Ironic that it’s a Democrat who’s able to use that as a campaign promise.
At least Bush’s performance has put to rest the old wives tale that Republicans spend less.
Hell, John, if that’s the “best of all”, forget nomination and election, he should go straight for canonization.
How long do you figure before you see the first Pubbie insinuation that his Viet Nam Veterans Against the War stuff was somehow vaguely disloyal and unpatriotic? Coupla months? Coupla weeks? Today?
Though I wouldn’t put anything past Bush’s dirtbags, that was a different time and a different war. It seems to be generally accepted now that Vietnam was a train wreck from the beginning, that its protestors were “right” (as opposed to the Iraq War protestors who were somehow “wrong”). Anyway, they’d be idiots to go after Kerry on unpatriotic grounds, especially coming from a guy who hid in the National Guard while Kerry was earning medals in Vietnam.
Got two bits? Bet me.
The Republicans had no qualms about portraying Max Cleeland – a Vietnam veteran who lost two legs and an arm in the war, and the original author of the Homeland Security Bill – as a “coward” who was “weak on terrorism.”
What makes you think they won’t stoop even lower for Kerry?
Whoa, hold on, rjung, fair’s fair. I’ve seen the ads that I think you are referring to, and your quotation marks are potentially misleading. There is little question in my mind of the insinuation of those ads, but they didn’t come out flat footed and say “coward”. I don’t recall that it that clearly, but I don’t think the words “weak on terrorism” actually appeared either.
I’ve no doubt of your sincerity, just wish to point out that your use of quote marks was ill advised. (A quibble, perhaps, a minor point, but that’s the trouble with quibbles.)
Well, like I said. I’d never put it past them. But I will take that bet, elucidator.
Maybe I should start a new thread to ask this, but I’m curious about something.
I’ve heard a few people who voted for Bush in 2000 who are seriously thinking about voting for a Democrat in 2004.
I’ve heard a LOT of people who voted for Nader in 2000 who would vote for an insane puppy-kicking evil clown in 2004 if it’d mean kicking Bush out of office.
Has anyone talked with anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 who’s seriously considering voting for Bush in 2004?
Given the closeness of the last election, a very slight movement toward the Democrats could be enough to make our majority count for something.
Daniel
That would be an outstanding thread, Daniel. From my reading of the American mood, I bet the 2000 Bush/Nader voters would be far more likely to vote for Kerry than the 2000 Gore voters would be to vote for Bush. But it would still be quite interesting to hear from those who would switch either way and why.
Best cough up that two bits, MB.
From this site:
Never underestimate the depths to which political partisans will sink.
Shoot, if you don’t think racism, fundamentalism and animal stupidity don’t reign down here you must live in some parallel dimensional South. My apologies, I didn’t realize I was speaking to someone from the Bizarro South. How are things there?
**Stick to the populism. Stick to the tax code issues. Explain how Bush is robbing from the middle class to give to the wealthy. Explain how Republican attacks on the estate tax, the capital gains tax, and tax on dividends ultimately harm the middle class by forcing them to carry the bulk of the nation’s tax burden.
Talk about health care.
Talk about the environment in the South. **
Yes, this is a fine way to get the votes of the smart Southern voters – who are already Democrats, for the most part. Won’t do a thing for the teevee idjits who vote Pubbie 'cuz they’re against niggers.
God, I miss Bill Clinton. I really, really do. I never thought I’d say that; the pardons at the end of his term left a bad taste, a bitter goodbye. I mean, I liked Bill, I thought he worked hard to accomplish what he could, what the opposition would allow. I am completely opposed to term limits. It would be fun to watch Clinton destroy Bush. The poor fool wouldn’t stand a chance. Ah, well.
Kerry electable? I really don’t feel it. He seems like an honorable man, an able politician. Likable, yes. Electable, I just can’t see it. If he is the nominee, I hope he makes zero mistakes. There is no margin of error.
Right now, in terms of electablilty, I’d like to see an Edwards/Clark ticket…or a Clark/Edwards ticket.
I live in the largest city in what (as late as 1992) was a swing state. Where do you live?
Racism, fundamentalism and animal stupidity all exist here. They only reign if we let them. (Consent of the governed, and all that.)
The voters who find racism appealing probably won’t be voting Democratic anyway. But then we knew that. And yet there are several Southern states which have been swing states in the 90’s. Which should give you hope, EC, that the racists are just a very vocal minority.
You seem to have a lot of bitterness, my friend. Don’t lose hope.
I should have addressed this earlier.
No, Dean’s “Confederate flag” remark doesn’t bother me because he was (however awkwardly) making exactly the point that I have been trying to make in this thread.
There is a large base of working middle class voters in the South which should be a natural constituency of the Democratic Party. Kerry wants to write those voters off. Dean wants to bring them into the fold.
Kerry is choosing to make my party provincial. Dean wants it to remain a national party. Dean is looking to grow the party, while Kerry is digging trenches along the Mason-Dixon line. Dean’s path is the path to returning the Democrats to the majority. Kerry’s path is a death sentence for Democrats.
Maybe Dean awkwardly stereotyped the Southern working class (for which he apologized), but at least he’s not saying it’s a “mistake” to appeal to them.
I didn’t put the smiley after that because I thought it would’ve been redundant. Of course I was only joking.
I suspect the ant-Kerry rhetoric from the Pubs will be in direct proportion to the gap he puts on his opponents. The longer the primary battle goes on the better. But I’d guess that the VNVAtW activities will not be trumpetted as much as his cold war voting record will be. In retrospect, it sure looks bad.
Not to disparage Kerry. In keeping with the thread OP, I do think he is the most electable of the Dems.
Umm, I must disagree. Put a beard on him, and he would be Abraham Lincoln.
Fwiw, I recently heard some Air Force retirees talking about how badly Shrubya has screwed them.
spoke- your link to that “Kerry betrayal” site doesn’t work for me.
I think you’re exaggerating by a tremendous amount. Do you think Dean will play in the South? I don’t. He’s not even close in South Carolina, and Kerry has a chance to win it even though Edwards was born there. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but things are pretty regional as it is. The coasts vote Democrat, the heartland and South vote Republican.
There’s no maybe about it, his phrasing was awful. Kerry didn’t say it was a mistake to appeal to Southern voters, he said it was a mistake to think he couldn’t win the election without winning down South. Technically, at least, he’s right. I don’t see Dean growing the party. His base is composed of young upper-middle class white suburbanites. Kerry’s winning among different groups, including moderates, the young and old, etc.
Well, not Wisconsin. There is a reason they call us a “swing state”.
This site (PDF) shows that in the presidential elections of 1960 through 2000, Wisconsin has voted for the Democrat 6 of 11 times. In addition, Wisconsin has been a predictor of the evential winner 8* of 11 times.
Technically, 9 of 11, if you go by the popular vote. (mischievous grin)
This may be worthless but a few days ago I heard our Labor Premier Bob Carr (equivalent of Governor), who is a keen student of US politics and the Civil War, talking about the Democrats. He has met Kerry several times and said that he “is a very impressive individual, nearly as impressive as his wife.” He thought that he should be the Democrat nominee because Dean “is a fraud. A governor from a small state that has made no contribution to American public life.”
Now, what other recent Democratic President does that describe?
That’s a vast oversimplification. Several Southern states have been swing states in the past few election cycles: Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida.
Besides which, even if the South is trending Republican, why should the Democratic Party resign itself to Republican domination there? As I said (and as Dean has said), the working middle class of the South is a natural constituency for Democrats. You can fight for that constituency, as Dean wants to do, or abandon the field, as Kerry has chosen to do.
Courageous leadership, my ass.
Yes, Kerry is doing well among Democratic primary voters. But that is mostly the bandwagon effect. And we Democrats don’t exactly have the greatest track record for picking winners, now, do we? (See Dukakis, Michael.)
Furthermore, the leanings of Democratic primary voters don’t tell us anything about swing voters, and that’s the real battleground.
Do I think Dean would play in the South? Much better than Kerry among swing voters. Dean has a very moderate record as a governor. Meanwhile, Kerry has a liberal track record as long as your arm. Nothing wrong with that, but it won’t play down here among swing voters. Kerry himself knows that.