Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Tim Mcneil]

Now I don't know which Democrat is best...I will ultimately vote for the party nominee because I cannot stand Bush's gross simplification of foreign affairs into a good vs. evil thing, his neglect of the economy, and the lack of idealistic belief in the people. But if Gephardt receives the nomination of the Democratic Party, I will vote for well Bart Simpson. Went to Congress as a tax-cutting, pro-life, anti-gun Reagan Democrat and is now as liberal as the day is long. Such major flip flops and well he's just too old and too entrenched in Washington to ever go any good. So, a message to the Democratic Party, do not nominate your former minority leader that quit because his team didn't win.

 

[Frank]

"The Reform Party was generally of a conservative ideology, yet it was also very moderate."

Oh - was it also hot, and cold, at the same time? Do you know how bizarre that sounds?

"It placed a heavy emphasis on debt reduction, which is not a conservative idea "

Oh, you mean, like the balanced budget amendment? You mean, *requiring* a balanced budget, which was part of the Contract with America, AND the reason the govt got shut down? Because the GOP wanted it, and Clinton didn't?

It SURE as hell ain't a LIBERAL idea......

 

[Ken King]

Gross simplification? What are you talking about? The world is changing after eight solid years of continued capitulation. Countries found out that you could bribe the USA by threatening evil and asking for aid, aka money. We gave into many of them and in doing so we have made them all hate us even more.

You say simplification, I say its enough. I see it like this. Iraq has been charged to comply with the demands of the world. Iraq has chosen to ignore those demands. Additionally, Hussein has made it clear that given an opportunity to strike at America, he will. The US Congress has twice authorized the President to use any and all means to bring Iraq into compliance, including military force. Its not that complicated.

It is in our interest to squelch this once and for all. We have a few allies on our side and when we finally show the evidence we hold to the world they will see the endeavor is just and solely for peace within the world.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by demsformd
Any thoughts about Lieberman?

Lieberman's ethnic background will hurt his campaign. However, if I had a vote in the Democratic primary, he'd be a front runner on my ticket. I like that he's a loyal, and respectable man. I like the fact that he was yielding his candidacy to Gore, the man who put him in the spotlight. The Dems could do much worse that Joe Lieberman.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by demsformd
At least our president won more popular votes than the other guy.

If popular votes won an election, you would disenfranchise every citizen in the country who lives outside of California, Texas, Florida, and New York. It would drive the cost of campaigning down though. Candidates would only have to worry about a few states. Not all 50! Thankfully, our forefathers recognized this potential problem over 200 years ago, without the assistance of computerized demographic data and models and created the Electoral College.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by Tim Mcneil
I will ultimately vote for the party nominee because I cannot stand Bush's gross simplification of foreign affairs into a good vs. evil thing,

Had Clinton had such clear vision, Osama might have been in US custody a few years ago when Sudan offered him to us. Rather than planning a jetliner attack on New York and Washington, he might have been standing trial, or in prison for the first WTC bombing.

 

[Heretic]

Leiberman

If I wasn't happy with the job BUsh was doing and Leiberman was the democratic canidate I would probably vote for him, if for no other reason to piss off Saudi Arabia. The only thing better would be if Leiberman was a woman.

Imagine the rhetoric from the muslim world, they already claim that the US is controlled by Jews.

 

[Tim Mcneil]

I don't care to talk about Clinton because I did not vote for him and that is in the past. A question: Can someone refresh my memory about Sudan offering bin Laden because I never heard that.

Anyway...the Bush Administration has dealt a serious blow to our foreign affairs. It seems as though the president desires a return to the Cold War. References to the "axis of evil" just moves our foreign policy twenty years. Calling others evil is just too divisive for times when we are not even in war. I am tired of having a war-like situation with yet another country.

As for Lieberman, he may be my favorite for the Dems. A good strong authority in foreign affairs, yet he also does not blindly accuse as Bush has done.

And when has Hussein shown that he will attack the American motherland?

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Tim Mcneil
I don't care to talk about Clinton because I did not vote for him and that is in the past.

You realize, that you have joined the dark side here right?

From your first few posts I can definitely say that your gonna be a ton of fun!

"I don't care to talk about the Liberals because I did not vote for them and they are a thing of the past."

Wow! I think I can get the hang of this! Complete and utter denial, simply refusing to answer all questions posed!

Gosh, if this is the way it's gonna be I ought to be rich and famous before weeks end.

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by Tim Mcneil
And when has Hussein shown that he will attack the American motherland?

Sorry... Shoot me for double posting but I missed this gem....

Ahhh... How about when he plotted to have George Bush Senior Assasinated.

Maybe you forgot that.......

 

[vraiblonde]

Hold ooooon a minute, sugar! Tim strikes me as an independent thinker, not some syncophant, so I'm willing to cut him some slack until he proves otherwise. He must be related to Kelley.

However, Tim, I'm not sure we can call our relationship with the Arab countries "foreign affairs". They're pretty hostile. Iraq disobeyed the UN sanctions set out in the Gulf War. End of story.

 

[Tim Mcneil]

Kain, you are right, the liberalism of Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale is dead, which is a good thing. I wouldn't consider Clinton to be a liberal either (he changed his positions based on what the polls said). I am not sure if the plot against Bush was true, what proof has been offered by the administration?

 

[Kain99]

Slapped on the wrist again?

Listen Tim, I am not stupid enough to think that our Government will not lie. On the same hand I am not moronic enough to think that Saddam Hussein is not a global threat.

 

[vraiblonde]

Did you think I slapped you on the wrist? I didn't mean to

Anyway, Tim, here's the crux of the sitch for me:

Hussein is a madman. He starves and tortures his citizens. George Bush doesn't do that. So I'm more inclined to believe Bush than Hussein.

The spoiled citizens of this country use the term "madman" when referring to Bush. But they have no idea what true despotism really is. It's like the idiots who think Castro is a such great guy. If he's so great, why are his citizens jumping on boats to escape him? Nobody in America is risking their life to go live in Cuba. Same with Iraq. Sean Penn went over there, but came straight back to the States. People who leave Iraq are fleeing for their lives, with no intention of ever returning.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this guy's got to go. And any country that doesn't think so as well has ulterior motives and not world peace in mind.

 

[Heretic]

In the mid 90's when Bin Laden was residing in Sudan they provided us with intelligence of where Bin Laden was and told us if you want him feel free to come and get him. In his infinite wisdom Clinton and his administration decided that the risk of american lives doing it would be too great (polls again?)

It sickens me that we have had so many warnings and opportunities in the past, clear back to the Regan administration and did nothing about it.

 

[Oz]

Originally posted by Tim Mcneil
Can someone refresh my memory about Sudan offering bin Laden because I never heard that.

After September 11, Clinton himself admitted that the government of Sudan had offered to turn bin Laden over to U.S. custody after the bombing of the Navy ship, but the Clinton administration could not find a legal reason to take him.

Bush Administration has dealt a serious blow to our foreign affairs. It seems as though the president desires a return to the Cold War. References to the "axis of evil" just moves our foreign policy twenty years. Calling others evil is just too divisive for times when we are not even in war. I am tired of having a war-like situation with yet another country.

If you do something to get tagged as evil, you're divisive already. We're not dividing. North Korea threw out their weapons inspectors. That makes them bad. If most of the developed nations on earth are working together to control the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons, and then you have these rogue nations (including Iraq and N. Korea,) who want to do their own thing, then they are evil. The harsh reality of the real world is that foreign governments are as simple as black and white, good and bad.

 

[Tim Mcneil]

I feel safer when we get along with people and not when we trade insults with other leaders and nations. Oz, there is more complexities to global diplomacy than good and evil. In order for the global diplomacy of this nation to suceed we need to see in shades of gray.

 

[Heretic]

Tim unfortunately North Korea did this #### before Bush got into office. Under Clinton they threatened us and South Korea unless we gave them stuff. They are nothing more than a bully. Speaking as someone who was bullied when they were younger the only way to deal with a bully is swiftly punch them right in the mouth and then they will change their tune. If you give into them the very next day they will demand more and more (as they are now).

 

[demsformd]

Heretic, are you suggesting that we attack North Korea? A war with them would have disasterous effects especially when China gets into the war. A war with North Korea would be a conflict in which nuclear weapons would most definitely be an option.

And I have to wonder, why is this nation going after other countries that have one nuclear warhead, while ours has over a thousand. Why aren't our weapons inspected? Aren't our nukes has dangerous as ones that the other nations have?

 

[Heretic]

Im not suggesting we attack North Korea, just take a firm position.

As far as us having nuclear warheads the difference is that ours will never be used except as a last resort. If you believe any different then you must think all that much of your country. Nations like North Korea and Iraq (and maybe India and Pakistan) see nuclear weapons as viable military weapons. North Korea signed a treaty and agreed to not persue nuclear weapons if we gave them stuff, we gave them stuff and they went behind our backs and persued nuclear weapons anyway. When we quit giving them stuff because they broke their end of the bargan they claim that we are bullying them.

Any nation that threatens their neighbor (to turn it into a sea of fire) if the internation community doesn't give them stuff is a rouge nation in my opinion.

I really doubt that the Chineese want North Korea to have nuclear weapons either.

There is no need to inspect our weapons because we openly admit that we have them, inspections are to make sure that nations that claim they dont (and have a history of deceiving the international community) are telling the truth.