Meanwhile, while John Kerry is up to his eyebrows in The Shit, Fearless Misleader is valiantly protecting the skies over Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft. For about a year, at which point he wandered off-base for a beer, and forgot to come back.
John Kerry’s profound service to his country was being instrumental in founding the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. When those guys were shown on TV flinging thier medals away, it was all over but the shooting.
J’ais vous salut, Mr. Kerry.
Not having heard a thing about any of the ‘contenders’ before, I have to say, based only on the strength of content on their webpages, I would have to side with Howard Dean.
But I don’t get to vote in the US, so it means nothing what I think.
All I know of the processes in the Primaries I have learnt from the West Wing (so isn’t much at all), so I would appreciate a run-down of the procedure for standing and selecting of a candidate.
How does it go - the process, the voting, the nominations and selections?
Can anyone stand, or does a min. number of recommendations / nominations from other party members need to be achieved?
Is the final representative decided by full party vote, or just senators / governors in the party?
Does the vote have to be a majority to proceed (if three or more candidates are standing)?
Aro, here’s one website which may be helpful (it’s pretty simplistic, though, I’ll keep looking): Electing the President
BTW, the site says that “sometimes” the conventions have multiple votes on a particular candidate, but it’s been a while since that’s happened.
Where and oh where is Bill Bradley and why isn’t his hat officially in the ring?
I also think people are misunderestimating Howard Dean. He’s been portrayed as a hard-core leftist, but given his record in Vermont this is strange. He’s only considered hard-left because the left wing of the Democratic party embraced him for his anti-war/anti-Bush views. He’s really a political moderate, and I can’t understand why the DLC slammed him. And he’s a governor, and being a former governor gives you a head start compared to being a senator, and a major head start compared to a representative. Of course, he does seem to relish his new leftish image, so what do I know? Maybe he’s drunk on public adulation. It can happen to anyone.
My prediction is that the primaries come down to a race between Dean and one member of {Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt}. Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, Kucinich, and Graham have no chance. But it is completely up in the air right now. Anyone can ruin their chances with one major gaffe. No one of the Democratic pack has the skills to come back after major scandals like Clinton used to. Right now it is a crapshoot which of the 4 real candidates besides Dean will be forced out first. When Dean is stacked up against just one of them instead of 4 he might lose pretty hard, but somehow I can’t shake the feeling that he’s going to do much better than everyone expects.
And Dean vs Bush could be closer than people think. Dean is well spoken and hungry. Bush could have major problems in a debate with Dean that he sidestepped in his debates with Gore. Anyway, this is still a year away so anything can happen.
I think that Dean is seen as ultra-liberal because he legalized same-sex unions in Vermont (although it’s not called “marriage”). Anyone who’s pro-gay is going to be seen as “far left” by many.
I’m sure the religious right would have an aneurysm if Howard were to get the nomonation. They might try to make gay rights a big issue in the election, but I don’t think the gay-baiting would give them the traction that it once did, and it would be hard for them to maintain it as an issue for long without toppling over into homophobic screeching. The issue could even backfire on them if the GOP is seen as obsessing about it while Dean simply says, “I believe that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law,” and leaves it at that.
Dean is also well spoken and would dominate Shrub in the debates.
Kerry is probably the second best candidate. He’s got the war hero vs. the deserter thing going for him. He verbally astute and smart. He would just need a good wedge issue.
Brown and Sharpton are novelty acts, they will not be serious contenders. Graham will be gone early as well. Edwards once seemed strong but has faded of late. Alf’s dad is too conservative for a lot of dems and is sort of a weenie as well. One interesting thing about him is that he’s Jewish, but that’s really only interesting from a historical standpoint. He would have a chance to become the first non-Christian POTUS (or at least the first of a non-Christian faith. We’ve had prezes who were deist, or maybe quiet agnostics).
Gebhardt is probably third on the list but I wouldn’t give him any real shot.
I suspect the Democratic candidates will cut each other to ribbons during the primaries while Bush stands apart looking Presidential.
Then the Dems will either pick a pro Iraqi-war candidate, and lose the left wingers, or an anti-Iraqi war candidate, and lose everybody else.
The Democrats are in some trouble already. Their experienced candidates are tired-out 90s retreads, and all their newcomers are boring.
Early days, but if Bush can stay on message like he did the last time, the Dems attempts at attack will come off sounding shrill. And the economy will have recovered by then, in time for Bush to take credit for it with his tax cuts.
Too bad. Maybe Hilary will have a chance in 2008, but I doubt it.
What I would like is for Condoleeza Rice to replace Cheney, and then run on her own account for President in 2008. Maybe with Powell as her Vice-President.
Just so I can watch every poverty pimp in America blow a gasket.
Regards,
Shodan
Shrub won’t look very “presidential” whie his economy’s in the shitter and the WMD fiasco blows up in his face.
Condaleezza Rice is pro-choice, btw. She can’t get on the ticket. the neocons won’t let her.
So what people are saying is the Democrats probably don’t have a very good chance and we’re in for another wacky ride with Dubya? Good sweet Christ!
Canada has a good reputation with the rest of the world as being a good, nice, polite, peacekeeping nation. But we’re falling in the polls, falling economically and falling in behind the big Southern Bully. Lately it seems as though EVERYTHING is rigged to give the US an advantage, economically anyway. For example, our wonderful, free healthcare system is starting to go to hell, due to our OWN terrible politions and greedy (yes they’re greedy!) american franchises are trying to come up and build privatized hospitals.
If we continue down the road of bending over for America and they continue to lose allies and piss off foriegn countries, I’m afraid Canada will be seen as an extension of the US and thusly have the same global hatred directed towards us. What we need is someone left wing to try and repair some of the conservative damages. Not to mention someone who DOESN’T want to re-start the ridiculously named STAR WARS project and try and con our gullible 70-something prime minister into backing them with billions of dollors we don’t have. grr.
sorry. I’m really getting off topic. Not to mention the fact that it would take a very special candidate to fix any of the things that worry me.
I like the idea of Kerry BECAUSE he served in Vietnam. Having experianced something like that makes me think that he might go out of his way to take the peaceful route. Or am I misjudging the man?
Umm, you realize that “STAR WARS” is not a name commonly used by proponents, don’t you? It is often a derisive term.
Nope. Whats the real one? And not to be snarky, but if its garnered a derisive name used so commanly do you really want to defend it?
Go ahead though. I could always do with some good learning. Maybe I have a bad impression of it.
It is, or at least was when proposed, the “Strategic Defense Initiative.” And I’m not trying to be a jerk, anyone can use “Star Wars” and it doesn’t tick me off, and I support it. Just letting you know that the “ridiculous name” is not beause of its boosters. No biggie.
Let’s clear something up about Colin Powell. He does not want to be president and he does not want to be vice-president. He had a shot at both offices when the Republicans would have grovelled at his feet if only he would run. Unless he has a big change of heart in the coming decade, he will never run for any office, it’s too much work, too degrading, and too dangerous to his reputation. He had his pick of roles in the executive branch, and he chose the one he wanted: Secretary of State. That is his dream job.
Now, let’s clear something up about Condaleeza Rice. She is intelligent and articulate and might make a good candidate for office. But she has never run for any elected position. You can’t just jump from appointee to president of vice president. You must first be a senator, a representative, or a governor. The only exceptions to this rule have been victorious war hero generals. Powell could have been in this category, but he doesn’t want the job. Rice should first run for senator or governor, like Hillary Clinton did, otherwise she can’t be taken seriously as a candidate. The way elected officials have to handle their jobs and their constituency is completely different than the way appointees do. Right now Rice is only accountable to George Bush and doesn’t have to kiss babies, meet with contributors, do favors for constituents, or lobby for specific legislation.
So in my opinion Powell and Rice are not going to be in any slot on any ticket in 2004 or 2008. Rice may be one day, but she is going to have to run for some other office first before president of VP.
Rice is mulling over running for Governor of CA. Now’s a good time for a Republican to step in. Of course, there might be an election earlier than she thinks.
Lots of discussion about Powell’s and Rice’s political ambitions in this thread.
Personally, I’d love to see a Powell/Rice ticket, but I think it’s pretty far fetched.
And then there’s an awful lot of buzz about HRC jumping in at the last minute. That would stir things up nicely.
I know no such thing. If the Democratic Party were to actively pursue a liberal ideology as Bush and his allies have been pushing a conservative ideology for the Repugnicans then they would lose some support but it would be of the Zell Miller type, as in: with friends like that…
I say, who needs 'em? Without them the Dems wouldn’t be able to put up much resistance and the Repubs would have their way. That would suck in the short term but their own politics are a conservative’s worst enemy. A lot of people say they are conservative but when you start talking policy they don’t agree with the conservative positions. How then do they consider themselves conservative? Because they really don’t understand what the conservatives are selling. And why not? Well, a lot of it is spin but in part it’s because the moderates are blunting the edge of the conservative assault. If we give them enough rope conservatives will hang themselves and the voters will naturally turn to the opposition party.
But I do know that that will never happen. The limousine liberals ala Clinton/Gore don’t want economic reform. They are fatcats themselves. So they will keep on keeping on. And for how long? I figure we will muddle along until the next depression. That’s what it took to break the monopoly of the robber barons on the reigns of government the last time.
BTW- I am Green.
Perhaps the memory of McGovern and Dukakis are still too fresh. Personally, though, I’m with you on this. I’d love to have the Dems pick the most liberal guy or gal they can come up with.
I would’ve never guessed!
And its not easy. Being Green, that is.
Ah, the old “The worse, the better” argument. Yes, let’s heighten the contradictions, Comrade! If only we had a depression and an utter economic collapse then we could get rid of these parasitic capitalists!
While this is a response to a bit of a hijack, I just have to comment on this:
So Canada’s problems are the U.S.'s fault??? You think our health care system is going to hell because of the United States? Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion?
I for one hope American hospital managers DO come here and kick some ass. Then maybe our bureaucratic health system will be forced to do a little competing.
Uh, the U.S. isn’t losing any allies that I can see. And Canada hasn’t been bending over for the U.S. On the contrary, Chretien has been bending over backwards to stick his thumb in George Bush’s eye, and THAT is going to have negative consequences. Canada would be in a much stronger international position had we supported the war in Iraq. We could be sitting at the table with the other allies, getting a say in how future events will pan out. Instead, our government will get to watch from the sidelines, all because Jean Chretien is a fool.
Heh. What we need is someone from the RIGHT wing to repair some of the damage done by the left. In case you haven’t noticed, the LIBERAL party has been running Canada in an almost autocratic fashion for a lot of years now. The result: A military on the verge of collapse, estrangement with our largest trading partner, and economic malaise everywhere except Alberta, which is controlled by the RIGHT wing of Canadian politics. And Alberta right now has one of the best economies in the world. If Alberta were a country, it would rank only slightly behind Luxembourg as having the highest per-capita income in the world. And it’s not just because of oil revenue either - Alberta outperforms other provinces by just about every other measure.
You lefties could learn a lesson from us.
And you believe that we’d be safer spending that billion dollars on, say, a gun registry? One that hasn’t stopped a single crime, but has forced millions of law-abiding people to pay a new gun tax, and STILL is running almost FIFTY times over its original projected cost (and still doesn’t work)?
Missile defense is coming, whether Canada likes it or not. We can either get on board, and have some say in the matter, or we can get all snotty about it, and the U.S. will do it anyway, whether we like it or not. In any event, the U.S. is going to spend about 95% of the money on it, and we get essentially a free ride. All we have to do is agree to help base it and provide logistics. That sounds like a damned good deal to me.