I’m of the opinion that the guy who swung Florida for Bush was also named Bush. 
I’m also of the opinion that had Gore been even a better candidate, this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
He’s not trailing in most polls, he’s way in the back of the pack in all of them. And he’s not near the top in fundraising either, I’m sure.
Because he’s a loony who seriously proposes to establish a Department of Peace.
So, you’re saying that you want the Democrats to lose big-time. Pander to the hard-core out-of-touch liberals. Yup, that’ll sway the much larger generally-undecided middle.
He’s pretty liberal compared to anybody who isn’t a raving loony left extremist.
Posted by Dogface:
Sigh. We’re talking about the Greens in this thread, Dogface, and from their point of view Gore is extremely conservative. You might dismiss the Greens themselves as “raving loony left extremists,” and I’m sure you do. But you shouldn’t ignore the very important differences between the Greens and the Gore/DLC camp, nor should you ignore the wide range of opinions in between. You seem to be looking at the whole left side of the spectrum from a vantage point so far to the right of it that the whole left telescopes into one homogeneous thing, and it isn’t. You need to adjust your eyepiece if you expect to contribute anything of value to this kind of discussion.
Posted by minty green:
Please go on. What exactly is wrong with that?
Posted by John Mace:
I’ve seen Kucinich on TV, John, quite recently. He comes across as an angry person. That’s just exactly what the country needs right now, and it’s just exactly what the Democratic Party needs right now. Kucinich is not a downer, he’s a man who fires up the crowd – with anger! At the Bush administration, at the Republicans, at the corporate plutocrats generally. Which is as it should be. And Kucinich does have some real charisma compared to Nader or to Gore, not that that’s saying much in either instance. Dean, now, Dean is a man who radiates reassuring nice-guy vibes even while he promises to shake things up. I don’t really trust that.
Nothing whatsoever, so long as you’re stoned out of your mind. As public policy, it’s so insipid that it merits no serious discussion at all.
Posted by minty green:
Actually, minty, our State Department should be our “Department of Peace” – diplomats = peacemakers, right? But we’ve seen how that works out in actual practice. The State Department usually functions as an adjunct to the Defense Department more than anything else. A cabinet-level agency devoted exclusively to finding ways to make peace might actually, well, find ways to make peace. At any rate, we have to evaluate this in context. The whole platform plank in which the “Department of Peace” is proposed reads as follows (from http://kucinich.us/issues/issue_10key.htm):
I repeat: What is wrong with any of that?
Brian:
As a Green, yes, anger might work. Not as a Dem, though.
After the first few primaries, it will be unrealistic for all but the top two or three Democratic candidates to carry on with their campaigns. It is always thus. To do so would be tantamount to putting money in a pile and setting it on fire.
Kucinich might do quite well in Ohio but if he can’t first finish strong in Iowa New Hampshire & South Carolina, he will have to think about what’s next in his life. And the numbers do not appear to be there for him. In addition he has a lot of things going against him.
He has relatively no money.
That many millions of American voters do not jive with progressive politics as they understand them and have them explained to them, particularly in the context of the more middle-of-the-road platforms offered to them.
Much of what he has to say (“no war”, “pro-labor”, “I’m angry”) is already being said louder and better by other candidates who have more cameras pointing at them. This means that the more ornate points of his policy simply will not get through (and even if they did, see #2).
He is less telegenic than most of the other candidates.
His last name is not “snappy”, sounding more like “Dukakis” than “Dukakis” does.
His message is important and would have received far more media attention if he had run as a Green. But too bad. He did not change his party affiliation and elected to run as a Democrat. Green-leaning voters who are turned on by him should consider that he is a Democrat from way back and unless he wants to drop out of the party and set up his tent elsewhere - and even if he did, he would get nowhere near the votes that Nader got last time - presumably he and his circle will be throwing their support to whoever the Democratic candidate against Bush is.
Posted by RTA:
I do hope so! I, for one, will campaign for the Democratic nominee, even if it’s Clark or Lieberman. And I hope most Greens will hold their noses and do the same. The stakes are too high this time around.
And you’re right, Kucinich is burdened with a Croatian (I think) name, and he is not telegenic. Howard Dean looks like a president. He looks a whole lot more like a president than Bush does. So does Clark. So does Kerry, though a bit too boyish. Kucinich . . . Kucinich looks like Alfred E. Neumann. (But at least he’s better-looking than Gephardt, Leiberman, or Sharpton!)
But for now, I’m sticking with Kucinich. Who knows, he might actually surprise us! Who had heard of Jimmy Carter in 1975?
All of it. More specifically:
This is nothing but drivel without anything more to back it up.
“Pre-emption” Has nothing to do with unilateralism, and most certainly does not inherently make the nation less secure. In the right circumstances, pre-emptive warfare is just and moral. To deny that is idiotic.
Drivel. The man acts as if complete accession to everything the rest of the world wants to do is inherently the best course of action. He neither explains what is so damn desirable about those treaties, nor provides any reason to believe that acceding to them would make the US safer. And by the way, if there is some way in which the US is in violation of international agreements on chemical and biological weapons, I’d bloody well like to see some evidence of it.
(1) There are no space-based weapons systems. (2) The Department of Peace is still the most idiotic thing I’ve heard this election cycle. The mileage on your bong may vary.
No specifics, plus you’d have to be crazy to argue that we don’t need a damn strong military, particularly given that massive portions of it are going to be devoted to the pacification of Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Drivel. Show me the numbers, buddy.
I read somewhere that maybe Nader’s idea was to show people (mainly Democrats) that their party was too far center.
He did, but oh at what a price.
A lot of people I knew said they were holding their noses and voting for Gore, simply becasue he was better than Bush.
I didn’t undertand that then, but I do now.
As a Clevelander, i met Dennis twice,breifly, he didn’t come across as a downer,but like I said before,unless you suck upto Big Business, you don’t have a chance.
And he doesn’t.
The names change, but the complaint has been the same for every presidential election that I can remember. The two-party system in the US is remarkably efficient, but it’s always going to produce complaints because the many or most people do not easily fit the party paradigms that produce most presidential candidates.
Why do you even bother, Dogface? You know pretty much nothing about my politics, and your comments - not to mention your views as expressed elsewhere on this board - leave one with the impression that you don’t have any kind of context or background on this issue.
Uh, can anyone give me some kind of objective definition of what ‘social justice’ is? Does that require social judges? Seriously, what is it?
There’s a very good reason why the Democratic party (and the Republican party) are moving towards the center. It’s because that’s where the people are.
People who think that the Democratic party needs to move to the left are projecting their own desires onto the electorate. If the Democrats nominate someone on the left, it will be a landslide for Bush.
My prediction: If Dean gets the nomination (and he’s still the odds-on favorite), the day he locks up the nomination he’s going to be begin to scrabble frantically back to the center. He’ll tone down the anti-war rhetoric, emphasize his fairly conservative positions on fiscal restraint and gun laws, and portray himself as a centrist.
There’s a reason why Clinton was so successful - he knew how to occupy the center.
I think Sam is right here. If Dean gets the nomination, he’ll need someone on the ticket who is either a Southerner or more centrist and preferably both. Kucinich as a VP candidate would pretty much give Bush term #2 without a fight. Edwards wouldn’t be a bad choice.
But I don’t see a clear winner for the Dem nomination yet.
Okay.
BrainGlutton, no, I’d vote for Dean if he won the primary. His positions on trade are somewhat less than optimal, but I’d trust him more with fiscal policy and international relations than I would Kunich (minty green more or less mirrors my own sentiments). Right now, I do not think the Democrats need to win the left as much as they do the center, and Kunich is the polar opposite of the center (this is another reason I support Kerry and Clark over Dean). I suspect the center will be more vulnerable to Democratic influence this election, with more charismatic candidates, a more specific impression of Bush, etc.
(Note - I’m Brian. He’s Brain. There’s a difference. Nobody seems to understand it.)
Lately, despite his trade policy, Gephart has begun to actually manage to impress me. Voting against the idiotic forced loan amendment was difficult, but it was the correct thing to do. I’m probably going to keep a closer eye on him then I might otherwise.
Sam Stone is pretty much entirely correct.
(You might want to bookmark that for future reference, Sam.)
I’d quibble with the notion that the parties are moving towards the center. Bush II certainly has not governed as the moderate he assured everybody he really was, though he’s thrown certain moderate and even liberal bones to key voters every once in a while (esp. those damn farm and steel subsidies). And however the current Democratic candidates would govern, they’re mostly playing left of center for the primaries. Dean, however, has been playing up his centrist and fiscal conservative credentials more and more as he solidifies his position as frontrunner. But on the whole, I think you nailed it, Sam–elections are won in the center, not at the margins.
Oh, now that the discussions around here are moving away from the war, I think we’ll be agreeing quite a bit. Nice refreshing change.
I don’t agree with the extremist characterization of Bush, however. Aside from taxes (a policy he ran on), and the war, Bush has been quite a moderate president. Far too much so for my tastes. He’s pumped money into a raft of government agencies, he disappointed his ‘base’ with numerous decisions (the aforementioned tariffs and subsidies, his compromise on stem cell research, his big spending). In fact, he’s so much in the middle that he’s now got John McCain on the right of him, complaining about his spending policies and tariffs.