Which Dem has a Shot?

[Makalakumu]

Pick a candidate and throw a plug. If you don't think any Dems will win in 2004 lets hear why?

Upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't know who will be the best candidate to run against the President. I think that Dean has a hard fight ahead if he is nominated. I think in the new climate of fear and terror, perhaps the general would be a good bet. Mr. Clark has some good ideas, he is rather moderate and he has the military experience to blow the war dodging Bush out of the water.

In my opinion, none of the Dems really fit my political philosophy. I'm kind of a green libertarian in favor of a small socially conscious federal government and states rights. In my opinion, this philosophy is a mix of both parties and it throws out the crap.

 

[Cruentus]

The key to winning the election will be to bring both parties closer together, not further apart. The general public is not lunicilly (I just made up a new word, me thinks) right winged, or left winged...they are somewhere near the middle. Election 00', due to the reason that canadates Gore and Bush were so close together on many issues yet so bi-partisen in there presentation of the issues, that it segmented our country. People couldn't differentiate the 2 canidates on the issues enough, so they stuck with the party that they were most comfortable with at the time.

Now since Bush has been in power, things are more bi-partisen then ever (don't get your panties in a bunch, republicans...I think it would have been the same way if Gore had gotton elected - well he did get elected - I mean if Gore was president. ]. The country is torn completely down the middle, again, with only a very small precentage of swing voters. This is why both parties are focusing on their own party, and getting voters w/in the party to the polls, rather then capturing the swing voters. It seems at times that I might be the only swing voter (could vote republican, democrate, green, or for myself on any given day) around, and ain;t NOBODY catering to MY needs! (lol)

So keep in mind that for the democratic party to win, they need a canidate who can cater to the middle, as well as the party.

Having said that, right now, Dean seems to be the pick for the Democratic party. At least thats the buzz hear in Michigan. I like Deans policies on many issues, but I don't think this will be good if he is nominated. It's just that Dean comes off like a huge jerk-off to many of Republicans. Hell, I like his policy on a lot of issues, yet his retired WWE wrestler look, and Bill O'Rielly attitude turns me off at times. It's unfortunate that appearance means anything, but sometimes it can mean everything. Also, I think that Dean is very bi-partisen, and I get the impression that he would only make decisions that his political democrate constituents approve of, rather then what is best for the country. So, I think that Dean will be the pick for 04', which could cost our country the election to bush (again), unless there is an upset of some kind. I really hope the Dems don't pick him. But, I do like his policy, and I like him much better then Gore or Clinton because of his policy, so I'd actually vote for him if he was the democratic choice (as opposed to last election where I supported Nader because BOTH Gore in Bush sucked it, in my opinion).

Now, I would like to see Gen. Clark get picked by the Dems. With Clark, the Dems have a much better chance of beating bush. Clark is not nearly as Bi-partisen; and he gives me the impression that he has the ability to work with both sides well. I think as a general, and given his credentials (worked on NATO, as well as a slew of ther things) he is far more experienced and better to deal with foriegn policy then Bush. I think that his attitude, and his lack of bi-partisen behavior, and the fact that he has not been in politics as an elected official will work in his favor to get the support of both Dems, and many moderate republicans. I think Clark would be great for our country, but the ultra-right's worst nightmare, because he will actually be a serious threat to that agenda for many reasons: he CAN get elected over Bush, and he CAN get policy on the books by appealing to Moderate Republicans in the legislature. I like Clarks policy much better then Deans, And I think he would be good for our country. I hope Clark is the Democratic pick, but given the bipartisen environment, It doesn't seem like it'll happend. It's sadly ironic that to be picked by the party you have to be bi-partisen, but to be picked by the people (and to get things done in office) you can't be. Oh well.

 

[OULobo]

I think the country is drifting from the bipartisan system and the Dems are the first to feel the birthing pains. I also think that it is less about who in the Dems will emerge, than it is about how many people just don't want to vote for Bush. It's quite possible that the party will firm up after the primary. Personally, I like Clark, a classic example of a military hotshot that realizes the negatives of war because he's seen it and been in it. I don't think he knows politics well enough or has the connections to win over all the party line Dems though. I also like Kerry, Gephart a little less, but I think Dean's going to win out in the end.

Clark - military experience
Gephart - old school politics and unions
Dean - Gore recommendation

 

[Cruentus]

I think the country is drifting from the bipartisan system and the Dems are the first to feel the birthing pains.

If you said this in 99' or 00', I would have agreed. But since then, it is very clear that people have become more party biased. There are polls and stats to prove it, and it was covered by CNBC and another TV news source I saw, and Time Magazine (december or November issue this year). Higher percentages of people by a landslide in the last election voted straight Dem or Rep. tickets, and higher % in polls are claiming a party, rather then claiming to be "independant."

The stats are there, and I only know this stuff because I have news stations on all day long in my office, so you'll have to excuse me! :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Whoops...double post on accident.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I would rather the two parties were farther apart. I want a real choice when I vote. I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example. I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.

The middle of the political road is no place I want to be.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by PAUL
If you said this in 99' or 00', I would have agreed. But since then, it is very clear that people have become more party biased. There are polls and stats to prove it, and it was covered by CNBC and another TV news source I saw, and Time Magazine (december or November issue this year). Higher percentages of people by a landslide in the last election voted straight Dem or Rep. tickets, and higher % in polls are claiming a party, rather then claiming to be "independant."

The stats are there, and I only know this stuff because I have news stations on all day long in my office, so you'll have to excuse me! :asian:

I'm sure that's the case, but it's because of the baby boomers, who are still the most populous generation and still very party loyal, compose that majority of the voting populous. Most of the younger generations have shown little want to sign on to a party.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Clark

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
I would rather the two parties were farther apart. I want a real choice when I vote. I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example. I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.

The middle of the political road is no place I want to be.

I agree, but I also want a government that puts the citizens as its first interest and not the big money corporations. They don't deserve our tax money because they have enough of their own.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
I would rather the two parties were farther apart. I want a real choice when I vote. I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example. I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.

The middle of the political road is no place I want to be.

I agree that I don't want stagnant canidates who don't stand for anything. To me, this has little to do with the party, but more to do with canidates who are out to please everyone, and who are willing to misrepresent what they believe in and what they are going to do in office just to appeal to the masses. I feel that Bush and Gore in 00' were doing just that, and I feel that both canidates were misrepresenting what they stood for, and what they were going to do in office. They were going with the polls, which was why they were so similar on the issues, at least back then.

But, for me, the issues have nothing to do with partisenship, it has to do with what are the canidates going to do when they are in office. Most people who fit the "conservative" catagory would consider me liberal (despite my conservative views), and because of my dislike for Bush, unless the Dems. pick someone I really hate, I'll be voting Democrate in 04'. Yet, I also want a canidate who will defend my right to bear arms, and who believes that my $$ is mine, not the governments. Yet there are structural problems with our system that I see some of the democratic canidates addressing that the republicans are not.

So, I don't believe its about "partisenship," and I don't want a 2 party system locking our in our choices based on bi-partisen views. I want a canidate who I believe will do the right thing regardless or partisenship, and I think a canidate has to be able to work with people from both parties to get things done. Personally, I wish we had more then 2 parties dominating the political environment, but hey, thats just me.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
I would rather the two parties were farther apart. I want a real choice when I vote. I want to vote for candidates that will defend, uncategorically, my right to keep and bear arms, for example.

Because, of course, you want to belong to a 'well-regulated militia', right?

I want to vote for candidates who understand that the money each of us earns is ours, not the government's.

Yet, without the government, you would have no money. No rules to protect your person, or your possessions. Are you asking for anarchy?

The middle of the political road is no place I want to be.

Most people live in the mushy-middle. They don't want to be taxed to death, but they want their grandmother to get cheap (or free) prescription medication.

I believe we are stronger as a community, than as individuals. And I feel I was let down by how the current President has gone about 'Uniting' - 'Not Dividing', as he promised.

It looks like Dean is going to be the Democratic candidate. I think the election hinges on the "You're With Us or You're With the Terrorists". If Bush can keep the fear of terrorism alive, Dean has little chance. If Dean can show the world is not so dangerous a place, Bush can be voted out of office.

Mike

 

[Phil Elmore]

Because, of course, you want to belong to a 'well-regulated militia', right?

What the Second Amendment Means

Yet, without the government, you would have no money. No rules to protect your person, or your possessions. Are you asking for anarchy?

The purpose of the government of a free society is to protect individual rights. A government therefore has certainly strictly defined roles. I believe strongly in this concept. I have not advocated the abolition of government and I am not an anarchist.

Most people live in the mushy-middle.

I am not most people.

They don't want to be taxed to death, but they want their grandmother to get cheap (or free) prescription medication.

There is no such thing as "free" health care. There is only government mandated transfers of wealth. I do not believe you are "owed" healthcare. I do not believe you are owed anything except what you earn through your own effort.

I believe we are stronger as a community, than as individuals.

Individuals can indeed better their individual circumstances by cooperating and trading with others. There is no such thing, however, as a "community" -- there are only individuals who choose to work together or choose not to work together. A "community" in which communitarian values are enforced over individual rights is no community in which I wish to live.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh.

Good to know that you too are completely opposed to mandatory Christian prayer (in schools or government) enforced recitation of patrioic jingles such as the Pledge, legal limits on who can marry whom, limits on reproductive rights, etc.

There are such things as communities. If we make them.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There are such things as communities. If we make them.

No, there are only groups of individuals. There's a difference.

 

[rmcrobertson]

For you, perhaps there are no communities. Perhaps it's all just parallel play. And I understand that there is a line of argument holding that everything outside the individual is illusion. However, I've never quite understood why, given that level of skepticism, one would stop short of doubting the integrity of the individual itself.

But I am at present part of several communities--none on the Internet, I'm happy to say--and have been in the past. They're as real as anything else, and realer than lots of things people take for granted.

Rugged individualism is itself an ideological artifact of some cultural and historical developments in nineteenth-century culture. It's not some a priori category. It can't be based on biology (as far as anyone knows, human beings are social critters, and always have been), or religion (congregations, communion, choirs, etc), or anything else of which I'm aware. Unless, of course, one adopts the complete Bishop Berkeley position and starts arguing that nothing is real, or (I suppose) a pragmatism that says it's all just lies about selfish self-interest.

Then, I guess I can't establish the reality of community. But then, the same approach says that neither can anybody establish the reality of the individual.

 

[MisterMike]

I don't vote democrat so won't choose, but it seems the choice has been made for them already. It seems as politics has taken the bandwagon approach, and who-ever is higher in the polls at the primaries is where the bandwagon starts from. But Mr. Gore (Gosh that feels so much better than saying President Gore) has catapulted Dean into the lead it seams for that lucky bandwagon.

But if I were for socialized healthcare, socialized medicine, socialized childraising, socialized workcamps...and a 70% income tax rate, well I guess any of the democratic candidates would do.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Workcamps," eh? Nice. Yep, Kerrey and Gephart and the Governor of Vermont, really gonna put us all in workcamps.

In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't been Democrats who've been throwing American citizens and others (criminals, probably yes, but still citizens) in the clink without charges, counsel, visitors, or rights. Not recently, anyway.

So who's your preference? Ollie "I traded arms to Iran so I could finance death squads and then make my living claiming that Jesus would have done the same," North?

Hey, how's it going with the whole UN Black Helicopter scare?

Hyperbole is one thing. What you wrote is another.

That kind of hatred, ridiculous exaggeration and factlessness is a big chunk of our problems.

Yell, by all means. Accuse me of being personally responsible for the Gulag--I've READ Solzhenitsyn (who's apparently mutated into a true kook, I'm sorry to say...oh well, no worse than Louis Althusser)...have you?

We're all in this thing together, buddy.

 

[michaeledward]

A government therefore has certainly strictly defined roles.

"Strictly defined roles" ... Such as: government will define the laws of the community. You can't escape it. Unless you, yourself, become the trier of fact, judge, jury, executioner (or imprisoner). Because you and I can interact through the act of commerce ... we have to have a set of rules that govern these interactions ... those rules are defined by the community, not a bunch of individuals. The society works only because the minority will accept the rule of the majority.

Once you proclaim that, as an individual, you do not have to accept the norms of the community ... you are preaching anarchy.

What currency do you use?

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil


1. There is no such thing as "free" health care. There is only government mandated transfers of wealth. I do not believe you are "owed" healthcare. I do not believe you are owed anything except what you earn through your own effort.

2. Individuals can indeed better their individual circumstances by cooperating and trading with others. There is no such thing, however, as a "community" -- there are only individuals who choose to work together or choose not to work together. A "community" in which communitarian values are enforced over individual rights is no community in which I wish to live.

1. Most wealth in this country in inherited. The recipients did nothing to "earn" it but be born. The ultimate lottery. Meanwhile you and I work our rears off to get ahead in this society, struggling for the scraps the neo-aristocracy dangles. So go ahead and defend that system, but if you are going to be true to the "I do not believe you are owed anything except what you earn through your own effort," principle then you must allow for redistribution of wealth. Anything else is rather hypocritical, don't you think? Have you seen Fight Club?

2. Current human paleontological evidence shows that humans have always lived in communities. People work together in a collective to accomplish a common goal. Take hunting mammoths for instance. There were no individuals on those teams. Your rugged individualism is born out of the other side of human evolution. Xenophobia. Mine is mine is the attitude of my tribe and your tribe, except that our tribes are now our individual families. This principle evolved to protect resources in an environment of compitition. They both are part of who we are as a species and your denial does nothing to change your genetic nature. Do me a favor and read Carl Jung.

Its good that you can take care of yourself. Its good that you can provide for your family. Its good that you have no health problems (I assume). Not everyone is like you though. Ability levels swing throughout a large spectrum and success in this society is loosely based on those abilities. We are products of our genetics and our environments if one or the other or both are bred in deficiency, is it right to hold accountable that which cannot be controlled? You said "I am not most people" and there is a lot of truth to that. Spend some time in a ghetto or a prison and talk to the people there. Find out for yourself the truth of your statement.