What do the Democrats want in a President...

Now I don't want this to turn into a Republican V. Democrat debate or flame war. I just watched on CNN a "sum" up of Dean, Kerry, and Edwards the top 3 Democratic money guys.

All three want to raise taxes to increase federal spending. Universal Canada Care, and other big entitlements. Edwards is the "hawk" of the group.

Outside of that what do the Democrats want with the country? I'm not about to lose 1k from my income to have Canada Care when I have a great PPO.

Can the Democrats win with that?

I''ll tell you what the democrats want, a candidate that can beat George Bush. None of the candidates you mentioned have a chance of winning.
Hillary Clinton thinks she is being clever and coy waiting until next year to announce her candidacy (""The people need me!"") but she is unelectable as well.
I think they need a politcal outsider, a non senator, to come out of nowhere like Clinton. That way you can say you can be on the both side of issues and you don''t have a voting record to answer too.

Hillary Clinton thinks she is being clever and coy waiting until next year to announce her candidacy

She won''t run against Dubya. I think she''s holding out for a better chance at winning.

Oh god. Are you actually suggesting Dubya is the most likely winner?

What the hell... ??

Yes. He will win in 2004.

What do Democrats want? Not George W. Bush. Bush is still vulnerable on the economy (I''m not convinced that the recovery is long-term), Iraq (50+ American troops after combat was declared over; no WMDs; no Saddam), and terrorism (Intel failures; no bin Ladin; no leads in anthrax case; constant threat of attack). Of course, the Republican Party is tasteless enough to hold their ''04 convention in New York in September. And you thought there was anger over Paul Wellstone''s memorial being turned into a political pow-wow.

I agree with Rat Boy. Our last two presidents seem to have caused utter loathing in the opposing party. I''m not sure if this is a new trend in American politics or just a coincidental circumstance, but just as the Republicans absolutely hated Clinton and nominated the person most likely to beat Gore, regardless of his credentials, experience, or the fact that he can''t put a coherent sentence together, the Democrats will probably nominate whoever they feel can win.

For the record, I would vote for any candidate willing to end this farce we know as the ''War on Drugs''.

It''s funny how liberals get nearly hysterical at the thought of a two term Bush Presidency.

For the record, ""50+ American troops after combat was declared over"", is inaccurate. I presume you mean 50+ deaths. Actually the number is 25. Any death is too much, so its not necessary to exaggerate to make a point.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/printedi...

We lost 18 Marines in Somalia in a day under Clinton''s watch.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2060941/

As far as the economy, you and many other hopeful liberals hope the economy fails. But you can''t argue with the numbers though.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030702/marke...

Keep hoping though since apparently liberals don''t think they can get elected unless something terrible happens.

In the words of the wise Lao Tzu: ""There is no greater disaster than to underestimate your enemy.""

http://www.thetao.info/english/quote...

Bush adversaries keep underestimating his political savvy. This is why the Democrats are in the position they are in. For instance, Bush asked for a huge tax cut that no politician in his right mind would ever agree too. So he got a smaller tax cut. When the economy improves a ""little bit"" he can say, ""See, if you could have passed a higher tax cut, the economy would have done even better"". He is stealing democrat issues like health care, he even came out against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

Keep going on about lost WMD and fragmented sentences. Meanwhile, palestinians are back in control of Bethleham at the start of the road map to peace, the economy is improving, and no foreign terrorist attack has occurred since 2001. Point me to a democrat that had anything to do with any of that?

But what do I know? The democrats just haven''t got their message out, yet. Let''s see what they have to say. The public is interested in hearing what they have to say.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

If they continue to rant about how bad George Bush is, without any ideas of their own, their fate is sealed. The economy is better now than it was in 2002, and we know what happened in that election.

Instead of hearing how terrible George Bush is, I''d like to see just one post from a liberal about a specific candidate. For instance ""I like that Howard Dean fellow, even if he doesn''t think its important to know the size of our active duty forces.""

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

I guess that''s not his ""issue"". National Security? I''m sure people will get over that by 2004.

no foreign terrorist attack has occurred since 2001.

I think you are forgetting that ambassador that was assasinated this year. Not to mention countless suicide bombing attacks.

As a matter of fact Dean is growing on me. I am still waiting to see proof in this thread of Democrats getting near hysterical. Sensible Democrats are frustrated at the political appeal of Bush but the hysterics and hatred towards Clinton by right wing Republicans was far worse. I dont see the outcropping of numerous hate spewing windbags on radio talkshows that came about under Clinton. People that hated Clinton and had nothing better to do with their disposable income (there are a lot more productive things you can do with that money) funded niche talk shows to vent their nastiness.

If Democrats are so hysterical and venomous in their hatred of Bush, where''s the Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh etal?

Republican''s need to back off the hyper defensive attitude. Democrats are not your enemy because they dont believe the same things. Democrats are not unpatriotic and dont hate America when we criticize decisions of the current administration. Democrats stand for freedom, human rights and we always try to look out for those that are less able to help themselves because the sum is greater than the addition of its parts.

Just look at the foaming at the mouth the Republicans are going through over the Hillary book. A psychologist would diagnose the GOP with a neurosis.

If Democrats are so hysterical and venomous in their hatred of Bush, where''s the Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh etal?

Micheal Moore, Al Frankin, Bill Mohers (Not Mhar, the one on PBS), The NY Times, Washington Post.

I think you are forgetting that ambassador that was assasinated this year. Not to mention countless suicide bombing attacks.

No attack has hit the homeland. That is the big deal.

I am still waiting to see proof in this thread of Democrats getting near hysterical. Sensible Democrats are frustrated at the political appeal of Bush but the hysterics and hatred towards Clinton by right wing Republicans was far worse.

Read a Dean or the Congressman from Ohio speech. They are hysterical about how evil Bush is. No Democrat has came through with a postive message about the future. Kerry is still talking about how he was in nam (which everyone respects and knows). The Democrats hate Bush just as bad as the Republicans hate Clinton. It just so happens that no national Democrat can maintain a gig.

Bush is smarter than the Democrats. He doesn''t demonize them. You never hear Bush talk about how horrible any one of the Democratic 9 are. He talks about what he wants. The Democrats should do the same.

"Ulairi" wrote:
I think you are forgetting that ambassador that was assasinated this year. Not to mention countless suicide bombing attacks.

No attack has hit the homeland. That is the big deal.

Boy, you sure are complacent. Almost complacent as the Clinton Administration was even after the African Embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. Such complacency is lethal.

I actually like Lieberman, because he''s quite liberal on social issues and the evironment, but quite conservative on fiscal and military issues. He''s actually practical and moral. For some reason I think that''s cool.

The unfortunate truth is that you''re only going to hear about Democrats foaming at the mouth right now, because that''s about the only way to get on the news. It''s also the only way to get campaign $$$. Dean is sort of elated at the $ he''s been getting by being a pain in the butt. You can''t get elected on that but you can get early cash and a few state nominations. Dean''s record is very centrist, and even somewhat pro-business, which will all come out when things turn a bit more serious.

The problem for Democrats in general is that it seems nearly impossible to have a democratic leader who is charismatic, impassioned about issues we care about, and not a total loon (Gephardt''s health care plan=total loon; my day job is health care analysis). I''m mostly holding my breath right now waiting for things to work themselves out before I pay too much attention. I have read what each candidate (even Al Sharpton, mostly for laughs) is trying to stand for, etc. but it doesn''t all mean very much right now. It''s all the boring stuff right now unless they rant enough to catch the media''s attention. Which makes them all look like ranting loons. Getting the nomination for Democratic presidential candidate seems to involve alienating enough people that it''s hard to get elected. The incumbent raised $30 million. All of the dems together might have raised that much. He who raises the most money wins. Incumbent senators win 98% of the time, for instance.

Kinda sad if you''re socially and environmentally liberal (and watch as Bush rolls back every executive order Clinton ever made) and fiscally conservative...so far my entire voting record has been voting against candidates. I''m still waiting to vote FOR somebody.

Micheal Moore, Al Frankin, Bill Mohers (Not Mhar, the one on PBS),

Well Michael Moore has made 2 documentaries that have been inciteful for all of 2 weeks. Who gives a rats ass what Al Frankin thinks and who the hell is Bill Mohers?

Those three combined cant even approach the mainstream appeal enjoyed by Rush in conservative circles.

Remember the topic of this thread? Asked and answered. But, oh, I forgot, this is ""Ulairi is always right thread"" #463 with some well disguised bait.

Al Gore''s biggest blunder isn''t the 2000 election. He beat Bush once, he can beat him again. His biggest blunder happened during the publicity run for his book. He whipped up a frenzy regarding whether he''d run again drawing attention from all other candidates. Honestly, if he really did want to sell his book he should have announced his candidacy. He single handedly set back the democratic party and killed his book sales in one Larry King interview. The other candidates are still playing catch up to the amount of money he could have raised and the popularity he commands. After all of this, I guarantee you he is still the most popular democrat.

I am not trying to turn this thread into how good or bad a president he may or may not be. I''m just trying to make a point that even if he decided to run now, after all of this, he''d crush Hilary, Dean, Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman or anyone else. And he can still beat Bush.

But Gore lacks the spine to go for another election run and we''re better for it.

I would vote for Gore. He''s the lesser of 2 evils, and knows the names of foreign dignitaries without his aides holding up flash cards.

(sure, this is a troll, but this whole THREAD is full of trolls)

I must say, Lieberman has my attention as well. And I''m in full agreement with Roo in that I''m still waiting to not vote on the ''lesser of two evils'' card.

I guess, Bush will take ''04 and suddenly Colin Powell starts getting in the spotlight more, all ready to be groomed for ''08.

I doubt Powell would do it. A.) his wife told him not to (always a good reason and 2.) the DoD has been trying to undercut him ever since the planning for Iraq began in the summer of 2002 by getting more one on one time with the President and getting their intermediaries (Newt Gingrich and Jim Woolsey, to a lesser extent) to diss Powell''s leadership and handling of the diplomatic situation leading to the war. Powell was stuck in a really bad situation because of 1.) Cheney and Rumsfeld''s saber-rattling in 2002, leading just about everybody to believe that the war was inevitable and no amount of talk would change anything (the Administration was lucky, very lucky, to get 1441 passed) and b.) France and Russia''s belligerent reaction to what they viewed as the official US position, forcing a diction compromise on 1441 and the scrapping of any follow-up resolution.

Boy, you sure are complacent. Almost complacent as the Clinton Administration was even after the African Embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole . Such complacency is lethal.

Boy, and here I thought that the administration was ruthlessly destroying our civil rights through invasive Big Brother techniques and militarily imposing Empire throughout the world. I guess we''re just doing these things ""complacently."" It is nice to see however someone else who realizes the incompetence of the Clinton administration when it came to terror.

I agree with Elysium. GW is unbeatable in 2004. He is popular with Democrats and adored by Republicans. The Democratic candidates are all only Bush-bashing, which will never win an election. The few ideas that they have - universal health care, higher taxes, umm... boy is that it? - simply don''t fly with the public and have been discredited long before.

Either Lieberman or Kerry will win the nomination, by out-hawking the rest of the field, or Dean may pull one out of left field and then we can watch the Democrats go the way of Dukakis and self-immolate.

A real winning campaign would be based on kicking out illegal immigrants, ending most legal immigration, and reforming the rest so it was based on allowing people into the country based on their merits only. Spend more on education and health care, but only for the poorest 10% of the country and cut off the richest 50% from entitlements they didn''t earn. Stop making entitlements at all, and require that anyone receiving government aid provide something in return, instead of the current grab-bag-raffle that is done. Stand by the pledge to countries that they are either with us or against us in the war on terror.

These planks are unlikely from any of the current field - although Lieberman know what it takes to win, and if he receives the nomination, will give an unpleasant shock to many on the left by trying to out-right Bush.

"ralcydan" wrote:

It is nice to see however someone else who realizes the incompetence of the Clinton administration when it came to terror.

No, not really. Clinton''s first and only attempt at deploying ground troops ended disastrously, which made even the Republican hawks balk at using them (specifically in a Clinton-led war). Then came the successes in Yugoslavia with just airstrikes. Rather easy to get complacent like that.

One thing that''s been reported on before but not widely discussed was a Clinton-era plan by CIA Director George Tenet to train Pakistani militants to go into Afghanistan and kill bin Ladin. Unfortunately, before the plan could be launched, General Pervez Musharraf overthrough the Pakistani government in a coup. It''s debatable whether or not it would''ve worked (I had visions of the Bay of Pigs), but at least something was on the table as late as 1999. Then there were the requests by the CIA of the Bush 43 Administration to send up armed Predator drones over Afghanistan with orders to kill bin Ladin in early 2001. Those requests were ignored and it wasn''t until October or so of 2001 did the ROEs get modified to allow Predators to fire at suspected terrorists without consulting the NCAs.

Edit: Oh, lookee who may get interviewed by the 9-11 terror panel.