|
Democratic Debate
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
Did anyone watch it last night? Personally I thought that Clark came out ahead in those debates. He seemed to be above the petty squabbling and finger pointing going on between Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt and he emphasized his democratic values that I liked (with the exception of affirmative action). Anyway, after learnings about Dean's stance on several issues, I definetely do NOT want him to win the democratic ticket. Particularly with his stance on trade. Apparentely he wants to rework EVERY trade agreement with every country such that we would only deal with those countries who follow similar worker's rights/human rights/and labor standards as us! Is he insane???? Our ONLY trading partner would become Canada and Western Europe! Please tell me he has more economics sense than that??? I shudder to think about how much the price structure of goods would change and how fast our economy would tank ...
Anyway, go clark! He taught economics at west point, so one would envisage him having a good head on his shoulders. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
I missed the debates sadly.
I am curious about Clark's views on environmental policy. That's a very important issue to me, and one which is close to my heart for various reasons. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I missed the debates sadly.
I am curious about Clark's views on environmental policy. That's a very important issue to me, and one which is close to my heart for various reasons. |
His words:
| quote: |
"I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I am pro-environment, pro-health," he said.
"I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat."
|
He wants to keep the troops in Iraq and help fund for costs by rolling back tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%. I see nothing wrong with that as 2/3rds of the economy is driven by consumer spending. Therefore, so long as the mass majority of Americans still have their tax cuts to spend, I don't think that would negatively impact the economy to a large degree.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...bate/index.html |
|
|
| Renegade |
Yeah, despite being a late entrant, Clark's looking like a pretty good chance to take this one out I think. He's doing quite well in the head to head poll, better than many of his rivals despite his smaller grass-root support:
| quote: | Sept. 22, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Wesley Clark, in the presidential race for less than a week, is tied with President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a poll that shows several Democratic candidates strongly challenging the Republican incumbent.
Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, beginning two days after Clark announced he would become the 10th Democratic candidate for the party's nomination. |
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003...bush/index.html
In many ways, these head-to-head polls may well be some of the most important factors in determining who the Democrats decide to run in 2004. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, despite being a late entrant, Clark's looking like a pretty good chance to take this one out I think. He's doing quite well in the head to head poll, better than many of his rivals despite his smaller grass-root support:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003...bush/index.html
In many ways, these head-to-head polls may well be some of the most important factors in determining who the Democrats decide to run in 2004. |
I think that many moderates and conservatives who are sick with Bush would be a little too hesistant to put Dean into the white house. If it were a matchup between Dean and Bush I think Bush would win based upon the views that Dean is "too" liberal. However Clark, a distinguished General who would rebuild foreign relations while emphasizing homeland security seems like he would appeal to both sides of the political spectrum.
Anyway I hope he can keep his momentum up. If the democrats blow this one and give the wrong guy the democratic ticket I'm gonna be pissed! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Did anyone watch it last night? Personally I thought that Clark came out ahead in those debates. He seemed to be above the petty squabbling and finger pointing going on between Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt and he emphasized his democratic values that I liked (with the exception of affirmative action). Anyway, after learnings about Dean's stance on several issues, I definetely do NOT want him to win the democratic ticket. Particularly with his stance on trade. Apparentely he wants to rework EVERY trade agreement with every country such that we would only deal with those countries who follow similar worker's rights/human rights/and labor standards as us! Is he insane???? Our ONLY trading partner would become Canada and Western Europe! Please tell me he has more economics sense than that??? I shudder to think about how much the price structure of goods would change and how fast our economy would tank ...
Anyway, go clark! He taught economics at west point, so one would envisage him having a good head on his shoulders. |
As much as I don't want to admit it, I'm starting to have doubts about Dean, my original first choice. It sucks that the man on top receives the most criticism and exposure to faults, and that he's got a bullseye on his back with the likes of every other candidate. But he's starting to look a little more wishy washy with his proposed policies. And I concur with your trade analysis - siding with NAFTA and WTO is never a good thing in my book (esp. NAFTA). He did mention that he would want those trade agreements revised, but as you pointed out he wanted those revised to our standards (which are definitely not universal, nor should they be).
Clark looks pretty good right now, but I am anxious to hear his specific policies instead of mere generalities. If his specifics are sound, he'll surely get my vote. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think that many moderates and conservatives who are sick with Bush would be a little too hesistant to put Dean into the white house. If it were a matchup between Dean and Bush I think Bush would win based upon the views that Dean is "too" liberal. However Clark, a distinguished General who would rebuild foreign relations while emphasizing homeland security seems like he would appeal to both sides of the political spectrum.
Anyway I hope he can keep his momentum up. If the democrats blow this one and give the wrong guy the democratic ticket I'm gonna be pissed! |
I'm still trying to figure out why so many have painted Dean as "too liberal". He holds a number of moderate views as well as liberal views, so I don't know where the hell this came from and why it's sticking. My only explanation is the other candidates are trying to vilify him (as well as Faux News possibly). Coining this phrase on him, however, seems to be sticking, much to my chagrin. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think that many moderates and conservatives who are sick with Bush would be a little too hesistant to put Dean into the white house. If it were a matchup between Dean and Bush I think Bush would win based upon the views that Dean is "too" liberal. However Clark, a distinguished General who would rebuild foreign relations while emphasizing homeland security seems like he would appeal to both sides of the political spectrum.
Anyway I hope he can keep his momentum up. If the democrats blow this one and give the wrong guy the democratic ticket I'm gonna be pissed! |
Good point, but I think the issue about Dean being "too liberal" has been overblown somewhat. Admittedly, being an Australian, I wouldn't understand the mindset of the average American voter as well as perhaps you or the average American political commentator would, but surely if we argue that Dean is going to lose votes for being "too liberal" we could also argue that Bush is likely to lose votes for being "too conservative"? Is there any reason the logic couldn't be applied both ways?
Having said that, I agree that Clark may be more likely to win the moderate/centrist votes than those to the left (Kucinich, Dean, etc.) and right (Lierberman, Gephardt, etc.) of him politically, but whether he can inspire people to turn-up and vote in the same way that someone with the charisma of Howard Dean may be able to is another issue all together. For instance, didn't the Gore/Bush election have one of the lowest voter turn-outs of all time? Gore may have been moderate enough to satisfy the criteria we may say are necessary to win the centrist swing votes you talk about, but if he doesn't inspire people to turn out and vote for him (this includes liberals, centrists and moderate rights) then these "moderate" policies may well count for nothing.
I know that Clark and Gore are different personalities, but the point is that the Democrats mustn't be so caught up in trying to win over these "swing" votes that they forget about the grass-root liberals (easy votes to pick up from the Greens and Independents if the candidate is right) or about selecting a leader who - quite apart from possessing policies that people may agree with - inspires the voters to turn up to the polling-booths. I don't know enough about Clark to say whether he is likely to possess this quality or not, but I thought it might be worth keeping in mind (as sadly, in elections, policies aren't always the most decisive factor). |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Good point, but I think the issue about Dean being "too liberal" has been overblown somewhat. Admittedly, being an Australian, I wouldn't understand the mindset of the average American voter as well as perhaps you or the average American political commentator would, but surely if we argue that Dean is going to lose votes for being "too liberal" we could also argue that Bush is likely to lose votes for being "too conservative"? Is there any reason the logic couldn't be applied both ways?
|
Well, under a normal set of circumstances I would probably tend to agree. However, in post 9/11 America I think a lot of people tend to associate "conservatives" as those who would take proactive steps in increasing security against additional attacks while they tend to look at "liberals" as those who would be too lax to enforce stringent security measures. I forget the poll that I saw this in, but I fear that many in America would erroneously label a candidate who is "too" liberal as one who would shirk their responsiblities in improving security. Personally I don't think Dean is too liberal at all. I would save that label for members of the green party and what not. If I considered him too liberal than I wouldn't even consider him a serious candidate. I do consider some of his policies as being "too" liberal however, (economic stance and his desire to roll back ALL tax cuts) and I'm afraid that many would be somewhat apprehensive at what else he would do. If Dean is the opposite of Bush, I think that many would be fearful of having swung one way for 4 years and then voting in a candidate who is going to completely swing the other way. I think many people would be far more comfortable with moderate steps in the other direction rather than a complete 180 degree turn. Therefore I think that many moderates/undecided would naturally swing to the conservative side when confronted with a candidate who is so different. So I guess he would be defined as radically liberal by conservatives who are used to Bush's conservativism.
| quote: |
Having said that, I agree that Clark may be more likely to win the moderate/centrist votes than those to the left (Kucinich, Dean, etc.) and right (Lierberman, Gephardt, etc.) of him politically, but whether he can inspire people to turn-up and vote in the same way that someone with the charisma of Howard Dean may be able to is another issue all together. For instance, didn't the Gore/Bush election have one of the lowest voter turn-outs of all time? Gore may have been moderate enough to satisfy the criteria we may say are necessary to win the centrist swing votes you talk about, but if he doesn't inspire people to turn out and vote for him (this includes liberals, centrists and moderate rights) then these "moderate" policies may well count for nothing.
I know that Clark and Gore are different personalities, but the point is that the Democrats mustn't be so caught up in trying to win over these "swing" votes that they forget about the grass-root liberals (easy votes to pick up from the Greens and Independents if the candidate is right) or about selecting a leader who - quite apart from possessing policies that people may agree with - inspires the voters to turn up to the polling-booths. I don't know enough about Clark to say whether he is likely to possess this quality or not, but I thought it might be worth keeping in mind (as sadly, in elections, policies aren't always the most decisive factor). |
Well I agree somewhat that the democrat party should appeal to its own supporters and inspire people to come out to vote, but I really don't see that becoming a problem in this election. I think that the disatisfaction with Bush ALONE will compel liberal voters to come out in droves. That being said, are there enough liberals to counterbalance the number of conservatives in the country? Plus are extremist liberal votes going to be wasted on the green/independant parties? But at any rate, I think Clark could capture not only a lot of liberal votes but conservative votes as well. But I'm hedging my bets on the moderate/undecided vote making the difference in this election, and I think that Clark would have enough support from nearly all sides to win the election. Oh well, we'll see. Should be an exciting election race. |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
a few quick things...
The geographics alone put Dean out of the race. Someone please name the last president from a northern state.
Dean is not too liberal. He is too liberal for the US. You guys that arent from the states have to understand that a large part of the country is made up of uneducated rednecks and greedy people who want lower taxes.
That tax increase for the top 2 percent means millions for a lot of people and those people will gladly donate half what they will lose anyways to financing the Bush camp. Money means advertising. Believe it or not there are a lot of people that dont give a about Bush's stupidity and will gladly vote for him again if they are reminded that they have to do so if they are true republicans. yeeeeehaaww!
With Clark all of the 9/11 security crap gets swept aside considering he is a fuking General. If you take that away from Bush he has nothing. So now you have a Republican camp that has to completely rethink its strategy. They can go at his inexperience but what has an "experienced" Bush done for the economy and international relations?
With Dean Bush can pick at his leftist stance as a way of saying he is weak when it comes to security. (it doesnt matter if he is or not, being a liberal it is assumed he is by the general public).
At this point the polls really don't mean tho (sorry Renegade you're wrong) because if I remember correctly Dole was actually ahead of Clinton the year before the '96 race. It is all about what happens next fall. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
a few quick things...
The geographics alone put Dean out of the race. Someone please name the last president from a northern state.
|
Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois.....but the last president who was actually "from" a "northern" state was Gerald Ford (Michigan) though he was un-elected. The last elected president was JFK. Oh wait....nm Bush the elder is from Connecticut, though most people consider him a Texan because of his leased hotel address in Houston.
Onto the whole Democratic party thing. I would not say that howard Dean's problem is his politics at all. It is name recognition (which sadly is very important). He was governor of a small New England state and has not been in the national spotlight. Since most people have not even the most remote knowledge of him they will hear the "too liberal" comments on the news and assume that is the fact. Clark has a distinct advantage in the recognition department because he has spent a lot of time on TV. During Kosovo he was on TV at least once every two days doing a briefing and then he became a military anylist for CNN and got more airtime.
As far as the military background goes, I hope that it does have an impact in this election (I come from a military family and think right now we need some military experience in the White House) I would not be so sure. The last 2 elected presidents (Clinton and Bush) won against opponents with wartime experience. Bush won a Distinguished Flying Cross as a Navy pilot in WWII, Gore volunteered to enter the army in 1969 and went to Vietnam.
Of course what lost Gore the last election was leftover dislike for Clinton getting a blowjob and the fact that Gore has the charisma of a peeled carrot, not his military background.
Clark has all the things necessary to be a good president in today's climate. He is eloquent, knowledgable, experienced with command, and understands international relations. All things that Bush has no previous experience with.
I have said in the past I will probably vote for Kerry if he got the nod...but I would definitely vote for Clark if he does. He better not make HIllary his running mate though...we will end up with another Mondale/Ferraro debacle since, sadly, too many people in this country still feel women are not qualified to lead.
MrS |
|
|
|
|
