Jump to content

Howard Dean's Candidacy


maplesyrup

Recommended Posts

The 2004 election is Bush's to lose. As it stands now, every poll shows Bush a clear winner if a snap Presidential election were held today. According to an article in today's Telegraph[via NealeNews]there are 3 threats to Bush's re-election. The Democrat candidates are not viewed as threats in themselves.

The following are what Bush insiders and outside political pundits have identified as Bush's vulnerabilities. I agree with all of them but have also identified a 4th threat:

Polls show Bush is a favourite for the 2004 election, but he has 3 vulnerabilities Telegraph, Jan.16/04

1. jobs - though all the other market indicators are looking good, the job market is still sluggish

2. the GI casualities in Iraq

3. another spectacular terrorist attack like 9/11 on American soil within the next few months

Though the Bush campaign would never say so in public, a third unknowable event - another terrorist outrage to rival September 11 - would probably help Mr Bush, rallying voters to the flag. Mr Goeas goes so far as to suggest that al-Qa'eda will strike soon, or not at all, to avoid giving Mr Bush a boost on the eve of the election. "The terrorists are not dummies, assuming they would like to impact [the Bush re-election] negatively, you have to assume it's coming in the next few months," he said.

4. I think Bush has another vulnerability and whether this vulnerability will grow or will diminish depends on what Bush does in the next 9 months regarding his amnesty/guest worker immigration proposal.

A Gallup Poll this past week showed that the amnesty/guest worker proposal is very unpopular with a significant majority of Americans. Though polls are showing Bush's popularity today, it sometimes takes only one single event to cause a politician's poll results to plummet or soar. Saddam's capture in December, for example, propelled Bush's popularity 5 points in one month. Bush and Democrat Party campaigners are still thinking that come November it will still be a close election and that's why both parties are desperately courting the Hispanic vote. In some states, the Hispanic vote is viewed as being a tie breaker, if they go out to vote, that is, because traditionally, as a voting bloc, Hispanics tend to consistently undervote.

If Bush does not deliver on his immigration reform, Hispanics will be angry and may be motivated to vote against him. If Bush does deliver, he'll definitely alienate and lose some of his Republican voter base. It's questionable if the Hispanic vote will come through for him to make up for the Republican vote loss.

Unlike Canadians who do not vote for the PM separately, Americans do. What I've been reading this past week is that Republican voters are considering voting in a Republican Congress and a Democrat President to give the Republican Party a pointed message - no more special interest pandering or what happened to Bush in 2004 can happen to you guys in Congress in 2008. This would create a "gridlock" between the WH and Congress. And since Congress has the most say in spending, a Republican Congress could force a Democrat President to be more of a moderate. [ ie. Clinton]

The other question mark in this scenario is how much of a wack job the Democrats put forward as their Presidential candidate. If it's Dean - Karl Rove is laughing. With Dean, no matter how angry Republicans are with Bush, they would not follow through on their threat, because Dean is so unpalatable.

But if the Democrats put forward Kerry or Clark, who are not viewed as left wing nutbars like Dean is, then I believe Bush is in a tricky situation. He'll have to tread very carefully with the immigration issue.

So I think this 4th potential threat to Bush's re-election is one that's "developing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four star jack-ass Weasily Clark has flip flopped on and lied about his position on Iraq over the past year. Does this guy stand for anything?

Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection

Statement made by Clark in October 2002 during his endorsement of a New Hampshire candidate for Congress:

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Clark's own comments at a town hall meeting on Janurary 2004 suggest otherwise:

"There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda.  If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq."

Justification for Iraq War

Clark makes these comments as part of his testimony before the US HOR Armed Services Committee in September 2002:

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense.

Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.

There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this." "

In addtion, Clark makes these comments in April 2003 as part of a London Times op-ed piece:

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.  Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Now we hear this, said by Clark at a Democratic debate in Detroit at the end of last October:

"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning.  I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

Now just what the hell is going on here. Either Clark in incredibly confused, or he's thinks he can lie to the public and get away with it. Whatever the case, this dipsh*t is definately not Presidential material.

Take note liberals, Clark is a perfect example of a proven liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-'it is NOT about the economy stupid'

The election is about terrorism. With terror attacks there is no economy. With every ME government shit scared to harbor terrorists there soon will be no terrorists. YThe US is not acting unilaterally, they have the willing help of every government that is terrified of getting regime changed. That, is good for the economy. Soon, Iraq will be on it's own as an example of what the Arabs can have if they give up US hating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK i agree. It makes me laugh - 495 GIs killed in Iraq during the past 9 months - in Russia 22.000 people die from car accidents each year, about the same in the US and by extension i would guess about 3.000 in Canada. Maybe the Russians and Americans should pull out of cars ! Too dangerous, too much carnage ! Quagmire !

Reconstituting a country that DID sponsor terror, threatened, oil supplies, lost a '91 war and then gave the finger to the UNO, attacked its neighbours, vituperated daily about an Arab jihad against Israel, and had all sorts of strange ideas about WMD production and usage is a benefit for the world community. I can't understand the idiocy of those who maintain that the OLD regime was better. I suppose murdering 500.000 Iraqi's is okay, much like killing Jews.

For God's sake in the US 300.000 people die each year from being fat. Get some perspective Libbies [and no this does not mean allowing your fat Trial Lawyer friends to sue fast food firms.]

RTR good article on Clark. This guy voted Rep. until he decided that running for the Midget Party leadership was his calling. He cites his sorry war record as reason why he should be given the keys to the White House.

First his record in Kosovo is pathetic, mainly resulting in kowtowing to European 'legal' sensibilities [a term i take from Clarke's own book on Kosovo] and second, bombing civilians from 30.000 feet killing more innocents than Serb soldiers. Third, this man knows little about trade, economics, and has no coherent foreign policy as RTR's last post clearly demonstrates.

People should read Weasel's book on Kosovo. Clarke even admitted in his OWN book that dealing on military and foreign matters with the EU is not only a waste of time but extremely dangerous to US interests and lives. Clarke concludes in his OWN book that unilateralism is the US' only alternative. In his OWN book he states repeatedly that the main lesson of Kosovo is not to let it happen again. Now of course Weasly Clack is changing his song.

He is basically untrustworthy and none all too sharp.

Anyways, Dean will win the nomination and get murdered in the election.

Can't wait to taste a little Dean steak. Yum Yum. Maybe the Libs can feast on the carcass as well. Nothing like eating your own kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Reiner in Iowa on Friday addresing the crowd "When I say Howard, you say Dean!" he shouts.

Reiner - "Howard!"

Crowd - "Dean!"

Reiner - "Howard!"

Crowd - "Dean!"

This goes on and on for about five minutes until Dean shows up.

Gobbels - "Seig!"

Crowd - "Heil!"

Gpbbels - "Seig!"

Crowd - "Heil!"

This goes on and n until Hitler shows up.

And last week these clowns were comparing Bush to Hitler?

I told you about the old vet that told Dean that maybe he should concentrate on what he planned to do intead of merely attacking his neighbor (Bush) in Iowa. Dean looked every bit the man who was going to jump off the stage and beat the old dude to a pulp. "George Bush is not my neighbor!" he shouted.

The old guy was caught off guard and started to say "See, that's the attitude I'm talking about." When Dean shouted at him to "You sit down." then shuoted "You've had your say, now I'm going to have mine!" then went on with how Bush is going to be sent back to Crawford Tx.

Great way to bond with your constituents LOL. Make them think you will beat the tar out of them if they disaggree with you.

He cites his sorry war record as reason why he should be given the keys to the White House.

None of Clarks former Military buddies will back him and have said so. His reason for being fired will surely come out so I don't take him seriously as a Presidential candidate. the only thing I can see is him being VP for Hillary.

As for Bush, he's stupid like a fox. He knows the election is in the bag but wants to make sure. None of the Republicans are going to vote Dem so all he is doing is makng sure that a large block of Hispanics don't go for the Dems by bringing in that Border thing. Thirty million votes taken away - bang! Same with the drug bill.

In the meantime, he comes out smelling like a rose while the left froths, rants and raves. He sits there looking like a President.

Bush 04, Powell 08!

Duh, what am I thinkng, Powell is black and Republicans hate minorities. Clarence thomas, Condelizza Rice. Yup, only the Dems can feel sorry for them but then, only the Republicans treat them as equals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

makng sure that a large block of Hispanics don't go for the Dems by bringing in that Border thing

I don't know how effective that strategy would be. Evidence seems to suggest that hispanics are just as divided on the immigration issue as the rest of the country is, although you wouldn't think so.

Like I've said before, I think this immigration proposal is just an empty ploy to attract the interest of hispanics toward the Republican party. I suspect that there is close to no chance in hell that such a proposal would ever pass Congress. The President has no support on this from either party, and that's the point. It's just a politcal manuvuer.

Morgan has observed conservatives on other forums threatening to abstain from voting for Bush based solely on this issue. Some would, the vast majority would not.

What about you Morgan? Would you be willing to endure 4-8 more years of trickle down immorality just to brow beat Bush on this one issue?

Bush 04, Powell 08!

Condi Rice would make an excellent first female President, but Colin Powell has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in the Presidency, now or ever. Too bad. In fact, I think he may retire from his current post before the end of Bush's second term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have finished reading this debate, and I must say that it is very interesting. ;)

Well, in case you people do not know me, allow me to introduce myself, I am Víctor, and I live in Puerto Rico, which although it is a separate country from the U.S. it is a territorry of the U.S. since the day the United States took it from Spain as a war booty in the Hispano American war of 1898. So, as you can imagine I have to worry, about American affairs just as much as Americans themselves. ;)

Well, on to my comments on this.

I believe that Bush may (unfortunately) win the election, unless the war gets worsening quickly enough, in which case Bush will lose. If he wins, I would congratulate him, for being elected by his people, instead of electoral votes. If he wins, also I dare say he will end up like LBJ did with Vietnam, his political reputation in shambles.

As for the electoral vote, I have heard the arguments on how and why it was created many times, and I agree that they are right on the idea of giving small states more representation. But when I see that the bad side of it is that there are times that the guy may get to be the President without the people electing him, then I have to say "To hell with small state representation", because having such things then are to me, and to just about anybody learned in politics in Latin America as un-democratic.

Oh, by the way, my apologies if my way of writing is funny, English is not my first language. My first language is Spanish. :P

Víctor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exit polls are showing Kerry with 36% and Dean with 31% in New Hampshire, so the Republicans must be pissed that Dean is back in the race.

The latest national polls are showing that Kerry would beat Bush, and Kerry hasn't even got the nomination yet.

This is a very good sign for the Democrats but it doesn't surprise me,seeing as there are no WMD,

the supposed reason for going into Iraq in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Vic, welcome to the Forum.

Say, Maplesyrup, why do you believe that Republicans will be upset that Dean is back in the running (If that is the case)? Do you really believe that he could be elected? How do you think he can convince Middle America - Jacksonian Americans - to vote for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FastNed......of the mainstream Democratic candidates Dean is the one who first started attacking the war in Iraq. Dean also didn't vote for it, or for funding the war effort like the others did.

The body bag count. So far 527 Americans killed, and over 20,000 injured since March, if it continues, will be a crucial factor.

No weapons of mass destruction, the pretext for the war.

Republicans hate Dean with a passion so that is a definite sign they feel threatened by his candidacy.

I don't know if he will win the nomination, but I think he is the only one who has a chance to defeat Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean also didn't vote for it, or for funding the war effort like the others did.

First of all, it's hard to vote in Congress if you're not a member. Howard dead is the Governor from the town of Vermont, not a US congressman.

527 Americans killed

Second of all, this is an incredibly small number and won't be as big a factor as you think. During Vietnam, the US was losing close to that number every week at the height of the war.

No weapons of mass destruction, the pretext for the war.
This will make no difference on peoples' current views of the war. Those who will turn against the war have already done so. Clear thinking Americans know why the war was waged and whether the Intelligence was wrong or not doesn't make any difference to them.
Republicans hate Dean with a passion so that is a definite sign they feel threatened by his candidacy.
This is a surprisingly shallow observation. Of course the Republicans dislike Dean, he's an unabashed leftist wacko. But the Republicans also love Dean because he is the most easily defeated of all the candidates, except maybe for Kucinich who's not a serious contender for the nomination.

Dean's entire strategy is based on bashing the President on the war but polls consistantly show that for most people, Iraq as an issue is trumped by domestic concerns and the economy.

In short. A Dean nomination is Rove's and the adminstration's dream come true. In fact, Dean's floundering has caught them by surprise and caused a level of concern ironically.

but I think he is the only one who has a chance to defeat Bush.
Dean has absolutely no chance of defeating Bush in a general contest. Interestingly, Lieberman is probably the only candidate that could stand up to Bush in a general election but the Democratic party has moved far to the left and he doesn't have a chance of gaining the nomination. Joementum and commonsense foreign policy just don't seem to appeal to the radical left wing of the Democratic party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Lieberman is probably the only candidate that could stand up to Bush in a general election

Exactly, the rest are ranting morons who's strongest points are that they hate Bush. They are simply toned down Michael Moore Clones.

NEWS MAX ARTICLE ON LIEBERMAN

The Australian newspaper reported that Bush told Prime Minister John Howard in a private meeting in October that he believed Lieberman would be his most formidable opponent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats after tonight will be in a two person race for the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry and John Edwards.

Things have shifted in the past 24 hours and

John Edwards has the momentum at the moment.

Keep an eye on Oklahoma, Edwards wasn't a factor before but he is now.

If Kerry wins it will be because of his military background, a major weakness for Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand your enthusiasm for this Democratic primary campaign phase but don't get ahead of yourself. The Democrats are duking it out in the playoffs right now but the big game has yet even start. When Bush takes the field, that's when the show begins.

In addition, If you look historically, this period in a President's term is typically marked by a slump in the polls, so don't start hyperventilating just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Obviously Bush is in trouble, his ratings have never been so low.

Bush won a war. Probably will win the peace. However, I would like to see Powell run, but he won't do it.

If I were Republican I would want a leadership change.

If I was a Democrat, I would want a leader period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush won a war

About the most ignorant thing I've heard in my life.

American soldiers are still dying daily and you call that a win? Tell that to the families of those who lost their lives how much Bush is winning, especially a war that was based on false pretences.

Krusty, I take it you're a teenager.

Recall Bush Sr. really won a war with a real coalition and didn't cost the American tax payer much and [/b]HE STILL LOST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the most ignorant thing I've heard in my life.

American soldiers are still dying daily and you call that a win?

Bush won a war, as I said. Now he is dealing with the peace and is making good progress.

Tell that to the families of those who lost their lives how much Bush is winning,

You would be hard put to prove that WWII was a right action to one who lost a son on D Day. Nothing is more importent than your loved one so your argument is silly. To counter argue, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of families with loved ones who dissappeared during Saddam's reign, the 25 million Iraqis who now have a chance to choose their future.

especially a war that was based on false pretences.

Prove that it was. There are extensive threads on this assumption that it was wrong. Even Rockerfeller with an agenda of overthrowing Bush and armed with the most sensitive information possible could not prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krusty,

You're right.

Bush won the war and is still eating the chocolates and smelling the roses that the Iraqi's gave the troops when we entered as "liberators."

The stockpiles of WMD have been found and we just realized that Saddam actually flew the 3 planes on 9-11.

Bush is also excited about making it into the record books based on the deficit.

Answer this question, Did Bush Sr. win re-election after being a successful War Time President (with a strong coalition and was paid for by Kuwait???)

So explain why you say that "dubya" is going to win this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush won the war and is still eating the chocolates and smelling the roses that the Iraqi's gave the troops when we entered as "liberators."

The stockpiles of WMD have been found and we just realized that Saddam actually flew the 3 planes on 9-11.

I said a simple fact. He won a war. Calm down, the rest are all separate issues from that one fact in that Iraq is day by day improving. No, WMD have not been found. Lots of prohibited equipment, materials and facilities have been unearther though. Enough to justify military action under the UN resolutions. Where are the WMDs? If you are so sure they are not in Iraq where did they go? When did they go?.

Bush is also excited about making it into the record books based on the deficit.

No, I don't imagine he is. He doesn't get emotional and frothing like the Democratic candidates. He had a problem that he dealt with, one his father and the Democrats failed to take care of. If you look at Greenspan's report of Feb 11 he says the economy is well poised to progress and has exceeded expectations.

So explain why you say that "dubya" is going to win this time?

First off, I never said he would win. However, due to the lack of credible candidates from the Left, he stands on solid ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are the WMDs? If you are so sure they are not in Iraq where did they go? When did they go?.

I don't know but, I was not the one that sent our money and troops to fight a war. I recall France and Germany asking for one more month and the administration wanted to rush into it. I also recall the credibility of the U.N. being questioned since they could not find the WMD.

All you are doing is making excuses.

"Former U.S. weapons inspector Kay is advising Mr. Bush to acknowledge he was wrong about hidden storehouses of weapons in Iraq and move ahead with overhauling the intelligence process," quoted from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml

Bush's record has spoken and many of us feel he is unfit for the position.

Gen. Clark said in an interview this week on T.V., "Bush said he would be a uniter and he is...for the democratic party to get him out of office."

Also, I think I had mistaken your War time president comment of why Bush would win...I now believe Derek said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know

Exactly.

I was not the one that sent our money and troops to fight a war.  I recall France and Germany asking for one more month and the administration wanted to rush into it.  I also recall the credibility of the U.N. being questioned since they could not find the WMD.

All you are doing is making excuses.

The UN is a complete waste of resources of the United States.

France and Germany don't matter...Why do you keep bringing them up. They never did.

To me WMDs don't even matter because we are there. We ousted a brutal dictator. That is enough to kick the guy's ass. He killed his own people.

But you rather he be left in power? You rather he be left killing his own people?

The man used WMDs we know that, you know that. That is enough.

Bush's record has spoken and many of us feel he is unfit for the position.

Yea but many more of us feel he is more fit to be Commander in Chief than John Fing Kerry. Im sorry but i would rather have a man who was given false intelligence in the oval office rather than a man who is a complete hypocrite.

Also, I think I had mistaken your War time president comment of why Bush would win...I now believe Derek said that.

Said what? Bush will win cause he has proven himself to independents, Republicans, conservatives, and many moderate democrats. Look back at Bush's major accomplishments and you should (prolly won't) realize that Bush has been a successful president.

Oh and there will be 4 more years of president bush whether you libs like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN is a complete waste of resources of the United States.

Then it is safe to say that Bush would not go back to the U.N., correct?

washingtonpost.com: US Asks UN to Resolve Iraq Conflict

US Asks UN to Resolve Iraq Conflict. ... Not everyone agrees with the Bush administration

decision to call the ... I view it with some concern because the UN's role in ...

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/ A40761-2004Jan23?language=printer - Similar pages

[ More results from www.washingtonpost.com ]

But, Bush goes back and asks anyway...which one is it?

Does he want them or not? Only when it is convient.

Please list Bush's accomplishments.

Also, sure Saddam killed his people but, how many Iraqi's lives were taken from them by U.S. bomb?

Also, WMD was the reason given to go to war and you say it doesn't matter now, well it matters to a whole lot of people for the dramitized information to follow out his mission.

Bush will win cause he has proven himself to independents, Republicans, conservatives, and many moderate democrats.

So this means he "is" going to win????

How many Republicans, conservatives, and many moderate democrats did he not prove himself to????

Even Rush, O'Reilly, Kudlow and Kramer along with many other right wing media figures question Bush and only will support him because of their overall ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...