Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gore Endorses Dean

Election 2004 Howard Dean 2003

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 12:21 PM

Quote

The announcement in Manhattan's Harlem, coming on the morning of another debate between the "'04 Dems," as they're called, could cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"We need to remake the Democratic Party, we need to remake America," Gore said.

http://www.cnn.com/2...dean/index.html

Banapis

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 02:26 PM

Definitely good news for Dean.

One other thing that just speaks for itself (with no comment from yours truly):

Quote

"When we set this event up," Dean said to loud laughter at the rally's start, "I had absolutely no idea that we were going to have the elected president of the United States here with us today."

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 09 December 2003 - 02:26 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 02:47 PM

Just "reading the tea leaves" but Gore's endorsement may end up hurting Gore and the Democratic Party more than it helps Howard Dean.

Dean is the favorite -- not the 'odds on" favorite but the favorite nonetheless -- to win the Democratic nomination but there is something about his candidacy that reminds me of George McGovern in 1972.  Unless something really dramatic happens, I do not see Dean beating Bush in the general election.

Dean, in my opinion, has problems as a candidate.  He has, admirably, captured the passion of the anti-Bush faction in America.  But his own positions (and personality) are razor thin and often contradictory.  For example, does Dean support removing our troops from Iraq or does he believe that, although we should not have gone in, now that we are in we must "stick it out"?

I've heard Howard Dean argue both positions.  Several times.

Dean is the front-runner not because he himself is such a great candidate but because his major contenders are such weak ones.  Although, admittedly, one of the hallmarks of a great campaigner is to make your opponents look like bad ones, but John Kerry and Wesley Clark have just been so boring and "me-to-ish" while Richard Gephart is just plain boring: a legislator through and through.  The rest of the Democratic field really never had a chance.

Whatever else you may say about "Dubya"; he is a born campaigner (remember especially his first Texas campaign against the extremely popular Governor Ann Richards).  I don't think Dean will enjoy the same "charisma" (maybe not the right word to use but the best I can think of at the moment) advantage over Bush that he current does against the major Democratic nominees.

But perhaps most damaging to Dean is that he is a "Yankee" Democrat.  Today, in order for a Democrat to win the Presidency, he must be from the South.  Remember Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (and Al Gore, for that matter)?

John Kennedy was the last New England Democrat to win the Presidency and despite the rosy glow of our memories of Camelot, he barely beat Nixon in 1960.  Indeed, when you consider Kennedy's incredibly thin margin of victory in both Illinois and Texas -- states especially notorious for Democratic (yes, Democratic and not Republican) vote fraud during the 1960's -- it is quite conceivable that in actuality Nixon won the electoral vote, if not the popular vote as well.

However, given my unending disdain and contempt for Richard Nixon -- and my genuine admiration for John Kennedy -- I am most happy with the official results.  But perhaps I digress.

With Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee, the Republicans have a better chance of winning California -- a much better chance -- than the Democrats do of winning any state in the South.

The problem with Al Gore endorsing Howard Dean is that the nominal standard-bearer of the Democratic Party (along with Bill and Hillary Clinton) is endorsing an essentially Leftist candidiate (despite Dean's support of gun rights and comments about "guys with Confederate flags").

Remember that Al Gore, along with Bill Clinton, was a founding and leading member of the Democratic Leadership Committee; ostensibly formed to move the Democratic Party to the political center.  Indeed, remember Bill Clinton's strategy of "triangulation" where he positioned himself against both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress.  Whatever else, politically speaking, it worked.  At least it got him reelected (even though he still did not win the majority of the popular vote ;) ).  Now, that idea and (winning) strategy has been abandoned.

In other words, Gore endorsing Dean is the "re-McGovern-ization" of the Democratic Party.  And ultimately, I think that is going to hurt the Democratic Party.  Indeed, this is basis of Joseph Lieberman's response to Gore's endorsement of Dean:

Quote

"I was caught completely off-guard," Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000 and a hopeful for the nomination, said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. That many of Gore's positions are opposite to those of Dean made the decision a surprise to him, Lieberman said.

"Al Gore has endorsed someone here who has taken positions diametrically opposite" of the former vice president, Lieberman said. "What really bothers me is that Al is supporting a candidate who is so fundamentally opposed to the basic transformation that Bill Clinton brought to this party in 1992," moving it to a more middle-of-the-road stance on economic policy and other areas, he said.

Perhaps much of Lieberman's comments can be taken as "sore grapes" but that does not negate a basic truth to what he is saying.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#4 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 04:04 PM

I’d love to know how the Clintonities who are supporting Clark reacted to this one. ;)
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 06:32 PM

I thought Dean's comment earlier was an offhand joke, albeit one that stunk. Then, however, I saw his donation page:

https://secure2.conv...2demo11.app195a

Res Ipsa Loquitur. It's a great way to get the base fired up, but I'm not sure if this kind of thing is a wise election tactic...

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 09 December 2003 - 06:33 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 06:35 PM

Rov your avatar is FREAKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :p
Posted Image

#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 06:35 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Dec 9 2003, 04:35 PM, said:

Rov your avatar is FREAKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :p
:angel:. Thanks. I'm rather proud of it. :D.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 06:55 PM

Yama, on Dec 9 2003, 01:47 PM, said:

Dean is the front-runner not because he himself is such a great candidate but because his major contenders are such weak ones.  Although, admittedly, one of the hallmarks of a great campaigner is to make your opponents look like bad ones, but John Kerry and Wesley Clark have just been so boring and "me-to-ish" while Richard Gephart is just plain boring: a legislator through and through.  The rest of the Democratic field really never had a chance.

Whatever else you may say about "Dubya"; he is a born campaigner (remember especially his first Texas campaign against the extremely popular Governor Ann Richards).  I don't think Dean will enjoy the same "charisma" (maybe not the right word to use but the best I can think of at the moment) advantage over Bush that he current does against the major Democratic nominees.
That's just so sad, to think that such an important election may be decided by lack of interest. Imo, 2004 is a watershed year for the United States, since it will give the people a chance to choose whether or not they want to continue down the current path of ruin - by 2008, it might be too late to stop the trends that are currently in motion. They say that great men emerge in desperate times, but perhaps the times just aren't desperate enough - yet.

Quote

The problem with Al Gore endorsing Howard Dean is that the nominal standard-bearer of the Democratic Party (along with Bill and Hillary Clinton) is endorsing an essentially Leftist candidiate (despite Dean's support of gun rights and comments about "guys with Confederate flags").

Remember that Al Gore, along with Bill Clinton, was a founding and leading member of the Democratic Leadership Committee; ostensibly formed to move the Democratic Party to the political center.  Indeed, remember Bill Clinton's strategy of "triangulation" where he positioned himself against both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress.  Whatever else, politically speaking, it worked.  At least it got him reelected (even though he still did not win the majority of the popular vote ;) ).  Now, that idea and (winning) strategy has been abandoned.

In other words, Gore endorsing Dean is the "re-McGovern-ization" of the Democratic Party.  And ultimately, I think that is going to hurt the Democratic Party.

From what you're saying, it sounds like Bill Clinton and Gore did the Democratic party no favours by moving it away toward the semi-mythical centre. Sure, it got them elected, but at what cost? People have learned to expect mealy-mouthed centrism from Democrats, and may punish them if the Dems do anything else.

Imo, it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did, than hide behind acceptable lies.
Per aspera ad astra

#9 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 06:59 PM

Kevin Street, on Dec 9 2003, 06:55 PM, said:

Imo, it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did, than hide behind acceptable lies.
Yeah, but McGovern got trounced by --I think it's still a record-- the biggest Presidential landslide in American history. People actually voted for Richard Nixon (!!!!!) instead. ;)

Of course, less than a year later, Watergate came to light. And the USA got the bumbling transition to Ford, and Carter.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#10 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 07:16 PM

It's a universal constant - people always say they want change (in opinion polls and such), but they always end up voting for more of the same. Politicians who are good at hiding their real beliefs (like Nixon) do well in such an environment.

I hope that this time the American people really are ready for a change. And I hope there's somebody out there who can really give it to them.

#11 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 07:17 PM

^ Oh, sure, Kevin, give them change and leave us wallowing in another eon of Liberal rule.... :p ;)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#12 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 07:24 PM

We need change too! :D But there's nobody out there on the Canadian political landscape that can deliver it. The NDP is a joke, the Liberals have no motivation to shake things up, and the Conservative/Alliance party is too busy destroying itself to win an election. (Paul Martin's worst nightmare? More like Preston Manning's. ;))

Maybe Ralph Nader should emigrate? He'd have a better chance up here. ;)

#13 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 07:26 PM

the'Hawk, on Dec 9 2003, 07:17 PM, said:

^ Oh, sure, Kevin, give them change and leave us wallowing in another eon of Liberal rule.... :p ;)
:angel: Misery loves Company is what they all say… ;)

Quote

Kevin Street: Maybe Ralph Nader should emigrate?

Pat Buchanan!  :D

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 09 December 2003 - 07:27 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#14 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 10:42 PM

Kevin Street, on Dec 9 2003, 11:55 PM, said:

That's just so sad, to think that such an important election may be decided by lack of interest. Imo, 2004 is a watershed year for the United States, since it will give the people a chance to choose whether or not they want to continue down the current path of ruin - by 2008, it might be too late to stop the trends that are currently in motion. They say that great men emerge in desperate times, but perhaps the times just aren't desperate enough - yet.

...

From what you're saying, it sounds like Bill Clinton and Gore did the Democratic party no favours by moving it away toward the semi-mythical centre. Sure, it got them elected, but at what cost? People have learned to expect mealy-mouthed centrism from Democrats, and may punish them if the Dems do anything else.

Imo, it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did, than hide behind acceptable lies.
Kevin Street, I am flattered that you quote me but you completely misunderstand what I am saying.

Number one, I think there is a great deal of interest in this election.  To his credit, and as I wrote above, Howard Dean has energized the anti-Bush crowd.  On the other hand, his Democratic opponents have done comparatively little.  That's why I think Howard Dean is the favorite to win the nomination.

But I do not think he will win the Presidency.  In fact, I think he is going to get trounced by Bush.  And that is precisely because I believe Bill Clinton (and Al Gore, circa 1992) did the Democratic Party a big favor by moving the party to the political center then while Howard Dean (and Al Gore, circa 2002) is doing the party a big disservice by moving it back to the Left now.

As for me, I have many arguments against George W. Bush but if the choice is between him and Dean, then Bush has my vote (and my contribution).  I wholeheartedly agree that "it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did."  But I adamantly disagree with those "true convictions" of George McGovern and Howard Dean.

(And as a sidenote, as someone who is not unfamiliar with Howard Dean's political history over the years, I wonder if he really has any true convictions after all is said and done.)

Edited by Yama, 09 December 2003 - 10:54 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#15 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 10:52 PM

the'Hawk, on Dec 9 2003, 11:59 PM, said:

Kevin Street, on Dec 9 2003, 06:55 PM, said:

Imo, it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did, than hide behind acceptable lies.
Yeah, but McGovern got trounced by --I think it's still a record-- the biggest Presidential landslide in American history. People actually voted for Richard Nixon (!!!!!) instead. ;)

Of course, less than a year later, Watergate came to light. And the USA got the bumbling transition to Ford, and Carter.

:cool:
Actually, I think Ronald Reagan trounced Walter Mondale even more convincingly in 1984.  But my memory fails me and I am too lazy at the moment to check my facts.

It is interesting to note, however, that for the last 40 years, every Democrats who has won the White House has done so by the slimest of margins.  While more than half the time when a Republican wins, they win big.  The only exception is Bill Clinton and it is interesting to note that (1) he never won a majority of the popular vote and (2) he consciously campaigned in both 1992 and 1996 as not a liberal.  Remember his "third way."

I bring this up just to buttress my argument that liberal Democrats, such as Howard Dean, cannot win the Presidency.  And that Al Gore, once a standard-bearer for more moderate Democrats, endorsing Howard Dean may ultimately prove a problem for the Democratic Party.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#16 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 10:55 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Dec 10 2003, 12:26 AM, said:

Pat Buchanan!  :D
Actually, if the choice ever came to either Howard Dean or Pat Buchanan, I would vote for Dean.

:crazy:
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#17 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 11:16 PM

Kevin Street, on Dec 9 2003, 07:24 PM, said:

We need change too! :D But there's nobody out there on the Canadian political landscape that can deliver it. The NDP is a joke, the Liberals have no motivation to shake things up, and the Conservative/Alliance party is too busy destroying itself to win an election. (Paul Martin's worst nightmare? More like Preston Manning's. ;))

Maybe Ralph Nader should emigrate? He'd have a better chance up here. ;)
I think you guys vote Steve Smith into office, I can see his motto now.

"If women don't find you handsome, at least they'll find you handy."

:lol:  :lol:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#18 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 11:43 PM

Yama, on Dec 9 2003, 09:42 PM, said:

Kevin Street, I am flattered that you quote me but you completely misunderstand what I am saying.

Number one, I think there is a great deal of interest in this election.  To his credit, and as I wrote above, Howard Dean has energized the anti-Bush crowd.  On the other hand, his Democratic opponents have done comparatively little.  That's why I think Howard Dean is the favorite to win the nomination.

But I do not think he will win the Presidency.  In fact, I think he is going to get trounced by Bush.  And that is precisely because I believe Bill Clinton (and Al Gore, circa 1992) did the Democratic Party a big favor by moving the party to the political center then while Howard Dean (and Al Gore, circa 2002) is doing the party a big disservice by moving it back to the Left now.

As for me, I have many arguments against George W. Bush but if the choice is between him and Dean, then Bush has my vote (and my contribution).  I wholeheartedly agree that "it's better to live (and if necessary, die) by your true convictions like that McGovern guy did."  But I adamantly disagree with those "true convictions" of George McGovern and Howard Dean.

(And as a sidenote, as someone who is not unfamiliar with Howard Dean's political history over the years, I wonder if he really has any true convictions after all is said and done.)
I apologize for the misunderstandig, Yama. I thought you were saying the other Democratic candidates were too apathetic to beat Dean, leaving only the best financed candidate to challenge Bush, instead of the best potential leader, whoever that may be. My last sentence about true convictions wasn't directed at you (or anyone here) in any way. I was just trying to slam Gore and Clinton for being such apethetic liberals. It sounds like they hurt their party by giving it sucess in the wrong way.

Maybe a real left-wing candidate can never become president of the US, and the best the Democrats can do is hedge and hide under the rubric of "third ways" and centrism. If that's so, then I feel sorry for America, because it's never helpful to tilt too far, left or right. Both sides should get in power occasionally, if only to clear the political air.

We have the same problem here, except it's tilted the other way, with the Liberals constantly running the country and the Conservatives shut out.

#19 Smitty

Smitty

    "If I knew what was going on I'd really be indignant.&q

  • Islander
  • 4,969 posts

Posted 09 December 2003 - 11:43 PM

^A Red Green reference.

-cs™

#20 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 10 December 2003 - 01:05 AM

Kevin Street, on Dec 9 2003, 10:43 PM, said:

We have the same problem here, except it's tilted the other way, with the Liberals constantly running the country and the Conservatives shut out.
That's the same situation we have in the USA, not the opposite; only it's stealth liberalism here. Conservatives aren't running anything or even having any real impact. People elected to govern conservatively turn out to be liberal or at least go along with the liberals in nearly all things (look at the Presidents Bush). Ardent left-wingers claim to be in the center and everyone follows along talking about how the Democrats have moved to the center, when they keeping fighting for their leftist agenda all along anyway.

What we're seeing now isn't a return to the Left for the Democrats; they never departed from it. But it there's a new trend of ADMITTING that that's where they really are, that could be significant.

For a long time, the left in the USA has had to deal with the fact that most of the USA wasn't leftist. But that might now be changing. They seem to sense that enough of the country is liberal now that they can win out in the open. And maybe they're right. Certainly Gore didn't get trounced as thoroughly as the old way would have had us predict. And even if the Democrats lose the next election, I don't think anyone expects it to be another McGovern or Mondale type of loss.

And, while the perpetual increase of liberal influence in this country over the years against most of its people's will has always disturbed and worried me, the idea that it will soon be able to run rampant over us WITH the support of most of the people is even scarier and more depressing.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2004, Howard Dean, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users