The Dems Are Sure Looking Lame

[Bruzilla]

I watched the debate last night, and I can see why Dean is in the lead... he's the only one who voices any plans. The other eight candidates either wouldn't answer the questions asked or answered with diatribes against Bush, ending with "... and when I'm President that won't happen anymore!" Dean did that a lot too, but at least he made an effort to bash Bush and then vaguely state what his approach would be. The others were just "Bush is bad" for 1+ minutes at a pop.

If I were a Dem I would vote for Dean simply because I have no idea what the other eight would do.

 

[SmallTown]

Interesting.

Short memory? Check out these articles from the last election process...

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/16/carlson/
McCain, who during his years in the Senate has sometimes been accused of shallowness, looks like Winston Churchill by comparison. Toward the end of the debate, McCain tried to make the point explicit, describing himself as a "grownup," presumably in contrast to Bush's callowness. Bush was clearly infuriated by the remark. That's "weak," Bush snorted, "weak," as if McCain had just told an unfunny joke.






http://www.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/07/carlson.debate/
During the second half of the debate, Forbes asked Bush a wonky but fairly clever question: How would you, as president, reduce the domestic price of oil? Bush's initial answer -- "more exploration" -- was convincing enough (and, as important, non-threatening to his many supporters in the oil industry). But when Forbes pushed him to explain how, precisely, his administration would respond to rising oil costs, Bush fell apart. His answer: "We'd keep plans in place to say to our drillers, 'Keep on exploring.'"

Read that sentence again. Try to figure out what it means.

Stumped? That's because the sentence doesn't mean anything.

 

[SamSpade]

Yep, in the other election, the whole thing was a bash Bush fest, with a little anti-Clinton crap thrown in. Why doesn't the public ever get tired of this pointless exercise?

To listen to those guys the other night, you'd think we had Stalin or Hitler for president. Bush, at his very very worst, has been slightly inept and very inarticulate. I don't trust these twits to be any more responsible with our budget than the 'Pubs have been. Hell, they'd *raise* taxes during a recesssion.

 

[smcdem]

Hi guys i attended the debate. Would you like an atmosphere report?

 

[Bruzilla]

Once again Smalltown... you miss the point, which is that the candidates spent all of their time bashing the incumbant president, not the people they are running against. Show me one place in either of those articles you referenced where Carlson says something like "why did the candidates spend all their time bashing Clinton?" Of course Bush was challenged during the Republican debates back in 2000, that's how debates are suppossed to be! Candidates should state why they are the best choice, or why other candidates aren't as good as them. You don't spend all your time attacking the guy who you're not running against UNLESS you have nothing to offer AND the other candidates have nothing to offer AND you don't want anyone exposing your lack of ideas because you exposed theirs, which is what I see happening in these debates.

I think it's pretty obvious that these guys (and lady) have no real plans or ideas, and just want to bash Bush to get the Dems in the audience all whooped up. If they come out and say stuff like "I'm going to raise taxes, increase your healthcare costs, and bring the troops home from Iraq and quit the war on terror" they aren't going to get elected.

Hey SMCDEM... what was the deal with the protesters that kept interupting things? I could hear yelling but couldn't make out what was being said.

 

[SmallTown]

Hey Bru, did you even read the articles? One glaring thing you will see from those debates is that those candidateds didn't have a clue either... yet one still got elected

I'm not promoting that the candidated should have an answer to EVERY question (though a question about oil to a lifetime oil man should be easy enough), but I get tired when SOME people come on here and post things and are just astounded. They can't believe something like this would ever happen, and it always happens to concern the "opposing" political party.

And they didn't bash clinton because he wasn't a threat... Did you miss the memo that says they get 2 terms?
And al gore... Well. He's al gore. And they couldn't compare/contrast to him because he hadn't done anything.

I really didn't have a problem with the content of your message, that they should focus on themselves and what they stand for (after all, I have pleaded with people on here to discuss the pros of a Bush administation instead of always rehashing the bad of the clinton one).
But it was your attitude of "Wow, this is something new! They really shouldn't be doing this" that was disturbing. Makes one believe you only started to be interested in politics in the past 3 years...

 

[Bruzilla]

Once again Smalltown... you miss the point. I did read the articles, but did you watch the debate? A primary debate is supposed to be about picking which primary candidate you want to vote for, not who to vote for in the general election. If I were a candidate at that debate, I would be using my time to say why you should elect me and not the others. Sure, the candidates bashed each other during the 2000 debates, that's part of the process. You mention, correctly, that Clinton was not a threat. But show me where Carlson talks about the candidates spending any time bashing Gore... Gore's name is never mentioned in either article. Not because he's, well, Al Gore. He isn't mentioned because the debaters didn't waste their time discussing guy they weren't running against!

I watched that entire debate, and the only guy I heard say anything useful in determining who's best qualified to be president was Dean. Now why is that? The other eight candidates just spent their time saying "Bush is wrong and if I become president I won't make the same mistakes." There was no "if you elect me I will do this, this, and this." And aside from a few cheap shots from Dennis Kucinich there weren't even many "don't vote for so and so because of this and that" comments. So why all the silence as to who's the best candidate of the nine? If you can provide a better answer than because they have no ideas, or ideas that people want to hear, I would be glad to hear it.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Once again Smalltown... you miss the point.

No Bru.. You with your elephant colored glasses are missing the point. With regards to Gore, they didn't mention him in the mentioned debates because there was nothing to say...

But in both cases, One thing I find interesting. Republicans and democrats hold their hands pretty tightly with people of their own party. And sure they are out to win an election, but it is always strange seeing people of the same group who have same common goals go after one another in such a manner. Doesn't give much credit to the cohesion of the party, at the least. Especially with the fiasco between bush/mccain last go around. And people say the dems are the party without a common goal or mission

 

[SmallTown]

And the other point you are missing Bru is that I agree with your original post for the most part, just not the "holier than thou" rebublican attitude you put with it, as if your party has perfect debates

I'll let the Dems and republicans fight among themselves for now, and when they finally decide on their people then i'll listen to what they have to say.

 

[Bruzilla]

Why do you insist on continually pointing out the fact that the Republicans in 2000 did not do what the Dems are doing now? How is that supposed to make your case? In response to my posts that the Dems are wasting their valuable debate time conducting a one-sided debate against a guy who isn't even there, and not offering up any new or better ideas, you keep trying to change the discussion to what Republicans did in 2000. Why the distraction? What does how the Republicans did their debates three years ago have to do with anything the Dems are doing now?

You're right about there being nothing to say about Gore during the debates... that was because they weren't running against Gore, they were running against one another, just as the Dems are now. You can say that the Republicans were clueless all you like, but at least they offered clueless ideas as to why they should be elected. That's more than the Dems seem to be able to offer.

I have no "hollier than thou" views of the Republicans... in fact you were the one that brought them into this discussion - not me. You were the one that posted the links to the articles about the Republicans, not me. All I did was point out that the articles you referenced did not support the contention you were trying to make, i.e., that the Republicans did the same thing in 2000 that the Dems are doing now.

I'll give you credit for sticking to the Democratic standard of trying to deflect criticism by criticizing others. It's good that you're consistent.

 

[SmallTown]

Well Bru, you mentioned two bad things about the dems debate.
1) They wouldn't answer questions
2) They went after Bush.

The republican articles I mentioned shows the repubs weren't big on answering questions either.
So if you wanted to take a more appropriate angle, you should have just criticized the dems' blasting of Bush, but gloss over the answering questions bit because that is pretty universal for many debates.

But then again. How many who actually answer debate questions accurately portray their answer when elected office?

 

[Bruzilla]

C'mon Smalltown.... I know you're smarter than this. "They went after Bush???" The point is that the Dems aren't going after the other candidates! Why don't you seem to get that (or maybe you just don't want to see that.) One more time... during the 2000 primary debates, Bush was a primary candidate, and was therefore open to attack by the other candidates. Your argument would be right if the Republicans had been attacking Gore but they weren't.

As for not answering questions, the second article only talks about one question that Bush didn't answer to Carlson's satisfaction. One... out of how many? Ten? Twenty? Aside from Dean the Dems didn't really answer any questions the other night. So, you equate one candidate (out of three) not providing a satisfactory answer to one question with eight candidates not answering multiple questions??? With reaches like that I hope you're a basketball player or wide receiver!

Please don't reply with some tripe about how you're sure that Bush didn't answer other questions. It's pretty obvious that Carlson is a McCain man in that article, so if there were other examples I'm sure he would have mentioned them.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

As for not answering questions, the second article only talks about one question that Bush didn't answer to Carlson's satisfaction. One... out of how many? Ten? Twenty? Aside from Dean the Dems didn't really answer any questions the other night.

Considering the content of the question (about oil) and considering Bush is an oil man, one would hope he could answer a question such as that

Two things you're missing, again.
1) Sad to see members of the same party going after one another. Sure they are fighting for the same position, but they have very common interests and ideas. Bickering with your own party just shows you really don't have much to talk about, so you start with name calling.
2) Repubs didn't know what to expect from Gore, and they didn't feel he would be a tough problem. The dems obviously can see what Bush has done, but they still feel he is a threat and will do anything to beat him. If anything, you should see it as respect for Bush, because if the Dems didn't think he was going to be a tough opponent, they wouldn't be saying as much about him.

So again... I don't feel memebers of the same party should be "going after" one another... They all have similar goals, just different ways of getting there. And for countless political reasons, it is NOT good to come across a party that doesn't seem to have common goals or ideas, which is what you get if you have a bunch in one party arguing with one another. Disgraceful.

 

[smcdem]

Hi guys the debate was quite an experience and i got to meet john kerry!! yay Well the Protestors really spoiled the moment, they were a bunch of LaRouche nuts and basically how the real problem was cheney not bush. Its interesting how candidates are off camera during the debate they talk to their neighboor they yawn its quite funny. Howard Dean obviously had huge support there and sometimes people would boo whenever Lieberman spoke up

 

[T.Rally]

Isn't it slightly ironic that the only coverage the debate got was on Fox News, the supposed voice of the Bush Administration? Am I missing something here? One would think that at the least NPR would have carried it.

 

[Bruzilla]

Smalltown... You have nine candidates standing on a stage to debate one another, and they don't. I don't see that as unity, I see that as foolishness! This is their opportunity to get up in front of a crowd and say "this is why you should vote for me", and instead they waste their time attacking someone they're not running against. I actually feel a bit sorry for the Dems... how in the heck are you guys supposed to decide who to vote for? Seems like you'all are stuck relying on sound bites on the evening news or pre-fab interviews on the Sunday talk shows.

SMCDEM... That was a pretty tacky display those idiots put on. I wonder if they ever realized that no one could hear what they were screaming. What I found a bit funny was when Sharpton challenged any other protestors to get up and say something if they had something to say so the debates could get going... knowing full whoever rose to speak would be snagged and dragged out of the building. So much for free speech.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
how in the heck are you guys supposed to decide who to vote for? Seems like you'all are stuck relying on sound bites on the evening news or pre-fab interviews on the Sunday talk shows.

Maybe vote for the one who butchers the English language the least?

 

[Bruzilla]

I do so love it when the Liberals finally crack.