live as if you'll die tomorrow." - James Dean(ISTP)JoeSox wrote: We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care. JoeSox wrote: We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives JoeSox wrote: must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy Sounds like a left wing extremist to me.
-
JoeSox wrote: We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care. JoeSox wrote: We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives JoeSox wrote: must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy Sounds like a left wing extremist to me.
-
JoeSox wrote: Who are the leading Democratic candidates to run against GWB? Here are my opinions on the current crop: The three strongest, at this point, appear to be Dean, Gephardt and Kerry. Dean is Vermont's governor, Kerry and Gephardt are career Congressmen. To me, Dean is the most interesting: he's tough; his hands are clean on the Iraq mess (since, as a governor; he didn't have to vote for the war and then oppose it for political reasons like most everyone else on the list); his stance on the Iraq war is that we didn't need to do it immediately; he has a good record in Vermont; he's anything but a "tax-and-spend" liberal; he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; he's not a career Congressman. Kerry is generally shown to be on top of the polls, but he doesn't do anything for me. I think Gephardt has been running for President forever. There are 6 or 7 other candidates: John Edwards (NC Senator) : he is doing inexplicably poorly in polls - nobody seems excited about him, despite his being a young, attractive (i'm told) smart, moderate. It's only his first term as Senator, so maybe he should have waited. Joe Lieberman : He's so conservative on many issues that he's widely considered to be a Democrat in name only. Among other things, he's for legislating morality in Hollywood. Plus, as a devout Jew, he has almost no chance of being elected President. Al Sharpton : though I do a double take every time i see it, he is one of the better speakers in the gang. He has a sharp wit and since he has almost nothing to lose and isn't a career politician, he can say whatever he wants. It's too bad his entire past makes him irrelevant, because right now he's coming across really well - not at all the polarizing ass you'd expect. As a black preacher, he has zero chance of being elected, of course. Carol Moseley-Braun : a black woman. That's pretty much all I know about her. Graham : Florida congressman and a member of an important congressional security committee. While this makes him credible on national security issues, like Lieberman, he's seen as a Democrat in name only by many; i think he feels GWB didn't go far enough in Iraq. Kucinich : he comes from Ohio. And it looks like he'll be headed back there soon. I think I heard Joe Biden was running, too. Don't know anything about him. There are rumors that former UN allied commander General Wesley Clark might be considering a run, bu
Interesting analysis - I'll have to look into Dean a bit, though the rest of the list are complete losers. Any chance of a last minute darkhorse entry in the race?
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee..." -
"When Democratic voters are asked which politician they want as president, one name consistently appears at the top--Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the New York senator couldn't make it any clearer that she isn't running for the White House. At least not in 2004..." http://www.statesman.com/aponline/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V8300.AP-Hillarys-Clout.html[^] this leaves one question in my mind. Who are the leading Democratic candidates to run against GWB?:~ Later,
JoeSox
www.humanaiproject.org "Dream as if you'll live forever; live as if you'll die tomorrow." - James Dean(ISTP)Why not Ted ("You get the girls, I'll drive") Kennedy? :-D I really liked Gary Hart, and was sorry to see him drop out of the race years ago. At least his bimbo was attractive, and he was honest about their relationship!
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee..." -
Interesting analysis - I'll have to look into Dean a bit, though the rest of the list are complete losers. Any chance of a last minute darkhorse entry in the race?
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee..."Roger Wright wrote: Any chance of a last minute darkhorse entry in the race? i haven't heard of any prospects, except Clark. To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
JoeSox wrote: We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care. JoeSox wrote: We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives JoeSox wrote: must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy Sounds like a left wing extremist to me.
Stan Shannon wrote: We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care during his 2000 campaign, bush pledged: ---$4.3 billion over five years to expand health care services to rural and inner-city communities --- $3.6 billion in federal aid to create 1,200 new community and immigrant health centers --- $500 million in pilot programs to address specific health concerns (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/18/healthcare.special/[^]) Stan Shannon wrote: We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives during his 2000 campaign, bush stated: "All our goals in Eurasia will depend on America strengthening the alliances that sustain our influence," Bush said in a foreign policy speech at the start of his campaign. America's allies, Bush went on, are "partners, not satellites." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27756-2003Mar14[^]) Stan Shannon wrote: must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy June 2000, Bush said: "Since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, there has been a consensus that Americans have a common interest in protecting our natural lands and watersheds," Bush said during a ceremony at Sand Harbor State Park on Lake Tahoe, Nevada. "As president, I will speak for that great national goal. It is our duty to use the lands well, and sometimes not to use them at all. It is our responsibility as citizens, but more than that it is our calling as stewards of the earth." -- sounds like a left wing extremist to me. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: We must provide every American access to quality, affordable health care during his 2000 campaign, bush pledged: ---$4.3 billion over five years to expand health care services to rural and inner-city communities --- $3.6 billion in federal aid to create 1,200 new community and immigrant health centers --- $500 million in pilot programs to address specific health concerns (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/18/healthcare.special/[^]) Stan Shannon wrote: We must cooperate with the community of nations in pursuing our foreign policy objectives during his 2000 campaign, bush stated: "All our goals in Eurasia will depend on America strengthening the alliances that sustain our influence," Bush said in a foreign policy speech at the start of his campaign. America's allies, Bush went on, are "partners, not satellites." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27756-2003Mar14[^]) Stan Shannon wrote: must protect our environment to preserve a natural heritage for our children's children to enjoy June 2000, Bush said: "Since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, there has been a consensus that Americans have a common interest in protecting our natural lands and watersheds," Bush said during a ceremony at Sand Harbor State Park on Lake Tahoe, Nevada. "As president, I will speak for that great national goal. It is our duty to use the lands well, and sometimes not to use them at all. It is our responsibility as citizens, but more than that it is our calling as stewards of the earth." -- sounds like a left wing extremist to me. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Yeah, I know. Those are a few of the many reasons I hated to vote for the guy. Still, like everyone else, I figured he was probably lieing about it - so that gave me some comfort. ;)
-
JoeSox wrote: Who are the leading Democratic candidates to run against GWB? Here are my opinions on the current crop: The three strongest, at this point, appear to be Dean, Gephardt and Kerry. Dean is Vermont's governor, Kerry and Gephardt are career Congressmen. To me, Dean is the most interesting: he's tough; his hands are clean on the Iraq mess (since, as a governor; he didn't have to vote for the war and then oppose it for political reasons like most everyone else on the list); his stance on the Iraq war is that we didn't need to do it immediately; he has a good record in Vermont; he's anything but a "tax-and-spend" liberal; he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal; he's not a career Congressman. Kerry is generally shown to be on top of the polls, but he doesn't do anything for me. I think Gephardt has been running for President forever. There are 6 or 7 other candidates: John Edwards (NC Senator) : he is doing inexplicably poorly in polls - nobody seems excited about him, despite his being a young, attractive (i'm told) smart, moderate. It's only his first term as Senator, so maybe he should have waited. Joe Lieberman : He's so conservative on many issues that he's widely considered to be a Democrat in name only. Among other things, he's for legislating morality in Hollywood. Plus, as a devout Jew, he has almost no chance of being elected President. Al Sharpton : though I do a double take every time i see it, he is one of the better speakers in the gang. He has a sharp wit and since he has almost nothing to lose and isn't a career politician, he can say whatever he wants. It's too bad his entire past makes him irrelevant, because right now he's coming across really well - not at all the polarizing ass you'd expect. As a black preacher, he has zero chance of being elected, of course. Carol Moseley-Braun : a black woman. That's pretty much all I know about her. Graham : Florida congressman and a member of an important congressional security committee. While this makes him credible on national security issues, like Lieberman, he's seen as a Democrat in name only by many; i think he feels GWB didn't go far enough in Iraq. Kucinich : he comes from Ohio. And it looks like he'll be headed back there soon. I think I heard Joe Biden was running, too. Don't know anything about him. There are rumors that former UN allied commander General Wesley Clark might be considering a run, bu
Chris Losinger wrote: he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; Which is interesting because Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in the nation...right up there with Texas. Chris Losinger wrote: he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal Socially liberal means he likes things like welfare, medicare, social security, saving the environment, etc. These programs all require money, hence, he has to spend more... At a basic level it seems like a paradox. (Don't worry, I understand that you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I'm just pointing out something I thought was kind of funny. :-D) Do you think any of them will win against Bush though? I mean theoretically according to the last election, most of the nation leans left. However, do you think that Bush has done a good enough job as President to secure the next election? I mean, his approval rate (last time I heard) was really good. I'm just looking to get a perspective from the other side.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
-
Yeah, I know. Those are a few of the many reasons I hated to vote for the guy. Still, like everyone else, I figured he was probably lieing about it - so that gave me some comfort. ;)
Stan Shannon wrote: Still, like everyone else, I figured he was probably lieing about it Maybe the Republicans should build on that. Maybe make a campaign slogan: "Bush, take comfort in his lies" "Bush 2004. Elect a liar!" "Bush, the liar to beat!" "Bush, sure he's a liar. But at least he doesn't get blow jobs!" "Bush lies, your sons die!" ;P -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; Which is interesting because Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in the nation...right up there with Texas. Chris Losinger wrote: he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal Socially liberal means he likes things like welfare, medicare, social security, saving the environment, etc. These programs all require money, hence, he has to spend more... At a basic level it seems like a paradox. (Don't worry, I understand that you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I'm just pointing out something I thought was kind of funny. :-D) Do you think any of them will win against Bush though? I mean theoretically according to the last election, most of the nation leans left. However, do you think that Bush has done a good enough job as President to secure the next election? I mean, his approval rate (last time I heard) was really good. I'm just looking to get a perspective from the other side.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
David Stone wrote: Socially liberal means he likes things like welfare, medicare, social security, saving the environment, etc. it certainly does not. "socially liberal" (as i used it) means he isn't interested in legislating morality. "fiscally conservative" means that while he was governor, VTs state budget was actually balanced. David Stone wrote: Do you think any of them will win against Bush though? no, not given the right-wing slant of TV news programs, and the fact that Bush will demolish all previous campaign spending records. David Stone wrote: However, do you think that Bush has done a good enough job as President to secure the next election? i think he gives off the appearance of having done well. he has had the tremendous luck of having nearly the entire media in his back pocket. things are starting to crack now, though, as the economy still falters, the WMDs aren't showing up, his cabinet is fracturing, etc.. i think he'll probably ride the war bounce into a narrow victory. David Stone wrote: I mean, his approval rate (last time I heard) was really good. it is, but it's been falling steadily for the past 2 months - the war bounce is over. now he has to work on at least giving the appearance that he's reversing the trend of losing 400K+ jobs per month. 3M jobs lost so far under his presidency. it's very rare (never?) that a president is reelected under a net loss of jobs. and, while people are excited about the "tax cuts", once they realize what it will cost them in terms of service, the Republicans will be in trouble. it's one thing to bitch about the cost of government programs and demand tax cuts, it's quite another to throw gramma out on the street - most people aren't libertarian purists, they just want comfortable lives. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Anyone winning in the 2004 Democrat primaries is likely to be seen by most American Voters as a left wing extremist which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. :( To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. Which also includes you. In Your opinion. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. How so?
because not a single one of the realistic D candidates are even close to "extreme". without a doubt, GWBs spin team will try to paint them all as "extreme left wing commies" but anyone can look at their positions and tell that they're all right in the center. but, people won't look. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: which means the american public is as dumb as dirt. Which also includes you. In Your opinion. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
and you, too, of course. To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
David Stone wrote: Socially liberal means he likes things like welfare, medicare, social security, saving the environment, etc. it certainly does not. "socially liberal" (as i used it) means he isn't interested in legislating morality. "fiscally conservative" means that while he was governor, VTs state budget was actually balanced. David Stone wrote: Do you think any of them will win against Bush though? no, not given the right-wing slant of TV news programs, and the fact that Bush will demolish all previous campaign spending records. David Stone wrote: However, do you think that Bush has done a good enough job as President to secure the next election? i think he gives off the appearance of having done well. he has had the tremendous luck of having nearly the entire media in his back pocket. things are starting to crack now, though, as the economy still falters, the WMDs aren't showing up, his cabinet is fracturing, etc.. i think he'll probably ride the war bounce into a narrow victory. David Stone wrote: I mean, his approval rate (last time I heard) was really good. it is, but it's been falling steadily for the past 2 months - the war bounce is over. now he has to work on at least giving the appearance that he's reversing the trend of losing 400K+ jobs per month. 3M jobs lost so far under his presidency. it's very rare (never?) that a president is reelected under a net loss of jobs. and, while people are excited about the "tax cuts", once they realize what it will cost them in terms of service, the Republicans will be in trouble. it's one thing to bitch about the cost of government programs and demand tax cuts, it's quite another to throw gramma out on the street - most people aren't libertarian purists, they just want comfortable lives. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: it certainly does not. "socially liberal" (as i used it) means he isn't interested in legislating morality. Ah, most people I know (Right wingers ;)) use it the way I did. Chris Losinger wrote: not given the right-wing slant of TV news programs Now there's something that couldn't be said a few years ago...funny how things change isn't it? Chris Losinger wrote: i think he'll probably ride the war bounce into a narrow victory. I agree with you there. I don't think that he's going to be re-elected by some great overwhelming landslide. Even I'll admit that I'm still curious as to where the WMDs are, and that doesn't look all that great when the sole reason we went in there was because of them. However, do you really think it's the President's job to straighten out the economy? I mean, theoretically that's Greenspan's job. I do realize that the President has a great deal of influence over the economy, but can he really be held responsible for things not going well? Especially when he inherited an economy that was severely damaged from the Clinton years?
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
-
because not a single one of the realistic D candidates are even close to "extreme". without a doubt, GWBs spin team will try to paint them all as "extreme left wing commies" but anyone can look at their positions and tell that they're all right in the center. but, people won't look. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
but do you think GWB is "extreme" and thus is supporters?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Chris Losinger wrote: he prefers that gun control be handled at the state level; Which is interesting because Vermont has some of the least strict gun control laws in the nation...right up there with Texas. Chris Losinger wrote: he's fiscally conservative, but socially liberal Socially liberal means he likes things like welfare, medicare, social security, saving the environment, etc. These programs all require money, hence, he has to spend more... At a basic level it seems like a paradox. (Don't worry, I understand that you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative...I'm just pointing out something I thought was kind of funny. :-D) Do you think any of them will win against Bush though? I mean theoretically according to the last election, most of the nation leans left. However, do you think that Bush has done a good enough job as President to secure the next election? I mean, his approval rate (last time I heard) was really good. I'm just looking to get a perspective from the other side.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
David Stone wrote: I mean theoretically according to the last election, most of the nation leans left. How do you get that out of the last mid-term election?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it certainly does not. "socially liberal" (as i used it) means he isn't interested in legislating morality. Ah, most people I know (Right wingers ;)) use it the way I did. Chris Losinger wrote: not given the right-wing slant of TV news programs Now there's something that couldn't be said a few years ago...funny how things change isn't it? Chris Losinger wrote: i think he'll probably ride the war bounce into a narrow victory. I agree with you there. I don't think that he's going to be re-elected by some great overwhelming landslide. Even I'll admit that I'm still curious as to where the WMDs are, and that doesn't look all that great when the sole reason we went in there was because of them. However, do you really think it's the President's job to straighten out the economy? I mean, theoretically that's Greenspan's job. I do realize that the President has a great deal of influence over the economy, but can he really be held responsible for things not going well? Especially when he inherited an economy that was severely damaged from the Clinton years?
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
David Stone wrote: and that doesn't look all that great when the sole reason we went in there was because of them. don't forget about that. David Stone wrote: However, do you really think it's the President's job to straighten out the economy? i think, if he is going to put the country in debt under the guise that he's helping the economy by providing "job stimulus", then he is giving the impression that it's his job. and, if his tax cuts work (or if the economy just recovers regardless) do you doubt that he'll take credit for it? on the other hand, if things don't improve, do you think he'll take credit for that too? but, yes, i do think it's his job. i realize he doesn't have a big bag of tricks, but he does have some like tax rates, works programs (the military being the biggest one we have) and using the DOJ to go after scandals like Enron in a way that boosts investor confidence instead of just bumbling along. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
but do you think GWB is "extreme" and thus is supporters?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
extreme... no, i know he could go a lot farther to the right than he has. he is, though, the most conservative president i've ever seen. so, on that little scale, he is "extreme". his supporters? well, obviously that's a huge group, which includes everyone from the people who think Eric Rudolph is a hero to people who voted for GWB because he seemed like a friendly guy in the sound bites. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.