posted
Well, election season is here, and so I'll open things up on this forum by inviting your thoughts and impressions of the candidates. As this is a site devoted primarily to spirituality, we can give special emphasis to the moral issues at stake and our perceptions of personal character.
I'll note, here, that I haven't made up my mind about this. As other threads on this forum indicate, I like some of the things President Bush is doing but have concerns about others. Same goes for what I'm hearing of the various Democratic candidates. I'd value the discussions here unto coming to some clarity on this matter, and hope you'll find it helpful as well.
-------
Let me start by saying that I have very grave concerns about Howard Dean, one of the Democratic front-runners. Put simply, I think this guy is too emotional and over-the-top, as evidenced by his shrieking and yelling after the Iowa caucuses. He's also lending a kind of indirect consent to the conspiracy theories about Bush and co. knowing about 911/letting it happen. That's just incredible and pathetic. I could never vote for someone who stoops so low to get votes. Even some of his supporters are concerned, especially about how it's playing out on his forums. Check it out. His platform seems to have been designed by the far left fringe groups of universities, which is where he has enjoyed the most support. Yet this man has quite a war chest and an enthusiastic following. Kind of scary!
Here's Dean's statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which is today: “Thirty one years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that American women have a constitutional right to control their own bodies. But the right to choose hangs in the balance of the 2004 election. If George W. Bush gets to appoint even one anti-choice justice to the Court, the era of safe, legal abortion in the United States will end.
“As a family doctor, a Board Member of my local Planned Parenthood and Governor of Vermont, I have worked my entire adult life to promote women’s health. If elected President I will defend the right to reproductive privacy and fight to keep politics out of medicine.”
Nowhere is there any allusion to the rights of the unborn, or that there's even any other valid ethical issue involved here except for stopping George W. Bush from appointing another Supreme Court Judge.
If you're a Dean supporter, tell us what you like about this guy, especially why you think he could beat George W. Bush. Apparently Iowa's liberals didn't think he had a change. But what happens to all that money he raised if he drops out (which is what I predict he'll do)?
-----
John Kerry . . . I'm still smarting over his call for "regime change" in Washington right about the time the U.S. went to war with Iraq. Dumb, insensitive moral equivocation. I see there may be something solid there, however. More on Kerry and the rest of the group later.
Your turn.
[ January 22, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil, it’s becoming more and more apparent that we shouldn’t necessarily choose a president by what they say they will do (although this is certainly important). We should choose them by what they are likely to do when something really important falls on their laps. That’s when issues of character come into play.
When I see some of this extreme over-the-top rhetoric (even by my standards) and behavior, I’m not left with a great deal of confidence about that person’s judgment. To me a quiet reasoned dignity, a sense of optimism, and a respect for the very idea of disagreeing are worthy traits for any president or leader. I’ll grant you that moral outrage has it’s time and place, but when that volume button is stuck on high, as it seems to be for some of these candidate, then questions about them having the appropriate temperament for high office I think are valid. I *still* remember that shrill rant from Hillary that sends shivers through my spine.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Brad, to which I will add that I think it's a mistake to evaluate a candidate on the basis of just one or two issues. I know, for example, that every Democratic candidate is pro-choice. That's pretty significant to me, and all things being equal, I'll always choose the pro-life candidate. But there are lots of other ways to be anti-life than by being pro-choice, so that needs to be looked at, too. Some pro-life candidates are simply anti-abortion while being anti-life in other important areas.
In the end, all these guys (and it is only guys now) have their strong and weak points; they're all good guys, too, with different kinds of flaws and shadow sides. They're all beholden to special interest groups in different ways, including John Kerry (who vows to chase them out of Washington). So one must look at things "on the whole" and consider not just who you like as a person, but who would make a good leader for the country at this time.
I'm still a registered Democrat and have voted Democrat probably over 80% of the time throughout my life. At this time in life, however, I vote for the person and not the party, although it's sometimes hard to completely separate the one from the other.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil said: I think it's a mistake to evaluate a candidate on the basis of just one or two issues.
You're surely right, but my two issues are national defense, wasteful and misguided social spending, and retaining the republican* nature of our government. Make that three issues.
quote:*Historian Alexander Fraser Tytler wrote then that “A democracy . . . can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”
If not by democracy, then how do former subjects of a monarchy ensure freedom? Alexander Hamilton wrote, "We are now forming a republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy . . . . If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
The Constitution therefore states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . .”
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am not into politics, but I will be reading this thread.. and learning... so I can vote intelligently.
Katy, everyone has there reasons for voting and we're often not 100% aware of all of them – including myself. I was astonished when I heard a political pundit once say that people's motivations are geared not so much toward voting for a particular candidate as much as voting against one that they just can't stomach. I think that certainly rings true for me.
So to try and break down politics into some purely intellectual issue-based pursuit is probably a mistake. I think our emotions are engaged much more than we realize and I think that's an interesting angle to look at. And please don't think that I bring up the idea of emotion because you are a woman. You sparked this idea in me because you mentioned the idea of trying to "vote intelligently". But surely so much of the political rhetoric out there is geared precisely to excite our emotions. I wonder if speaking about our "emotional intelligence" (if there is such a thing) might be a useful line of inquiry. How does one walk the minefield of political emotion-baiting without letting the pure intellectual issues become overwhelmed while still allowing one's "gut instincts" to have its appropriate say?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brad, I also go along with your 3 criteria, only I'd just as soon see wasteful spending eliminated from the military as well. To the extent that this can be done without compromising national security, they should go for it. Also, a re-vamping of the military so that it's attuned to the threats of this age is a must. Most likely, there will be no more WWII type open theater battles, which is what we've been most focused on since then. Terrorism is a whole other beast!
To your three, I would add environmental issues, which is an area where the Bush admin. has been weak, to put it kindly.
I also agree with the importance of emotional intelligence, here, expecially how it comes into play in terms of trust. We have to feel that we can trust the person in charge. That's where issues of character come into play, for me.
Voting "against" someone might not always be bad, either, if you just absolutely can't abide what they stand for. Of course, the alternative must at least be a "lessor of two evils."
---------
It seems that Kerry will win New Hampshire, which gives him a good running start. I look for Edwards to show strong in the South, however. It will probably come down to a close race between these two. That's just a rough prediction, but that's how I see it shaking out. Clark is showing himself to be unsuited for the job in many ways and won't do well in the South. Dean won't either, but I don't expect him to even get that far. If he can't win in New Hampshire--and he might not even come in second--he's a goner!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, a re-vamping of the military so that it's attuned to the threats of this age is a must. Most likely, there will be no more WWII type open theater battles, which is what we've been most focused on since then. Terrorism is a whole other beast!
I agree…to a point, Phil. I know that we still have the "two theater" strategy. It was something that was downplayed and eaten away at by the Clinton administration and strengthened since then. But I thought Rumsfeld was making great strides in modernizing the military to meet the smaller "bush fire" threats where special ops forces and rapid deployment were key? And I think we shouldn't forget the sheer determent value of being able to fight two large theater wars. We'll never know for sure (unless some country's secret documents come to light in the future), but quite possibly having this ability while being engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan has helped deter North Korea or even China from getting any ideas that they were free to dabble about.
To your three, I would add environmental issues, which is an area where the Bush admin. has been weak, to put it kindly.
As long as REAL science (as opposed to junk science, hysteria science, or science motivated by scientism itself and thus dealing with beliefs or wishes instead of facts) is behind the drive for environmental improvements, and that environmental issues are not decided completely independent of, and regardless of, the costs of real-life humans and business issues, then I'm all for it – with due consideration that we can't always know for sure what the environmental consequences of any action (or lack of action) will be and thus a conservative approach for its own sake should sometimes be factored in.
I look for Edwards to show strong in the South, however.
I don't know if this if unfairly characterizing him, but apparently Edwards made his fame and money by being a trial lawyer. As was said by a commentator, he didn't rise to prominence by actually producing anything. When all else is equal, I think it's wise to look at candidates who have had some executive experience (JB in 2008!) which gives the advantage to governors as opposed to Senators. Of course, Dean seems to be the exception to that rule. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katy, everyone has there reasons for voting and we're often not 100% aware of all of them – including myself. I was astonished when I heard a political pundit once say that people's motivations are geared not so much toward voting for a particular candidate as much as voting against one that they just can't stomach. I think that certainly rings true for me.
So to try and break down politics into some purely intellectual issue-based pursuit is probably a mistake. I think our emotions are engaged much more than we realize and I think that's an interesting angle to look at. And please don't think that I bring up the idea of emotion because you are a woman. You sparked this idea in me because you mentioned the idea of trying to "vote intelligently". But surely so much of the political rhetoric out there is geared precisely to excite our emotions. I wonder if speaking about our "emotional intelligence" (if there is such a thing) might be a useful line of inquiry. How does one walk the minefield of political emotion-baiting without letting the pure intellectual issues become overwhelmed while still allowing one's "gut instincts" to have its appropriate say? [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
OOps, sorry about the no reply on the reply.
Brad, I actually do vote according to my "emotional intelligence", and by the way there is a book called "Emotional Intelligence". That is not ALL I go by though. I am an independant voter and also I don't plan on voting for a candidate just because he is against abortion, which many people do. As far as I'm concerned there are just as many "pressing" issues as abortion. Thanks for your reply. Katy
posted
I notice most of the Democratic candidates are against the Bush tax-cuts, to one degree or another. If you listen to how they talk about it, they almost sound as though they believe the government is being too nice to its citizens--especially the rich--by giving them money that rightfully belongs to the government. It's a subtle thing, but see if you pick it up. And consider the absurdity--that the government is giving ITS money to the people.
Now this reduction in the tax-cuts is said to be needed because of the federal deficit. Every report I read on this issue notes that government spending has risen during the past few years, in part because of 911 and Iraq. That doesn't account for all the increase, however. These spending increases coupled with a few years of reduced income because of 911 and the recession that was already setting in at the end of Clinton's term produced a double-whammy on the federal budget.
Blaming Bush for the deficit isn't completely fair, as the Democratic candidates should know. Resolving this problem by reducing the tax-cuts isn't exactly just either; there's already considerable evidence that the tax-cuts have helped to turn the econonmy around. I'm still waiting to hear any of them talk about reducing spending, which would be another great way to deal with the deficit.
[ January 25, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now this reduction in the tax-cuts is said to be needed because of the federal deficit.
Phil: I don't like the idea of running overly large deficits. I don't like the ability of politicians to buy votes without having to pay for them, which in essence means to take responsibility for their actions in the here and now. If there are benefits to be drawn from one program or another then those benefit must justify – at the very least – the monetary outlays needed to fund them. Obscuring the cost of something by putting it in the future is dishonest. But then the funniest of things happens. You have politicians (rightly so) pointing this out; pointing out that this or that program will be paid for "on the backs of our children." But how little sympathy they seem to have for the backs of adults who are tasked with caring for today's children (who are the future adults upon whose back the deficit is laid) as they offer program after program (and as you said) fail to cut existing spending.
Katy said: I am an independant voter and also I don't plan on voting for a candidate just because he is against abortion, which many people do.
I know people who are one-issue voters when it comes to abortion. One can certainly view a candidate's stance on such an issue as an overall guideline of someone's moral character and thus their qualification to hold office – even though in many cases the office a candidate is running for has little or no influence on interpreting, enforcing or creating abortion laws. But I do think the abortion issues is often given far more weight than it deserves (such as in a governor's race) when there is little opportunity for the office in question to effect the outcome one way or another (although certainly governors can project a strong influence on education and thus they are in a position to lay the groundwork for the acceptance of ideas that suit their ideology).
As far as I'm concerned there are just as many "pressing" issues as abortion.
I think so too. In this day and age of judicial activism where judges are inclined to create new laws by liberally interpreting existing laws (or just making them up out of thin air), the Presidential race is fair game for talking about abortion. A President who nominates Supreme Court justices who are more "hold the liners" instead of activists can have an effect on the abortion issue, as well as how democracy as a whole organizes itself and operates. Me, I'd rather have the power to vote people into or out of office based on their ideas and conduct rather than having, what are in effect, little kings sitting on their judicial thrones deciding things. A very interesting article title The Culture Wars Go International presents the ways in which a runaway judiciary can deeply effect democracy – and not usually for the better.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Michael Moore has come out and endorsed Wesley Clark and that Clark is thrilled by this. Moore is hyping something about Bush (honorable discharge from the National Guard) being a deserter. Moore's hatred of Bush is so transparent that it's a wonder that Clark won't dissociate himself from Moore. Furthermore, Clark didn't stand up for the President when questioned about the "deserter" charge by Peter Jennings in a recent debate, but said he'd heard something about this but hadn't looked into it; he gave Moore's words credibility!
That's all proof enough for me that Wesley Clark is unfit to be President. If he likes Michael Moore so much, then maybe Moore can find a role for him in a movie and he can play the President there or something. Sounds like they'd make a great team.
[ January 26, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Michael Moore has come out and endorsed Wesley Clark and that Clark is thrilled by this.
Clark seems very Clintonian (no surprise there since he is the Clinton's anointed candidate – some say because it will help to muddle things up, fracture the Democrats, assure a Bush victory and assure that Hillary does not have to run against a Democratic incumbent in 2008). Clark seems to be without any core principles except the pure pursuit of power and fame. It's not unusual in the least to see people get involved in politics and to see their involvement as some sort personal affirmation exercise played out in public. Some of these people might do better to do so privately on the couch with a good psychiatrist.
That's all proof enough for me that Wesley Clark is unfit to be President.
I think I just agreed with you, Phil. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that Kerry is pulling ahead of the pack. I've been listening to what he says but am left wondering what, aside from wanting to replace Bush, Democrats like about him. So much of what he sees seems to be old platitudes that appeal to emotion and lack substance.
E.g., he wants to seem anti-war, but he voted to give Bush the option to use force. Now his spin is that he voted for the *threat* of force. Please.
He wants to turn back the tax cuts. Doesn't that actually mean that some will have their taxes increase? Is that really good news?
He's now joined the pack of those questioning Bush's National Guard records from 1972. The point being . . .
He says we're stretched too thin militarily but wants to send more troops to Iraq.
He claims Bush hyped the WMD issue, but he saw the same evidence Bush did and agreed it was significant enough to intervene if necessary.
He wants to chase special interest influence out of Washington, but knows darned well that's just silly as McCain-Feingold already took a run at it and you can't do more without damaging legitimate lobbying by groups with interests in legislation.
He says the South doesn't matter, then . . . oops! . . . might need some of those delegates after all.
If this is the best the Democrats can come up with, they might as well forget it. Of course, maybe we haven't seen the real Kerry yet. Maybe he's being "managed" by the image-makers, and that he'll show something more attractive in debates against Bush. As things stand, he's looking like a kind of Modale-Dukakis hybrid; even if you bring forth the best of both, that's only about 4 states for the Democrats come election time.
--------
Why aren't people taking a closer look at John Edwards? I think he's the only Democrat who could beat Bush.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Peggy Noonan --who IMVHO--is one the great columnists and was great writer for Reagan.....has a great article regarding Bush's interview --ala Russert--- one can read the whole column at above website. She found "I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive. " and that "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. "
She also spoke eloquently about 'talking points.'
tis a great read!
-------------------- mary teresa Posts: 26 | From: GA | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Speeches are the vehicle for philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of policy. Mr. Kerry does talking points and can't give an interesting speech. Mr. Bush can't do talking points and gives speeches full of thought and assertion.
Philosophy takes time. If you connect your answers in an interview to philosophy, or go to philosophy first, you can look as if you're dodging the question. You can forget the question. You can look a little gaga .
I especially liked the above quote. It explains why I am a little gaga.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The part that I found most significant is the section below (bold added for emphasis):
What we are looking at here is not quality of mind--Mr. Bush is as bright as John Kerry, just as Mr. Reagan was as bright as Walter Mondale, who was very good at talking points. They all are and were intelligent. Yet neither Mr. Bush's interviews and press conferences nor Mr. Reagan's suggested anything about what they were like in the office during a crisis: engaged, and tough. It's something else.
John Kerry does good talking points. In interviews he's asked for his views on tax cuts and he has it all there in his head in blocks of language that cohere and build. It gets boring the 14th time you hear it, but he looks capable. Hillary Clinton is great at talking points--she's the best, as her husband was the best in his time.
Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and Republicans have minds that do speeches. (Mr. Bush has given a dozen memorable speeches already; only one of his Democratic challengers has, and that was "I Have a Scream.") And the reason--perhaps--is that Democratic candidates tend to love the game of politics, and Republican candidates often don't. Democrats, because they admire government and seek to be part of it, are inclined to think the truth of life is in policy. How could they not then be engaged by policy talk, and its talking points?
Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that policy is something you have to have to move things forward in line with a philosophy. They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy and hate having to memorize talking points.
That all explains a lot, I think.
[ February 09, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The above post was edited by John Ashcroft in compliance with the Patriot Act.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Philosophy or talking points? That certainly could be neat way to distinguish between leaders and followers (the detail people). Leaders (particularly Presidents) should have broad strategies and philosophies. They often don't and can't become heavily involved in implementing all the details. They set a course. Others man the oars.
President Carter, rightly or wrongly, was often criticized for getting too involved in all the nitty gritty minutia and losing site of the overall. Can one imagine a President Hillary being any different?
You certainly don't want a pie-in-the-sky airhead in an important position of leadership. But neither do you want a leader who, by definition, isn't a leader but instead puts him or herself in the position of burying one's head in all the details and losing all sense of purpose and direction; and more importantly, transferring that sense of purpose to those around him whose job it is to become involved in the details.
I've yet to hear Kerry give much of a philosophy of anything. But my goodness, I was listening to some old speeches of Ronald Reagan and that man was a walking and talking encyclopedia of conservative philosophy.
We need both philosophers and detail people – each in their place, doing what they do best. That may be one reason that Senators do not historically make great presidents. Their job as Senators *is* detail; boring, excruciating detail. A president, like a governor, is a captain of a very large ship. They can't be down in the engine room greasing the engines. They need to be steering the ship.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most GOP's and neoCon's would look at a candidate's record to see where they stood on these items, below?
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction
Welfare Reform
Faith-based Initiatives
Voted for DubyaDubya II (2nd Iraq War)
Supported use of force in Grenada in 1983, in Panama in 1989, in Somailia in 1992, in Kosovo in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2001
US Patriot Act
No Child Left Behind
Dividend Tax Cuts
Limiting teacher tenure
Sympathetic to school vouchers
Looking to move past affirmative action
NAFTA
On all of the above-listed issues, John Kerry departed from the liberal line.
Kerry supports gun control. He's against the death penalty. He supported providing disability payments to people whose disability was alcohol or other substance abuse/drug addiction (in part because of the large number of Vets wrestling with same). These aren't conservative positions but they might be fairly characterized as consistent with a seamless garment of life ethic?
Ultimately, his position on gay rights is not likely to differ much from Cheney's re: gay marriage.
He's a genuine war hero.
Now, there can be no doubt that Kerry's voting record, which has hovered in the 90-95% range as measured by the Americans for Democratic Action (liberal) will be hauled out to support the notion that he is virtually a Teddy Kennedy clone or even another Dukakis, iow, a Massachusetts Liberal , oh my! (And his garment of life does have a few stitches missing re: abortion.)
The positions that Kerry took above, breaking from traditional party lines, might help him avoid being painted (or tarred) with the same brush as Kennedy and Dukakis, however, and might help him capture some of the independent vote? This independent vote (or a portion thereof) could be pivotal in a 2004 election scenario that promises to be as close as ever (2000 all over again) but without a dynamism such as the Nader-type candidacy, which siphoned off what would have been Gore's margin of victory.
This election could well turn on whether or not Osama bin Laden is captured, on how many jobs get created in the next seven months, on events in Iraq (including US casualties, transition of power w/ or w/o civil war, WMD discoveries, etc), on domestic and global terror activity, on stock market indicies, on the presence/absence of scandals in the campaigns, on the amount of Soros and Heinz money actually spent, etc
Anything can happen at this point, even a Clinton veep nominee on the ticket!
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I just don't get it! What do people see in this guy? I don't think there's any way in tarnation he can beat Bush. Too many flip-flops on issues, and he's actually in agreement with Bush on big ones.
Now John Edwards . . . You know, I think he would give Bush a major contest. He seems to offer more of a contrast to many of Bush's positions, and doesn't have flip-floppitis. He's also to be credited with the good taste of not calling for regime change in Washington during the time of the Iraq war. If Edwards can hang in there until such time as the South begins to choose delegates, he has a chance.
Meanwhile, Dean . . . Can't that guy smell the coffee!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil said: Meanwhile, Dean . . . Can't that guy smell the coffee!
But perhaps the Democratic primary voters have, and what they smelled was a roast too raw to make a viable cup of coffee. The bean, no doubt, were grown too far left of the orchard.
Kerry wins Wisconsin!
I just don't get it!
And if we do nothing more than “get it” while having this conversation, it will be the equivalent of splitting the atom. As you and JB have pointed out, there are some real inconsistencies to Kerry’s story – his voting record and his own stated views. If he were a husband coming home late smelling of booze and perfume, the lipstick on his collar alone would be enough to put him under the wife’s suspicion. But voters, particularly Democratic ones, don’t often find five ways to leave their lover, let alone fifty.
A Democratic primary candidate in this election must:
Seem credible enough to beat Bush Be pro-choice Have “serious questions” concerning the war, but not go too over the top ala Dean Look and talk presidential
After the nomination is secured then, as JB says, “It will get more interesting before it gets dull.” The Democratic candidate, as well as the Republican one, will have to make their case to that vast group of more-or-less uncommitted voters. The Democratic candidate receives a huge boost from the media because they make it easier for the Democratic candidate to frame the questions in the way they want. The incumbent Republican has a bit of an advantage just being the incumbent. It will all likely come down to some of the things that JB outlined.
But if people overlook the Kerry inconsistencies it’s only because I think people – rightly so – vote for a President on what they suppose they will do in office. Since I think a lot of Democratic principles are highly inconsistent and often downright illogical, that’s not necessarily a problem for Kerry. He just has to seem to be a certain way. He has to seem to be caring, thoughtful, sensitive and, when it gets past the primary phase, strong and decisive. I think that’s one reason you often see the poll number for incumbent presidents drop at about this time. People are enamored with the clean slate of a new candidate and put all of their hopes and dreams of what might be onto them. Contrast that with a real life president who has “dirtied” himself with four years of no-win decisions and tough choices. Fantasy certainly has an appeal over reality.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil said: Meanwhile, Dean . . . Can't that guy smell the coffee!
But perhaps the Democratic primary voters have, and what they smelled was a roast too raw to make a viable cup of coffee. The bean, no doubt, were grown too far left of the orchard.
Dark roast in Wisconsin finally did it! He was a lot of fun, though, and he did help to set the agenda for them.
A Democratic primary candidate in this election must:
Seem credible enough to beat Bush Be pro-choice Have “serious questions” concerning the war, but not go too over the top ala Dean Look and talk presidential
Good list, to which I'd add that they have to be anti-tax cut and pro health care, making a connection between one and the other. They also have to make all the rainbow coalition groups feel like they'll continue to be cared for . . . all the while affirming that special interests will play no role in the determination of their policies.
I do think Edwards is the more credible voice, considering all of the above.
[ February 18, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
On first blush, he certainly differs from both Bush and Kerry re:
1) No child left behind 2) NAFTA 3) the War
For his part, although Kerry voted for these three items, he is, in a manner of speaking, claiming that their implementation was somehow flawed ... thus he can claim to be aligned with Bush to some extent AND also with Edwards to another extent. Clever, eh?
I just picked out those three hot issues but watch Kerry on all the others and you'll see the same deft maneuvers
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
