Report on Dems Debate

[Bruzilla]

I didn't see any posts on this so I thought I would start one. I watched the Dem prez candidates debate on Saturday and came away thinking that Lieberman was leading the pact. This was something I didn't think before the debate, so I guess they were a little bit effective. I think the main thing that I learned from the debate is the sad fact that the Dem strategy is to once again try to buy the election through the use of lots of increased spending. They're already promising lots of increase spending for homeland defense, education, universal healthcare, etc., and of course they had no plans for paying for it all aside from axing the tax cuts. Also, as susual, they wasted no effort when it came to attacking Bush's economic policies, but they had offered no plans as to how they would so the job better.

Here's my new handicapping of the candidates:

Kerry/Dean: These guys spent most of their time trying to whiz on each other's shoes. I don't know if it was a front runner vs front runner wannabe thing or just a New England thing. I think these two guys will end up cancelling each other out.

Edwards: Couldn't make more than two statements in a row without bashing businesses, corporations, etc. Apparently thinks that all US business have "ENRON" in the name, and wants to punish them all for the abuses of one. All of this kind of funny since it's the taxes that corporations pay that allows for all that government spending. Cut out business and the Debs cur their own throats. Unless he learns to sing a more pro-business tone, he's out of here!

Lieberman: Made a really great showing. He actually talked like a President. He lost points for continually pi$$ing and moaning about the 2000 election, but he was still a lot better than the others. He also went on record as being against registering/licensing gun owners... but Clinton was against banning semi-auto assault weapons once too.

Graham: Who? This guy would have got more attention if he were just seen refilling the other candidates's water glasses! Stephanopoulos had to make a point to remember to ask him for statements. Loser.

Kucinich: Almost as much a player as Graham. Stephanopoulos pretty much wiped him out with his closing question of: "The only executive position you've ever held was Mayor of Cleveland, and the city went bankrupt under your administration. Why should people think you'ld do better as president?" Loser.

Rev. Al: Probably the most honest person in the debate. He told it like it is, even if I disagreed with just about every thing he said. I would love to see him be the nominee, but I think the Dems have other ideas.

Braun: Stephanopoulos asked her if it was true that the Dems only aked her to run in order to syphon away votes from Reverand Al. Made a great statement that she attributed to her Mom... "It doesn't matter if you came over on the Mayflower or a slave ship, or if you came through the Rio Grande or Ellis Island, we're all in this together." Nice thing to say right before you start making ethnic distinctions for government programs. Doesn't stand a chance of winning and doesn't deserve one.

Gephardt: Really, really, thinks that universal health care will win him the election, and drug his long dead Dad out of the grave again to show that "I'm a real guy." Has lots of good ideas but no cash... think Michael Keaton as Billy Blaize in Night Shift. I don't see this guy winning anything.

If I could give one bit of advice to these folks it is this: YOU are running for president, not your parents!!! All of these people were dragging out what their parents had done over the years in order to show some humble roots. None of these people have had to worry about where their next meal is coming for many, many, years and I thought it pretty lame for them to try to act like "working men and women" because of what their parents had done.

The one thing that I did like about all of the candidates is that they all think the Patriot Act is too invasive and want to see it repealed.

 

[demsformd]

I also watched the debate and frankly the Dean-Kerry feud is absolutely terrifying. Both of them have an appearance of arrogance and they are arguing over something that is over - the war in Iraq. Dean is truly outrageous when he questions military supremacy when he says that he was uncertain whether we could win the war. What the hell? We had right on our side and our military could kick any other nation's ### and we all know that. I am more supportive of Kerry who seems to want to appeal to the whole party and not a bunch of peacenik activists that will leave the party once one of the hawks is nominate like Dean. Still though, Kerry's support of the Iraq resolution and then his attacks of the Bush diplomacy do show that he was going down a slippery slope. Just where did he stand? I mean this guy opposed the first Persian Gulf resolution in the last Iraqi war. How could he change positions? My guess is that Kerry wins in New Hampshire but Dean is a close second. Such a close victory in neighboring New Hampshire for the seemingly all-powerful Senate colleague of Ted Kennedy will lead to his ultimate defeat.

Edwards: It is clear that he wants to appeal to populist segments of the population. He seems to have calculated that the corporate scandals of the past couple of years will only intensify populist impulses, which Al Gore played on skillfully in 2000 and won more popular votes than Bush. His candidacy has not quite picked up significant backing but he has quite a bit of money from trial lawyers and currently leads the pack in fundraising. (Including a donation from me)

Lieberman: Very good showing but Joe, you are not running in the general yet. In the primaries, you gotta run to the left but to the extreme left. Mentioning the 2nd Amendment and God appeal to me because I am more moderate but I would bet that 2/3 of the liberal bloc was terrified of his words and had to wonder "Is this guy a Democrat?" His positions are right in my opinion and he is very electable (it is questionable though if his religious background would hurt him in the South) but the liberals won't like it.

Graham: May be a great vice-presidential selection and I truly believe that he is part of the "electable wing of the Democratic Party," as he says. Bad performance but wait until he warms up.

Gephardt: Dick, we used ClintonCare once, it didn't work. How can you be against the debt and then propose a large program that does little to cover the uninsured? Come on, he is smarter than that.

The others: Don't matter. Sharpton, Braum, and Kuinich will be gone after New Hampshire or earlier. I don't think that they should even be invited to attend the debates.

I think that Gephardt and Edwards will duke it out for the top slot and they will most likely pick Graham for vice president. And Wesley Clark will be the next secretary of state.

 

[Steve]

The Dems debate already happened!? Dang, I missed it. Again!

 

[Bruzilla]

Kerry and Dean weren't arguing so much about the war, they were arguing about some alledged misunderstood comment that Dean apparently made about Kerry's patiotism. I think they did do a disservice to themselves, and I think Kerry's standing is so far above Dean's that all he accomplishes by fighting with him is to lower himself and raise Dean up a notch or two.

I liked Graham when I lived in Florida, but he's never been much of a firebrand. That works with a state that's about 99.9% blue hairs, but I don't know how it will play out nationwide.

I liked Lieberman because he didn't just sit there and toss out barbs or attack the current administration or his fellow candidates. Several of his answers were obviously well thought out and spoken like a leader. To be honest, he was really appealing to me right up until he took the low road and started crying about the 2000 election. If he wants to attract moderate Republicans and independents he should focus on speaking like he did on the issues and leave the crybaby crap at home.

As for the "won the popular vote thing" let's be honest. A look at the old red & blue election map shows how Gore won the popular vote: The Dems focused on the handout capitals of the country (the major cities), convinced the recipients of said handouts that Bush was going to take away their goodies, and they voted in droves for the Dems. Unfortunately for Gore, the founding fathers anticipated this bit of chicanery in the big cities and developed the electorial college to counter it. Thanks to them you can scare every African American in every major city into voting Dem, but that's not going to get you in the White House. You still need to get the votes of people outside of the cities to do that, and that's the American way. I wonder of the Dems will remember that in 2004?

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

As for the "won the popular vote thing" let's be honest. A look at the old red & blue election map shows how Gore won the popular vote: The Dems focused on the handout capitals of the country (the major cities), convinced the recipients of said handouts that Bush was going to take away their goodies, and they voted in droves for the Dems. Unfortunately for Gore, the founding fathers anticipated this bit of chicanery in the big cities and developed the electorial college to counter it. Thanks to them you can scare every African American in every major city into voting Dem, but that's not going to get you in the White House. You still need to get the votes of people outside of the cities to do that, and that's the American way. I wonder of the Dems will remember that in 2004?

In the 2000 Election, Gore overwhelmingly won in the city and for the first time for a Democrat, the suburbs. The founding fathers developed the electoral college so that the common people would not have a say in presidential elections. Prior to the 1810s or so, there was no election for presidential electors. They were merely chosen and voted for which candidate that they wanted. The electoral college is the biggest thing that is holding down our commitment to democracy. As for the handouts, do you recall the Clinton/Gore Administration's passage of the most comprehensive welfare reform package in history? Gore may not have campaigned on that issue (especially since it is not the most important) but he was for welfare reform that took the abusers off the rolls, not everyone like what the GOP would like to do.

The Democrats have always been at a disadvantage in rural areas since the 1960s mostly because of cultural issues. To say that the last election was about hand-outs is a gross simplification and is just wrong Bru.

 

[Larry Gude]

And this just in from the wake:

A serious analysis of the bright future for America under the next Democratic President.

Dean: He is correct in pointing out, though certainly this was not his intention, that military supremacy is WORTHLESS without the will to win. President Dean would turn that power, willfully, oh, maybe at the South. Anywhere except at Iraq. Is he actually part of the Bush team? (Waxman to?)

Kerry: Yeah, we SO need a kept man as the most powerful man on earth. His wife, however, gets my vote so far.

Edwards: Well of course! The trial lawyers adore this guy. He is one of them and I can just see him now running around the White House yelling "We gotta sue the power! We gotta sue the power!...Hey...wait a minute! That's me!!!" Who's Veep? Cochran? F Lee? The Scream Team.

Leiberman: "Hey, I'm the only one who held Clinton responsible!" ...and voted to aquit. Nice try. Maybe reverse things a bit? Leiberman/Gore20004...hmm...it sings!

Graham: Two term Governor. Umpteen terms as a Senator and...I don't know one damn thing about him. Nuff said.

Kucinich: Like the GOP running Ken Lay.

Rev. Al: He needs to make some noise or that key-note address at the convention is history, if it ain't already.

Carol: And the punch line is...????

Richard Gephart: Here's the guy. The only snowball in this hell with a chance. Notice he isn't "Dick" anymore? Bad name for Presidents.

The wild card in all this is whether or not Hillary can stay patient enough to wait until '08. If the economy actually gets bad, things go horrible in the Middle East, we suffer another 9/11, Cheney has serious health problems, in other words, if Gephart has a real chance, say by mid-fall this year, then Hill jumps in. Will she risk somebody, Dick, making her wait until 2012 at the earliest?

 

[Bruzilla]

Sorry Dems, but you're going off the mark again. Yes, Gore did have a few wins in the suburbs, more than previous Dems, but they we're mostly all suburbs of large Democratic strongholds.

The real purpose of the Electoral College was exactly as I stated, it was meant to ensure that people out working the farms could have their issues heard. There have always been more people (hence voters) living in the cities, and without the EC candidates would be far more worried about the issues that city residents had than those of the out country residents. This would mean that candidates favored by city residents would always defeat candidates favorable in the out country because the majority of the votes was in the city.

Gore's election campaign managers came right out and said that their biggest mistake was the decision to focus the campaign on the cities! They made a concious decision to focus their efforts on getting votes from large masses of city dwellers, and their efforts paid off. They did get more of the popular vote. But just as the Founding Fathers had planned, a candidate can win the major cities but not win the election. To give Clinton credit, that guy campaigned everywhere more than one person was standing. He hit every town hall meeting, public action group, and McDonalds that he came across. If Gore had followed Clinton's lead he probably would have won enough of the out country areas to win.

Let's face it... you can talk about how many suburbs Gore won, but if the major cities had gone 50/50 instead of 100% Democrat you would have seen Bush winning by a solid 20-30%. Gore had to have the cities to win. If it were not for the EC Democrats, or whichever candidate was the most popular in the major cities, would always win. All of our government is supposed to be a series of checks and balances, and the EC is the balance to one party trying to do what the Dems did in 2000.

By the way, I do remember the "Clinton/Gore" welfare reform package (the one that was created by a Republican congress to the utter consternation of the White House and Dems in Congress), and I remember Clinton very publically repeating before the election that signing that bill was the worst mistake of his time in office... he regretted doing it... if I could change one thing... If I were you I wouldn't be dragging that bill out to show that Dems did something to upset their core constituency.

 

[Bruzilla]

Nice analysis Larry... especially in regards to Edwards. I keep thinking that Dick... er... Richard Gephardt has a chance but I just can't get past the butt whomping he took after the Iowa caucuses the last time he ran. It was like he was radioactive to Democrats oustide of his local area.

You also make a good point about Lieberman. He would be well advised to keep mum about his damnation of Clinton. Unfortunately you can bet that'll be coming up at some point.

Maybe Graham will just sit back while all the hair flies, and come out the winner by default. I'm still rooting for Sharpton though. He could be the Ross Perot of 2004.

There's still one big issue for Hillary Clinton though. Before she can toss her hat in the ring in 2008 she has to survive a senate reelection in 2006, and that's by no means a given at this point. If she dies in 2006, she's out for 2008.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tell me about...

...Graham. I really know nothing about him.

And

If she dies in 2006, she's out for 2008

Really can't argue with that one. LOL

 

[vraiblonde]

First off, let me say that I DON'T want a chick President! The girliest President I ever want is the one sitting in the White House right now.

*bows head and waits for explosion*

About Kerry: what's up with that? How can anyone remotely consider an emasculated toy-boy like that? He's merely a plaything for Teresa Heinz, living off her dead husband's money. Doesn't that strike you as ridiculous? He's like the pool boy or something - like Cher and Rob Camiletti. It's embarrassing.

Sharpton: race-baiter

Edwards: trial lawyer

Gephardt: socialized medicine will do him in

Dean: insane person

Lieberman: looks like a muppet and has an annoying whiny voice

The rest aren't worth mentioning. So it looks like another four years of Bush, eh?

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
The real purpose of the Electoral College was exactly as I stated, it was meant to ensure that people out working the farms could have their issues heard. There have always been more people (hence voters) living in the cities, and without the EC candidates would be far more worried about the issues that city residents had than those of the out country residents. This would mean that candidates favored by city residents would always defeat candidates favorable in the out country because the majority of the votes was in the city.

Thank you, Bru

 

[demsformd]

First of all, vrai, I am so terrified that you would base your vote on the sound of a man's voice. You know he is closer to your ideology than most of these guys.

Here's the scoop on Graham. While governor he oversaw education reform that boosted test scores, cut the size of the Floridian government, and cut taxes. As a senator he came to prominence on the Intelligence Committee and was its chairman last term. He opposed the war in Iraq because he saw it as a deviation from the war on terrorism but he is no peacenik. He supports an invasion of Syria which he says harbors terrorists at a much greater scale than Hussein ever did. He wears flannel wherever he goes it seems and was one of the brainchilds behind the creation of "work days" in which candidates work with voters at their occupations. He grew up in Florida on a farm and has a genuine story of coming from humble roots.

Edwards and Graham I think have the best shot. The past two Democrats to win were from the South. We need a southener on the ticket. Gephardt cannot carry the primaries I believe because the rank-and-file are still pissed that he could not deliver control back to the Democrats in the House for four election cycles.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK, so, what's the bad news about...

...Graham?

Cut the size of goverment.
Cut taxes.
Prominant on the Intelligence Commitee
Go after the bad guys.
Inovative ideas about work and candidates.

Sounds like an above average Republican to me.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by demsformd
First of all, vrai, I am so terrified that you would base your vote on the sound of a man's voice.

Don't forget the way he looks, too. Sorry - he just doesn't say "President" to me. He says "Grandpa" or maybe "Mr. Rogers" but not "President". I didn't like Steve Forbes for the same reason - he just doesn't look like a President.

Presidents should be authoritative, not little wussy boys. Now that Clinton's gotten us over having a youthful Prez, we're not going back to old guys with palsy and shaking voices, wearing Grampers.

 

[vraiblonde]

For Larry

Bob Graham: can you say "Liberal"?

http://www.grahamforpresident.com/issues/issues.html

Plus he uses the word "progressive" to describe himself frequently in his website - a red flag if ever I saw one.

 

[demsformd]

Re: For Larry

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Bob Graham: can you say "Liberal"?

Plus he uses the word "progressive" to describe himself frequently in his website - a red flag if ever I saw one.

What's wrong with being a progressive? I guess that you would have us go backwards?

 

[demsformd]

Check this out to find out stuff about Senator Graham...
Graham bio

 

[vraiblonde]

When Liberals use the word "progressive", it means they spend money like an ugly heiress. Where does that money come from? ME, that's where. They also tend to be these patronizing little racists. Susan Sarandon says all the time that she's a "progressive" - 'nuff said.

It also sends up a red flag to me whenever a candidate starts talking about the "wealthy". They want to make the "wealthy" pay their "fair share", when all you have to do is take a look at the IRS website to find out that the top 5% of wage-earners are paying almost 60% of the taxes in this country. That's why it ticks me off to hear these morons talking about tax cuts for the poor - the poor ALREADY don't pay anything in taxes!

 

[Bruzilla]

I lived for a long time in Florida, under the control of Graham, and he wasn't a bad governor at all. He's not a runaway spender and he's not a gun grabber... two plusses in my book. One must temper their compliments of him as a tax cutter since Florida has no personal income tax, but on the other hand he didn't start one either. He was one of the few truly "Moderate" Dems that I've ever known, but I think he swung to the left to score points in the Senate and that was a mistake you just can't take back.

What I'm wondering now is if he'll pander to the Left to try to get ahead in the presidential race, or will he take the high-road that he used to travel?

 

[vraiblonde]

My vote goes to "pander". He's already doing it on his website.

From Graham's bio:

With his two older brothers, Graham established the Graham Companies and commenced the planning and development of New Town, Miami Lakes in 1960. The population of Miami Lakes has grown to more than 22,000 with 10,000 people employed in its industrial and office parks and commercial centers.

Why aren't the Dems complaining that he has ties to rich developers (having been one himself)? He was also a party to raping the land to put up housing developments. Where's the outrage?

Enron, indeed.