 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Kerry takes Iowa
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:04 PM 1. Kerry> 2. Edwards?> 3. Dean> 4. Gephart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM Ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Walking Eagle Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:11 PM Bobert, Maybe I better warm up my pipes then! *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:29 PM John Kerry 1,125 38% 4 John Edwards 960 32% 4 Howard Dean 543 18% 2 Dick Gephardt 315 11% 0 Dennis Kucinich 39 1% 0 Wesley Clark 3 0% 0 Uncommitted 3 0% 0 Joe Lieberman 0 0% 0 So much for Iowa's party. We'll see. I am disappointed in Iowa, but then, I always have been. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: katlaughing Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:03 PM Reuters on it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:15 AM I like what I've heard about Dean, but in this race, I think it will take a Washington "insider" who can hit the ground running to try to undo much of the snarl and republican-enrichment that Bush has set in motion. As good as I thought Clinton was, it took him a long time to get his cabinet in place in that first term, and that was time lost. I wonder if others are having this same discussion, that whoever gets in there is going to have to know the ropes already to be effective. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:41 AM If not Dean, then Edwards. I don't think Kerry would have a chance against the shrub and I hate saying that. What you say has merit, SRS, but I think too many folks would think Kerry would be business as usual ala inside the Beltway. Edwards might be too nice, though, to run an effective campaign. We don't have the wiggle room to be nice about it, this time; it's too important, imo, to get the shrub out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,pdc Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:40 AM I still think Wesley Clark is the best bet -- IF he can get a VP and cabinet members with a lot of Washington experience, especially down-and-dirty experience. That's what did Jimmy Carter in, I think -- lack of political savvy inside Washington. Interesting stuff, though, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:50 AM So, Amos, why are you disappointed in Iowa? Did you leave instructions for caucus goers and they didn't follow them? <g> The whole point of party politics is that party members decide what the party platform will be and select candidates to run on that platform. It's not supposed to be a big free-for-all where people with no party connection pull a lever on a whim and commit the party to some candidate. The caucuses are really democracy the way it's supposed to work. In a primary election, you get a lot of human automatons who've seen a couple of commercials on TV invest a total of maybe 10 minutes to stand in line and cast a ballot for the person whose name they can remember right then. In a caucus, you only get people who've troubled themselves to understand (and probably meet and talk with) each candidate, understand and consider the issues, perhaps prepare and bring forward their own platform planks to be considered by the party, and commit to spending two or three hours in a meeting plus travel time. The caucus process is fair and open and attracts participants who are really prepared to do business. The purpose of the caucus isn't to elect a nominee but to send delegates from each precinct to the county Democratic convention. Convention delegates are pledged, on the first ballot, to support the candidate whose caucus prefrence group elected them. The county conventions elect delegates to the regional and state conventions. At the state convention, delegates are elected to attend the national convention which is where candidates are actually chosen. The state conventions also elect electors, members of the Electoral College who, in the US, are the only ones who directly elect the country's President and Vice President… well, now I guess we can add the Supreme Court as direct electors too. At our local precinct caucus, Jan and I started out in the Kucinich group but the group was too small to be viable (less than 15% of total attendees) so, after some negotiation, the Kucinich group agreed to join the Edwards group on the promise that one of the delegates would be selected from among us. In our precinct, Kerry supporters got four delegates, Edwards three and Dean two. No other candidate's group was viable. My wife, Jan, is a delegate to the county convention (I've done it many times) and I was reelected as one of two members of the county central committee from our precinct. I was able to get three resolutions (potential platform planks) passed, one on civil liberties, one on international cooperation and one on mideast peace. Several other resolutions were passed as well. Iowa turns out to be a perfect place for this first test of candidate strength. The Iowa populace is, on average, better educated than in many other states (I'm not making this up), candidates can actualy talk with voters face to face and the cost of the campaign is only a fraction of what it would be in California or Texas. Plus Iowa is pretty middle-of-the-road and isn't skewed one way or the other. The results from Iowa may not be what we'd hoped but I think they do reflect on the effectiveness of campaigns and the credibility afforded each candidate by average, informed and concerned folks. The media don't like caucuses because they're tougher to cover and predict but I say “F___ ’em if they can’t take a joke.” - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:25 AM I rather like the caucus idea. It seems to me as they are a lot like New England Town meetings. Everyone gets to voice their opinions. Kat, I disagree with you here. I think that Kerry has a slight edge in ability to 'do a little White House landscaping.' If Kerry is seen as an insider, I think it is the right type of insider. I believe that 'Bushrove' would rather run against Dean than Kerry exactly because Kerry has the political 'legs' that Dean lacks. I dislike Bushrove as much as anyone else, but a campaign can't be run on that alone. I'd like to see a Kerry/Edwards ticket. I must say that for the first time in a long time I like all of the candidates and would not hesitate to whole heartedly put my shoulder to the harness and work for whoever is nominated. We need to. Keep an eye on the primaries folks. If the Democrats set records in turnout, it could spell real trouble for Bushrove. And remember, Bushrove has yet to win the presidency the first time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Jan 04 - 07:33 AM "Even before Iowans finished publicly stating their preferences, U.S. television networks projected that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina had beaten Dean." Isn't that kind of rush, to announce a result before the process has even been completed, just the kind of thing that screwed up the presidential election and made the USA electoral process a laughing stock around the world? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Alice Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:11 AM What Iowans were responding to was the constant media spin that Dean is unelectable, which, given his much greater grassroots support (almost 600,000 people signed up for his campaign) and his much greater grassroots funding, is wrong. On CSPAN, the comment was made that Iowans thought they were voting "strategically" to get a candidate that will beat Bush. Dean is FAR more electable than Kerry or Edwards... but media keeps spinning, the Karl Rove buzzwords. The hundreds of thousands of people behind Dean have come out in all 50 states for many months to work for him, writing hand written personal letters to voters in other states, giving their reasons they support Dean. No other candidate has that kind of passionate support from people who have never campaigned and in some cases never voted before. Many of those people will not support Kerry or Edwards. Some will, but not all. They are behind Dean, with their money, time and energy, and the voters in Iowa did not have the awareness to see that the support in all the states is in place for Dean. They kept hearing that spin, unelectable, unelectable. Somehow, Dean has to get that idea erased from the mind of the voters, because the sabotage has worked in Iowa. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:20 AM Kerry takes Iowa does he?? My sisters fellah takes VIAGRA and he swears by it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:28 AM I was a Dean supporter, but the cracks began to show some time ago. That republican shill who heckled him, he rose to the bait and lost it. I have one interest, someone who can send Bush packing, and at least Keyy has a real military record to talk about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Teribus Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:32 AM Thanks Guest Hugh - best laugh I've had today. Mark Clark 20 Jan 04 - 01:50 AM "The caucuses are really democracy the way it's supposed to work." Hell as like - What happened to the secret ballot? Such ballots remove any pressure and allow registered members of a political party to vote their personal preferences outwith the scrutiny, censorship and criticism of fellow party members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:41 AM Actually Alice, as a Republican, I was praying (as much of that as I do) that Dean would win. However, Kerry as a New England liberal, is not a bad choice for us either. I think that Dean has to really put it up in New Hampshire, as there is no chance he will do anything in South Carolina, IMO. However NH is as much in Kerrys backyard as Deans. Now if Dean tanks and takes his ball (and voters) home with him, it would be the same as a liberal third party candidate entering the race. Maybe both will happen, and Nader comes back for seconds... Aw, thats too much to hope for... And, as for "Karl Rove buzz words", every Republican I know is going around saying Shhhh!, so it's got to be the Democrats saying anything. I have always thought that if anyone ever sat down and really listened to Dean, he would vaporize as a candidate. Damn those plodding Iowans, they figured it out too soon... But I really, really want Dean to win the nomination. BTW Mark, thanks for the hands-on view of the caucus process. I appreciate democracy in all it's forms, even when it goes against me, and that was an excellent lesson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:52 AM Mark, thanks for the explanation of the caucus process. Very interesting!
WE. you might be right; it sure is interesting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:34 AM Howard Dean has been a great help to the Democratic party, in that he has been saying many of the things that Nader and others said in the last election. By his presence, within the party, he has effectively blocked Nader from stepping in again as a spoiler. As much as I admire Nader, he was a pain in the ass last time around for skimming votes from Gore. My hope is that by fighting the good fight, Dean will have knocked enough sense into the Democratic mainstream that they will be sure not to let those issues languish this time around. Kerry is a much better over-all candidate that Dean, and has those insider connections to hit the ground running with a cabinet in place very quickly. Gephart is not running for his seat again, so with his retreat from the list of candidates, I think we see an viable VP candidate, or a high official on Kerry's cabinet. Edwards may be making nice and hoping for that VP slot, but this time around, it is going to take the big guns and insiders to clean up the mess that Bush has made. "Nice" won't cut the mustard. And it will take a team like Kerry and Gephart. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Peg Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:34 AM I have to say,despite his waffling on the Iraq war, I have more and more started to really appreciate what Kerry has to say about domestic issues, like the environment, health care, jobs, farming, etc. This is surprising, as I was prepared to support Dean from the get-go but this has lessened, although I do appreciate his anti-war stance and his candid way of expressing himself. I admire Kerry for having the guts to have fought in Vietnam and having the guts to come home and speak out against it. Hell of a place for an insider to originate from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Midchuck Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:08 AM If the Democrats want to pull in more votes this time, from people who voted Republican last time, Dean's probably their worst choice. If they want to pull in more votes this time from people who voted for Nader, or for splinter parties (other than the Libertarians), or who stayed home out of utter disgust for the whole process, Dean may be their best choice. The trouble is, they can't have it both ways. IMO. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:30 AM It is quite amusing to see just how much Mudcat opinions echo what is being said by the conformist driven political punditry. If people thought Dean was "too left" they really have a big ole shockeroo coming at them now. On most policy issues, Kerry is to the left of Dean, and has been for his entire career. As to Edwards' showing, right leaning pundits ought to be worried as well, because most of Kucinich's people jumped to the Edwards camp. There is no way of knowing how many caucus goers actually supported Kucinich before walking in the door, but actually went straight to the Edwards caucus. So why did one of the most far left candidates (Kucinich) say in advance of the caucuses, publicly, on camera, that if he couldn't pull 15%, he wanted his backers to join Edwards? Answer: because Edwards is much further left than Dean or Kerry on the domestic and international issues Democratic and independent voters care most about (ie not what the professional pollsters care about) like health care reform, jobs, and the social services on which so many Americans depend to survive, from welfare to local economic development initiatives to transportation. The cost of transportation is the elephant in the living room, actually. The percentage of lower middle class, working poor, and poor peoples' income spent on transportation is one of the most debilitating aspects of the US consumer driven economy, behind health care. Alice, no malice intended here (I like Dean, but I don't think Karl Rove is behind the negative media Dean has gotten--I think the Beltway punditry themselves are, because he keeps calling attention to their failure to fulfill their place in our democracy in the run up to the Iraq war), but you are wrong about a couple of things. The breakdown shows that Kerry was ahead of Dean in all the categories the Dean campaign thought they would be ahead in, like young voters, women, etc. Finally, Teribus, your statement just shows your ignorance of the US political system. Iowa is not the only state with caucuses, though fewer and fewer states continue to stand up against the pressure of Washington insider special interests, like conglomerate media, to abandon caucuses in favor of the more media friendly primary election. As Mark Clark pointed out, caucuses aren't about the candidates, they are about the grassroots deciding on the issues their party will try and get inserted into the national party platform next summer. The delegates to candidate race is secondary in the caucus system. Got that Teribus? The caucus system is not a sham or a fraud that threatens the secret ballot. And your suggestion that it is, is just plain looney. We caucus on the issues first. The candidates that best represent the majority on the issues, do best in a caucus system. It is a system where the media has little influence on the process, because candidates have to go directly to the people who caucus, and explain their stands on the issues. The gang of 500 hates having to discuss issues. They are all about power, personality, and pretty faces. The caucus system tells us what the people want, not what special interests want, or the gang of 500 want, or what the sitting administration wants. And the message I got from the Iowa caucus results is that there is much more anger over the 2000 coronation than any of the gang of 500, Karl Rove, or the DLC ever thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:44 AM BTW, the turnout in Iowa was the second largest in history. The largest was during the 1988 campaign, when Jesse Jackson was the Howard Dean of the Democratic party, and was terrifying the Washington establishment much more than Dean has, with his threats of signing up millions of unregistered voters, and getting them to the polls. The Democratic party establishment and the Washington media establishment wanted to beat Jesse and the minority voters back so bad, they ended up giving the candidacy to Dukakis. A lot of us remember that. So when the gang of 500 trys to claim that the Democratic party's FDR roots are "too liberal" or "too Dukakis" or "too Mondale" or "too McGovern" they are conveniently ignoring Jesse Jackson's very savvy, and very effective 1988 run, and the momentum it built. It also showed why by 2000, so many progressives abandoned the party and went for Nader or stayed home. Nader wasn't the spoiler for Democrats in 2000. The abandonment of the progressive Democratic base in this country by the Washington Democratic party establishment was the spoiler. It is sheer pretzel logic to suggest that one candidate lost because the people whom he assumed would vote for him, voted for someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:05 PM The reason the caucuses don't use a secret ballot is that it isn't an election. We aren't electing a nominee, it's a party process for choosing delegates to county conventions. In fact, states with primaries and secret ballots aren't really electing a nominee either. Primaries are really beauty contests; the nominees are still chosen or at least ratified at the state conventions. The US Constitution makes no provision for political parties. Candidates for high office may, with the proper funding and support, run for office without being connected to any party at all. Or, like Ross Perot, invent a temporary political party just for the purpose of a campaign. Since caucuses take place at the preinct level, a lot of the people there are your friends and neighbors. In my neighborhood, folks look out for each other. If something seems odd or out of place, we'll call each other to see if everything is okay. On a snowy morining, I have to get out pretty early if I expect to clear my walk before some neighbor has already done it for me. We work together to clear the walks and driveways of anyone who is elderly, sick or out of town. So when we meet at a caucus, it really is like a town meeting. One of the things that hurt both Dean and Gephardt here in the final weeks was the biliousness of the exchange between these two. Dean was and still is quite popular here, not only with students but with mainstream Democratic insiders too, but his campaign's focus on the negative in the last weeks really hurt his image here. My own view is that we're better off with a seasoned insider who also champions the right positions than with an unknown with little practical background. President Carter was an outsider and, by most accounts, presided over a fairly ineffectual administration; largely because he had no inside influence. President Clinton was also an outsider and, though he was very effective, his policies were often on the Republican side of things. I think President Clinton was as surprised as anyone to win the Democratic nomination his first time out; largely because the insiders didn't realize a Democratic victory was possible. It was interesting to watch the members of the various groups during the caucus process. As I've said, the purpose of the caucus is to conduct party business, elect convention delegates, vote on resolutions, etc. In our precinct, once the prefrence groups had been counted, the Kerry people departed en masse, suggesting that they really weren't prepared to involve themselves in the party process. Other groups lost members but most stayed through the party business part. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM I think it will be interesting to see if Kerry's support is deeper than his wife's pursestrings, eh? The majority of Americans don't even know that the caucus system elects delegates based upon the delegate's stand on the issues, not candidates in the presidential race. In fact, most Americans can't imagine having to discuss, much less advocate for, the political issues that matter most to them, to the people in their immediate community. While in rural areas, you might be in caucuses with your neighbors, that dynamic doesn't hold up in urban areas as strongly. There, it is what your constituency thinks about your stand (as a delegate) on the issues that matters, much more so than what your geographic neighbors think of your stand on the issues as a delegate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM Well, no; I had hoped that Dean would garner more support than he did. If he is not going to be the Jimmy Carter of his time -- a dark horse suddenly running to the fore -- then Ineed to rethink. Because the most important issue is to sow the seeds that will topple the Bush dynasty and (hopefully) eventually undo the harm it has wrought. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:27 PM I'm not counting Dean out. Anyone who counts Dean out after one race is an idiot. He still has a lot of support, he will likely change tactics in NH & SC, and he has more money than any other Dem going into Super Tuesday. I wouldn't call Dean a loser at all. In fact, coming in third in Iowa could well be the shot in the arm his campaign needed after being the declared frontrunner by the gang of 500 for the last couple of months, because he is just the kind of candidate that does great as the underdog. Kerry's money will become a huge issue by SC because it is HIS money, not money raised from small donors, like Dean's. That, more than his Washington insider status, will be a campaign issue. He will get painted as the Dubya of the Dems on the campaign finance issue, which will constantly knoci him off message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:36 PM And everyone here keeps ignoring Clark and Lieberman, who didn't campaign in Iowa. So next week, it's a whole other ball game. I'm hoping that Lieberman will get knocked out next week, the way that Gephardt did yesterday. That will certainly clarify things, won't it? That would leave a possible candidacy from Kucinich (if he can hang on and stay in the debates it will be tremendous help to keep the party moving to the left), Dean, Kerry, Sharpton, and Edwards. Sharpton won't drop out until after SC. Kucinich may be able to hang on until then, maybe not. Lieberman is likely out the door next week. Clark is the joker wild right now, but is tied with Dean for first in the polls, which may or may not shift this week. If the polls shift this week, it could have as much to do with the State of the Union as Iowa, since Iowa and NH are two different political animals entirely. Iowa voters tend to be much more conformist than NH voters, so Dean could still easily win there, considering how far back Kerry is right now there. I doubt we'll know who the contender is before Super Tuesday though. This one is going to go to likely end up a photo finish, with everybody uniting after Super Tuesday behind Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. If everybody can put aside the differences and bad vibes of the primary races, the Dems will come out of the gate very strong, unified, and ready for a serious fight in March. Which is the neocons worst nightmare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:07 PM Mark, your description of the Caucus you attend bears little resemblance to the Dubuque one they showed on C-Span last night. They did not discuss issues at all, but split up immediately into different rooms, one for supporters of each candidate. When people did try to discuss issues, the guy leading it would say something like, "I'm trying to keep this moving along, y'know..." Undecideds remained behind in the main room, and the people from the non-viable candidates tried desperately to convince undecideds and other non-viables to come into their camp. The Gephardt woman was essentially willing to say anything to get people into her camp. She told BOTH Kucinich supporters AND Lieberman supporters that Gephardt was the closest candidate to theirs on the issues; (for those not following this election, this is ludicrous as Kucinich is the furthest to the left and Lieberman the furthest to the right of the candidates). If this counts as discussion of issues, then maybe Mark's description applies here too. Also, of course, discussion of issues may have taken place inside the individual candidate's preference groups, but that hardly affected who was selected. The Kucinich people had been instructed to support Edwards, but some were convinced by Dean and/or Gephardt. What was most salient about them was how clueless they seemed to be. One of them said, "well, I've been really convinced by Kucinich, but I don't know anything about any of the other candidates, so how do I know where to go?" This directly contradicts Mark's claim that "In a caucus, you only get people who've troubled themselves to understand (and probably meet and talk with) each candidate, understand and consider the issues, perhaps prepare and bring forward their own platform planks to be considered by the party." While this may have been true of some of the caucus goers, others clearly wished they could just vote for their candidate and get it over with. In fact, this was even true in Mark's caucus, where he says that "once the prefrence groups had been counted, the Kerry people departed en masse, suggesting that they really weren't prepared to involve themselves in the party process." What it sounds like to me is that the Democratic activists who usually caucus might be supporting Edwards and Dean, but they were trumped this time by many regular democrats who would not ordinarily attend the caucuses but had been mobilized by Kerry. This is fair enough, and Kerry did a great job. But it would be wrong to think that these caucus-goers were better informed than those of us who live in primary states. That's a fiction caucus states tell themselves to make themselves feel superior. The other view of caucus, by the way, is that it's an arcane process that discourages high rates of participation in favor of a few party insiders. It's also a bit distorted, but you see there are two sides to the story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:27 PM Nerd, the establishment punditry is doing all it can right now to paint the Iowa caucus system (which doesn't favor the way they want to cover politics--which is from the top down, not from the grassroots up) as undemocratic. So is it any surprise that the selective editing ends up showing the nation and the world, the presidential race as they want it to be seen? The establishment media have been painting Kucinich, who is actually quite articulate, and stands shoulder to shoulder with Edwards on many issues, as a nut case. Is it any wonder then, that the Kucinich supporter they showed on camera, seemed to mirror that image? A NYT editorial came right out today and said the Iowa caucus system was undemocratic. Here is the actual quote from today's op ed piece titled "The Iowa Surprise": "It is always possible, of course, to invest too much meaning into something as narrow and less-than-democratic as the Iowa caucus." All depends upon how you define democracy, I suppose. But I don't see how a process where voters come together to discuss where the candidates stand on the issues, and which candidate a delegate will vote for at their nominating conventions, can be considered "less than democratic". I will reiterate again, the horse trading that goes on for the delegates is based on issues first, and which candidate represents those issues second. It is an issue driven, not a candidate/personality driven process. As I said earlier, the media much prefers the beauty contest format of the primaries. BTW, Kerry hit the ground in NH this morning, claiming to be the underdog. I guess his campaign manager and me see eye to eye on who runs best as the underdog in this race--Dean or Kerry. But the real dark horse is Edwards. Kerry vs Dean is all about the pretty face (Kerry) vs the pragmatic bull dog (Dean). Dean reminds me of Churchill. Which is one reason why I'd rather not support him if I don't have to--Churchill was damn draconian in a lot of ways. I could see Dean going that route as president too. But I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination. I won't work for him, but I'll vote for him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM Wow, what a great bunch of posts! I must have missed GUEST's posts of 11:30 and 11:44 while I was composing my own. Very thoughtful posts, I thought. Nerd, I have no explanation for the televised caucus from Dubuque. I didn't see the clip but heard from my cousin in S.F. that it was pretty weird. I didn't mean to imply that Iowa doesn't have its share of dullards and crackpots and of course some of them make their way to the caucuses. Still, attending a caucus is a lot bigger committment than just marking a ballot and if you really don't know anything about the candidates or the issues, you'll feel pretty left out. Some of the party heircharchy in Iowa are anxious to speed up the prefrence group process just to please the media. They are afraid, if it takes too long, the media will push harder to replace the caucus system with a primary. Perhaps whoever chaired that caucus in Dubuque was reacting to pressure. Most of the caucus chairs just ignore that kind of thing. If it was the first time that person had chaired a caucus, they may not have understood the amount of control they actually have. It's also possible (and allowed) for a candidate's organization to name the chair (through election) and control the caucus and the discussion. Party politics can be rough and tumble; it's not a spectator sport. As far as the caucus process being “an arcane process that discourages high rates of participation in favor of a few party insiders,” I think that is an accurate description. I wouldn't quarrel with that view at all. Keep in mind, it's supposed to be party politics, not a general election. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Don Firth Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:50 PM Well . . . that was a bit of a surprise compared to the way things looked earlier. But that shows you how reliable polls can be, donit? But it's still early. The real fun won't start until the Democratic Convention. My main concern is to get the Bush League out of the White House and to that end I'd vote for SpongeBob SquarePants or Howard the Duck if I thought they had a chance of ousting Bush. Under Bush, the country is on a crash course to the Abyss. We need to go in a different direction, but the first thing we have to do is apply the brakes. So for this election, I'm thinking mostly in terms of damage control. Mark and Nerd, thanks for your comments on caucuses. I've never been to one before, but I will be attending my precinct caucus on Feb. 7, so I appreciate having an idea of what to expect. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:13 PM GUEST, C-Span is not "the establishment media," and there was no "selective editing." It was all live and unedited. They did switch among cameras in a few different rooms, so you could argue (if you were a conspiracy theorist) that they jumped to a new camera every time a discussion of the issues broke out. But even then, I would have seen the beginnings of discussions of issues, and I did not. (for those of you unfamiliar with C-Span, here is their mission: C-SPAN is a public service created by the American cable television industry: To provide C-SPAN's audience access to the live gavel-to-gavel proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and to other forums where public policy is discussed, debated and decided--all without editing, commentary or analysis and with a balanced presentation of points of view; To provide elected and appointed officials and others who would influence public policy a direct conduit to the audience without filtering or otherwise distorting their points of view; To provide the audience, through the call-in program, direct access to elected officials, other decision makers and journalists on a frequent and open basis; To employ production values that accurately convey the business of government rather than distract from it; and to conduct all other aspects of its operations consistent with these principles. It is often difficult to watch C-Span because they usually just let one camera run on, regardless of what it is capturing. So at a feed from a Kerry rally, you'll have Kerry shaking hands with people for 25 minutes sometimes, just saying "thank you, thank you, yes, I head about that, thank you, thanks for coming," etc. While it can be boring, it is often very enlightening, as was the live, unedited, un-commentated-upon, un-spun, and pundit-free feed from the Dubuque caucus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Don Firth Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:30 PM For all of the long pauses and general dead air, C-SPAN is well worth spending time watching. Sometimes it puts you right in the thick of things and shows you what's really going on, unedited. But be warned: as someone said, "Watching the legislature in action is like watching sausage being made. Sometimes you'd just rather not know." Nevertheless, if you want to be one of the informed electorate, C-SPAN is one of the better channels to watch. CSPAN-2 also. Often replays of speeches that the news doesn't cover very well, Congressional committee meetings, debates, all kinds of stuff, including "Book-TV" on weekends, where authors, generally of non-fiction, current affairs books, get a chance to discuss their works. In some of the Congressional committee meetings, I got a chance to hear W. VA Senator Robert Byrd quite a bit. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:56 PM I am appalled that we have arrived at a system that has some of the declared candidates deciding whether to stay in the race based on the actions of a few thousand people in Iowa...and most of the rest basing their hopes on what a few MORE thousand voters say in N. Hampshire! What an amazing thing when a process that is not even technically a vote has the presumptive leaders of the most influential country on Earth scrabbling like children in a medium sized state in the mid-west! What if this first caucus were in Alabama? or Montana? or, lord preserve us, in California? I remember when the parties arrived at the conventions with the nomination still up in the air, and though THAT system had its problems, this new one is a travesty of the notion that ALL Americans should be able to affect the choice of nominees. I wonder what people in states which have late primaries (or no primary) think when all the candidates they might have had an opinion about have totally disappeared when they get a chance to be heard? I suspect the political parties like it this way better...fewer variables to consider and they don't ALL have to spend $$$ in every state. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:25 PM I think that Kerry with Edwards VP can take Bush. Kerry puts his money (his own) where his mouth is. It's not all about issues. It's about style. Kerry listens, is low-key (some say boring but I say thoughtful), forceful when he needs to be, calm under pressure (something I think a Pres needs), talks with authority as a war hero (Bush is not...an AWOL national guardists... so who would make a better commander-in-chief?),is on top of all of the issues not just Iraq. I believe Kerry was wrong to vote for the Patriot Act but he is concerned about the issue of security. I believe he was wrong to vote for the Iraq resolution but so does he, now. He admits it was a mistake. (Someone who admits a mistake...refreshing in politics). Kerry could handle the Northern vote, Edwards could shore up the South very much like Kennedy/Johnson. Dean has not gotten his message out on other issues aside from the Iraq debacle. He was described by one lady at the Iowa Caucus as a "cocked pistol". She switched to Kerry. Style. Edwards is refreshing but comes across as young and inexperienced. Style. Kucinich is sanity in the wilderness but is painted as too short, too kooky (you know these vegetarians are a Commie plot), and no "Mo". I agree with the Republicans on this list that want Dean. It would be a cakewalk for W. But Kerry can beat Bush, especially with Edwards. I'm for Kerry. Hey y'all, what do you like about music? Personality and style? Why should it be any different in politics? Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:33 PM I have been seeing reports on other forums that make Kerry and Edwards' strong showings suspect. Apparently, at many caucus sites, paid campaign staff who were not Iowans took part in the conversations, convincing people to come over to their candidates. This is prohibited by Caucus rules, under which non-residents of the district can only be present as observers. They are not allowed to speak. Yet, according to caucus goers at other forums I've seen, Kerry and Edwards had their people out there talking. At one caucus, the Iowan selected to speak on Kerry's behalf yielded the floor to Kerry's brother! Meanwhile, Dean had been wrongly accused by Gephardt of bringing in volunteers to infiltrate the caucuses. Because of this, the Dean campaign was intimidated into sending fewer volunteers to the caucus sites, and of course those volunteers never spoke up when the rules were being violated by Kerry and Edwards. On one of these forums, Kerry supporters have said that this was politics as usual, and that it served Dean and Gephardt right for "bringing powder-puffs to a goddamn gunfight." Okay, but Dean has specifically said that the Senators represented politics as usual, and now it appears that he's right. Another analysis I've seen: Kerry did a much better job of hiring well-connected precinct captains who pulled in many more votes. So while Dean and Gephardt looked like they had a stronger "machine" (i.e. more people canvassing for votes), Kerry's smaller machine was much more efficient, pulling in more votes per person. Once he became the front-runner, the sizeable chunk who always backs the front-runner defected to Kerry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:41 PM Well Frank, I agree with a lot you say. Especiall that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would give the Democrats the best chance of winning. Alice: no doubt Dean has the most passionate supporters. I just don't believe he has enough of them. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:42 PM Frank, Maybe Kerry admits that voting for the war was a mistake now. But he flip-flops on this according to the current news. So when Saddam Hussein was captured, he was out there with Lieberman, accusing Dean of not accepting that the war was a good thing, now that Saddam has been captured. Two weeks later, when it became obvious that most democrats were STILL anti-war, he went back to "admitting" it was a mistake. On most issues, I like Kerry. He is my second choice for the candidacy, after Dean. If he does win the candidacy, though, it will be through dirty tricks and insider politics like he seems to have pulled in Iowa, which will be dicomfitting to see. It will also be through tailoring his position on the war to whatever is popular, and by taking key parts of Dean's message away (last night I saw him talking about how we're the only country in the industrialized world without universal health coverage, an observation from Dean's very first stump speeches before Kerry was even in the race). Because of this, I'm still supporting Dean. But if Kerry should win the nomination, I could live with that too. I agree that Edwards would be a good VP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:44 PM I meant to say, also, that bringing Kennedy in to support Kerry was a stroke of genius. I think if offset the establishment folk's endorsement of Dean considerably, but the results in Iowa must have been particularly galling for Al Gore. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:45 PM “this new one is a travesty of the notion that ALL Americans should be able to affect the choice of nominees.”In the US, there is no traditional notion that all Americans should be able to affect the choice of nominees. That's just the point. Party nominees are supposed to be selected by parties, not the general electorate. Parties aren't governmental bodies, they are special intrest groups working to nominate and elect officials who are committed to the philosophy of the party. Having the general electorate vote on party nominations is like having national elections to nominate Roman Catholic Cardinals or corporate CEOs. These nominations are the business of people belonging to and working within their respective organizations. Frank, I agree that a Kerry-Edwards ticket would be very solid. Maybe it will work out that way. Many people at our precinct caucus last night expressed the same idea. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM DougR, Why would the results in Iowa have to be particularly galling to Al Gore? He's from Tennessee. I think they must be particularly galling to Tom Harkin, if anyone. Or is this just an example of you Republicans and your knee-jerk Gore hating? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:04 PM Nerd, according to my definition, the American cable television industry is most certainly the establishment media. Also, switching the camera view, choosing who the camera focuses on in a room, all those things are editing decisions, whether the program is live or pre-recorded. There are always editors making those decisions on professional television shoots. It doesn't matter whether you consider it editing or not--the industry does. I'll vote for Kerry if he is the nominee, but I sure as hell don't trust him, despite agreeing with his stands on certain issues. His misjudgment on Iraq and the Patriot Act are just too monumental for me to get over all that easily. Besides, I'm really not too crazy about voting for another rich white guy buying his way into the presidency, either. We got plenty of those guys in the Senate as it is. Also, we've already got one rich white guy who's daddy's friends bought him his ticket to the White House (well, along with the Supreme Court coronation), and I'm not too crazy about the outcome of that one. But then, I think Dean, Edwards, Kerry, or Clark can beat Bush this year if the stars are aligned properly. They are all strong candidates in their own way, and it is impossible to divine what it will come down to in the final weeks of October in what the conventional punditry consider will be a very close race. Edwards is 50 years old, BTW. Not young. But he doesn't have much governing experience. Elected to the Senate in 1998, and resigned to run for prez. Bush is bad. Really bad. But despite all the predictions, life as we know it hasn't ended. Kucinich is the only candidate that has taken the right positions on the issues that matter to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:10 PM From John Edwards' website Edwards Calls For An End To Bush's Two Americas "Today under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one. One America does the work, while another America reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes, while another America gets the tax breaks. If we want America to be a growing, thriving democracy with the strongest middle class on earth, we must choose a different path." I have not done any reading on Edwards- but I'm going to. He came across well on Nightline last night. So did John Kerry- in actuality, John Kerry sounded presidential. He's the only one who took the moment to reiterate issues. I liked the line: "Here's a message to the White House: We're coming. You're leaving. Don't let the door hit you on your way out" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:42 PM Mark--I'm an old time caucus goer, former delegate, and love what I call the 'hand to hand combat in the trenches' aspect of it. You have to know your stuff, and you have to be articulate, and you have to think fast on your feet. And Nerd, I forgot to mention I think the analysis you noted about Kerry's machine having the "right" precinct captains is dead on. Kerry knew in late Dec/early Jan that the thing was likely locked up for him. That is one place where his and his new staff's experience and political savvy showed how inexperienced and unsavvy the Dean campaign was on the ground. I don't think Gephardt ever had a chance in Iowa, really. He was outgunned from the gitgo. I also agree that the Kerry/Kennedy duo was a stroke of brilliance, as was Ted Kennedy's timing of his Iraq policy speech he gave this week, which was published in the Washington Post as an op ed piece on Monday, I believe. He hit on, instance by instance, all the times Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumseld, Rice, et al misrepresented and manipulated the intelligence data, and went into Iraq anyway. But again, the Bush administration is savvy when it comes to the news cycle. Bremer going hat in hand to NY ask for Kofi Annan's assistance in Iraq was totally overlooked yesterday in the media orgy over Iowa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:48 PM "In the US, there is no traditional notion that all Americans should be able to affect the choice of nominees." ummm..perhaps I should have said 'by party members in all states'? What ARE primary elections except attempts to reflect the wishes of the 'general electorate', even if party affiliated as to who the nominees should be? I simply disagree with a system that makes the later primaries 'almost' totally redundant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:31 PM Guest 5:42 (catchy), last week Michael Moore was asked what he thought the US should do NOW about Iraq. He said that the first thing 'we'need to do is apologize to the United Nations and ask for their assistance. He said we should still bear the greatest numbers of combat troops and its costs but that the UN and its members should be there in great numbers and visibly so. Ya don't suppose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:24 AM Interesting stuff coming out on the bush (not Bush) telegraph. Kerry was using push-polling in Iowa, where his staff would call people and ask questions like "Do you think it's all right that Howard Dean's wife doesn't even support him enough to come to Iowa? Do you think Judy Dean is really First Lady Material?" There is currently anti-Dean push-polling going on in Texas, too. People are being asked "would you vote for Howard Dean if you knew that he sent Vermont's nuclear waste to West Texas, which has a large Hispanic population?" Of course, the area of West Texas in question does not have a large population of any kind, and of course there are only a few sites where Dean COULD send nuclear waste and ALL of them are near poor people, not rich people. Dean had no choice but to send the waste to a certified disposal site, of which there are none in Vermont. So while it may technically be true, it's a dirty trick. It's probably Kerry doing it, though it could be Edwards or even Clark. Although this is a dirty trick, Kerry has not apparently stooped to the lowest form of push-polling, where you suggest but do not state something that is entirely untrue. Bush push-polled against McCain in 2000, asking, "Would you be likely to vote for McCain if you knew that he had fathered an illegitimate non-white child?" This was insidious, because it never claimed McCain DID have such a child, it simply asked whether the voter would still vote for McCain in the hypothetical situation that the voter knew this hypothetical fact about McCain. In fact, McCain and his wife had adopted a daughter who is not white, so when voters received the push-poll, then saw McCain traveling with his family, they were left with the strong impression that McCain had had a child out of wedlock! One big score for Dean against Kerry tonight. At every debate, in attack ads and in every campaign speech, Kerry has pummeled Dean by saying that Dean wants to raise middle class taxes by eliminating the Bush tax cuts. When Dean is there (at debates), he points out that the middle class did not get a tax cut because Bush's cuts to services, especially No Child Left Behind, health care, special ed, and higher ed, have raised property taxes, payroll taxes, insurance premiums and college tuitions so that the average family pays far more than before the Bush cuts. Kerry then puts on his mock outrage and says, "come on, what are you thinking?" Or he says something like, "not according to Hector Garcia, a mechanic from Dubuque who saved 1800 dollars this year!" Or, he mocks Dean, by saying, "the middle class tax cut, which Howard somehow doesn't realize people ever got..." Well, today in Daschle's post-State of the Union speech, he took a paragraph almost word-for word out of Dean's stump speech, pointing out that the middle class did not get a tax cut for all the reasons stated above. In the next debate, if Kerry tries his BS routine, Dean can just say "your own leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle, said it himself last week. It's really not that hard to understand, John!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:00 AM So, does anyone know Clark & Edwards' position on the Bush tax cuts? Kerry's position on the tax cuts and the economy don't thrill me. Largely because all I've heard from him sounds like Republicrat drivel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:24 AM Guest and Nerd, where are you guys getting the inside dope? Let us know so we can check it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:45 AM Hi Nerd, "Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:42 PM Frank, "Maybe Kerry admits that voting for the war was a mistake now. But he flip-flops on this according to the current news." I disagree. He has qualified his statement that he doesn't think Bush did it right. Not that he was totally against it. I don't agree with Kerry on this but I don't see a flip-flop. He has a military mindset and wanted Saddam captured. "So when Saddam Hussein was captured, he was out there with Lieberman, accusing Dean of not accepting that the war was a good thing, now that Saddam has been captured. Two weeks later, when it became obvious that most democrats were STILL anti-war, he went back to "admitting" it was a mistake." I don't see the inconsistency. In his view, it was the way the war was conducted that was a mistake. He was for inspections by the UN in which he stated that war should have been the last resort and not the first. " If he does win the candidacy, though, it will be through dirty tricks and insider politics like he seems to have pulled in Iowa, which will be dicomfitting to see." If this has to do with violating caucus rules I would like to know more particulars about this. I don't believe that this was sufficient to hinder Dean in Iowa. " It will also be through tailoring his position on the war to whatever is popular," I don't see that. For reasons I stated above. " and by taking key parts of Dean's message away (last night I saw him talking about how we're the only country in the industrialized world without universal health coverage, an observation from Dean's very first stump speeches before Kerry was even in the race)." Universal Health Care Coverage has been an issue predating Dean's campaign as well as Kerry's. Actually, Hillary Clinton proposed this and it was summarilly rejected with a lot of derision. It was opposed by the monopolistic insurance companies. I don't agree with Kerry on his voting for the Patriot bill although he seems to think there were parts of it that had merit and that's why he went for it. As to the war, he favored doing away with Saddam through working with the UN and other countries. I don't think he considered a pre-emptive strike without UN and internatinal support. I think Bush cleverly pulled the rug out from under congress on this one. All in all, it was a terrible idea and based on faulty "intelligence". I don[t think Kerry was inconsistent on this issue but I don't agree with him. As to the "dirty tricks" in Iowa, I don't have enough info to make a judgement. It wasn't that that did Dean in I don't think. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:56 PM You know, one really does not know what - or whom - to believe. Nerd seems to have information that I have not heard before BUT... who do you believe? From John Kerry's website: The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education. John Kerry has a plan to secure America's economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare. He isn't afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 04 - 05:23 PM This, from the John Edwards website: Repeal tax cuts for earners over $200,000. (Nov 2003) Federal match for middle-class savings up to $1000 per year. (Nov 2003) Shift tax burden from taxing work to taxing wealth. (Sep 2003) Revise the capital gains tax rate. (Sep 2003) Tax cuts to working people-stop Bush's War On Work. (Sep 2003) Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003) Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001) Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001) Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001) Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000) Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000) Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999) Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM Kerry can HAVE Iowa with my blessing. I've been there. (with apologies to Sheckie Green) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:07 PM From Wesley Clark website: Social Security No specific plan; opposes increasing retirement age State fiscal crisis Give immediate help to local governments facing fiscal crises Tax cuts Calls Bush cuts for rich irresponsible; would close corporate loopholes Budget deficits Balance budget; lower long-term public debt Job creation Incentives to keep jobs in U.S.; target manufacturing, high-tech |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:49 PM I'm still waiting to find out where Guest and nerd got the inside straight. I would like to check it. Seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:46 AM Hey, folks. Been trying to post for hours for no luck. Here it goes again: Sorry, I've been off line for hours and hours. I've also been trying to post this with no luck, so I may have to give up til tomorrow... Most of my "inside info," unfortunately comes from participant threads on blogs such as the Dean blog. The reason this is unfortunate is that it's a very active blog, so that each thread gets about two to three hundred contributions and there are at least ten a day--and the ones I saw were yesterday! So the threads are retired and I'll never be able to find them again. Essentially, what they were were reports from ordinary people who live in Iowa and support Dean. They received the push-poll phone calls, and saw the violations of caucus rules, firsthand. Now, of course it's possible that they're lying, but I don't think they are. It makes perfect sense to me that Kerry would use these tactics, which are probably common politics-as-usual in a big, rich state like Massachusetts. In a small state like Vermont, where there is practically no money in politics, it would be unheard of. Kerry could also argue that you'll HAVE to use tactics like this to defeat Bush, and he would probably be right; so why not start now? By the way, I was wrong that Kerry did not push-poll with questions that suggested untrue, hypothetical "facts." According to my wife, several Iowa residents who were participants in these threads on the Dean Blog received a call from the Kerry campaign, asking if they would be likely to vote for Dean if they knew that had performed abortions while practicing medicine in Vermont. Dean has never performed an abortion, and it's particularly craven for a candidate who is supposedly pro-choice to try to use this issue against Dean. Another example of Kerry's hypocrisy, by the way, was his stand on the issue of accepting public financing and the spending limits that go with it. Dean made the argument that he had to reject public money in order to compete with Bush on a level playing field (no spending limits). Kerry pulled one of his mock-outrage hissy-fits, claiming that Dean was single-handedly destroying campaign finance reform. Then about five days later he himself rejected public financing, claiming that Dean forced him to do it, because he needed to compete with Dean on a level playing field. This says to me that it is more important to Kerry that he beat Dean than a Democrat beat Bush (it was worth Kerry doing this evil thing in order to compete with Dean, but not worth Dean doing it in order to compete with Bush.) And the sad thing is, he's STILL my second choice after Dean. I just hate the resident so much more than ANY of these guys! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:03 PM I have no way to question the veracity of the people posting on the Dean blog and I truly don't think they are making up those accusations out of thin air. Party politics can seem really unfair to people with no prior experience. Still, I very much doubt that the Kerry camp actually violated caucus rules. I think it's more likely that the people attending were new to the process and may not have fully understood the rules. There have been attempts in the past to overpower the caucus process, bring in bogus participants from outside the state and so forth (I think Gephardt did this the last time he ran), but caucus leaders were warned of this possibility and given special manatory training in many cases. I wonder how the recipients of the push-poll phone calls knew they were from the Kerry camp? I doubt that such callers would identify themselves as representing Kerry. Given the way things went in the final weeks of the Iowa campaign, I think it's far more likely that such calls were inspired by the Gephardt camp than by Kerry. Gephardt and Dean both became bilious and bellicose toward each other and both suffered in popularity as a result. I only have first hand knowledge of my own precinct caucus but, as a member of my county Democtatic Central Committee, I have detailed knowledge of the preparations for the caucuses, the training given, and the people chosen as temporary caucus chairs. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM Good point, Mark Clark. On occasion I have received calls on sensitive or controversial proposals in upcoming elections. By law they have to identify themselves but in at least one instance I am quite sure it was simply a private individual trying to ascertain public sentiment. The process is vulnerable to all kinds of shenanigans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:54 PM Thanks for the info Nerd, I appreciate it. W.E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:30 PM I have no personal inside knowledge of this year's Iowa caucus, or from any candidate's campaign. But trying to get the precinct captains behind your candidate is a tactic that has been used in the caucuses for a long time. When I read that part of Nerd's post, that is what rang most true, in my own personal experience as a caucus goer. I think Mark is also right, that many who cried foul simply were new to the process, and didn't realize how the game works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 22 Jan 04 - 03:14 PM Don't know about the idea that Kerry's supporters called voters about anti-abortion. That idea doesn't seem right to me. Evidence. Also, don't know about the rule-breaking caucus deal either. What I'm getting is Dean sour grapes. In politics, mud is thrown and everyone get splattered. For example, Dean saying that he was the only candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. That takes care of Kucinich, doesn't it? I think these alleged abuses have to be taken into context. I don't think Kerry is the kind of politician that would abuse rules or pressure anti-abortion advocates. That's an opinion and I'd like to see hard evidence to dispute it. All of these allegations need to come from somewhere besides the Dean camp. In th meantime, can we on the left quit shooting ourselves in the foot and get behind the guy to beat Bush? Otherwise, the RNC is right. Democrats are hopelessly devided. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Greg F. Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:21 PM I think it's far more likely that such calls were inspired by the Gephardt camp than by Kerry. I think its far more likely that such calls came from the Republican National Committee, CLAIMING to be one of the Democratic candidate's organizations. That sort of tactic has "Rove" written all over it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:36 PM To all of you who fervently wish for Anybody But Bush in the White House, are you aware how fervently THEY apparently wish for Anybody But Clark as the Democratic contender? To get it in a nutshell, check out this excerpt from a conservative website here (scroll down to Friday, Dec. 5). It starts with "Give, Give, Give And it goes on with the blatantly simple rationale: "We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails. . . . To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina. . . ." You know, I'd heard talk of this false-hearted Dean support but hadn't known the full scope of the manoeuver (thank you, moderateindependent.com!) It's really quite a compliment to Wes Clark and explains the ferocity of the smears against him. So listen up, ABBers! Karl Rove would like nothing better than for you to count Clark out simply because as a latecomer to the race, he made the difficult decision to skip Iowa. And take heart, I say to any wavering Deaniacs. You've made a difference. You can still make a difference. And I guarantee that you won't feel lonely here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:41 PM Well, I don't care what you all say. I'm keeping the Dean sticker on the back of my Toyota and will do so unless some other Dem. gets the nod and then, and only then, will I put the new guy's over it. Dean continues to get a bad rap. He scares the press and they, in turn, scare off a lot of folks. They plant this idea that Dean is not electable and lots of folks who know nothing about Dean go "owwwweee, I don't want someone who can't beat Bush". Well, I think Dean can beat Bush if he gets the nod. People will get to know him beyond what the media wants to give them. He can raise money. He has shown he can put together organizations. Now, I'm not saying that the media won't get it's way and perhaps they will derail Dean by zeroing in on his every mis-step. If they did that to any other candidate they might derail them, too. The media doesn't want to hear what Dean has to say and more imporatantly, the media doesn't want you folks to hear it either. The media has a big deal with the neo-cons and, might of fact, they've gotten their FCC ownership legislation wrapped into the Omnibus spending bill, which if the Dems go too far in trying to stop will face the same negative repurcusions that the Repubs got when they wouldn'fund the government back in Slick Willie's days. This Green still fir Dean... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: michaelr Date: 22 Jan 04 - 06:46 PM In another thread, a poster asked how to convince himself to vote for a Democrat. He said this: "My intuition tells me [Bush] will probably win the election unless there are Republicans that are willing to vote against him." I think it's appropriate to repeat my comments here. Very true. Here's the thing: 45% of voters will vote Republican, no matter what. 45% will vote Democrat, no matter what. It's the remaining 10% that's crucial. Bush has alienated many true conservatives, and the hope to defeat him lies with folks like Cruiser. We must establish a dialogue with that 10% and do whatever we can, between now and November, to help them decide that Bush and his criminal cronies are bad for America. The problem with the voting public is that any candidate must appear "presidential", meaning serious, respectable and level-headed, and at the same time come across as down-to-earth and charming. Not an easy thing to pull off. Plus it helps if he's attractive. The Democratic choices are not so great, obviously. The biggest problem with Kerry is that he's a New England patrician, just like Bush Sr and Jr (no, they're not Texans), and a member of the same Skull & Bones secret society. And he's ugly. Dean, of course, is not at all "presidential" (witness his little scream-fest after Iowa). Neither are Kucinich or Sharpton. And they're all ugly. Lieberman might be able to fake "presidential", but not down-to-earth or charming. And he's ugly. Edwards has good looks, and charm in spades (practiced in many courtroom appearances, no doubt), but is too young to be convincingly "presidential". And as a lawyer, he has a credibility problem. It appears to me that Clark's public persona is best suited to the task of defeating Bush. He has military cred, is reasonably good-looking, smart and funny, and should be able to easily out-debate Bush. Of course we don't yet know where he stands on many issues, and he already switched part affiliation once, but hey, you can't have everything. I believe Clark is the man most likely to have a chance of winning against Bush. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: MAV Date: 22 Jan 04 - 11:52 PM Oh the Boogie, oh the woogie. MAV |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 23 Jan 04 - 04:15 AM Here's an Iowa resident wishing he lived nearer New Hampshire. The last part alludes to the playbook of John Edwards, discovered yesterday by ABC. It was essentially filled with lies and half-truths the Edwards Supporters could use to slam all the other candidates, and puts the lie to his claim that he's the "positive, optimistic" candidate who doesn't smear the others. (It was signed by Edwards). By the way, in the Dubuque caucus shown on C-Span (I know it was a different Caucus than the one referred to below because it was chaired by a man, not a woman) it was also the case that Kerry signs were the most prominently placed. Occasionally you could glimpse sections with other people's signs, but Kerry's were on the wall right behind the chairperson who addressed the whole group, so everyone was facing the Kerry signs and the camera pointed at them. The others were on other walls. It was also the case as well that the undecideds were left right next to the Kerry section where a few Kerry supporters waited to convert them, while the other people were marched into separate rooms. It sounds much more like a coordinated effort than a coincidence, and not at all like "Dean Sour Grapes" to me. About the "only candidate who did not support the war," what Dean actually said was "the only MAJOR candidate." Kucinich took issue with this in one debate, and after that, Dean was always very careful to say, "except for Dennis Kucinich, all the congressional Democrats voted for the war." I think it's naive to believe that Kerry is not the kind of guy who would violate Caucus rules. He's a relentless campaigner from a big-money state; it's hard to imagine he got the be a senator without some dirty politics. Which is one reason, by the way, that governors from small states are in many ways more desirable than people coming straight from Congress. By the way, on the electability issue, you can come up with all kinds of indicators as to who will be elected. The absolute best indicator is who raises the most money in the "invisible primary." That's Dean. Another pretty good indicator: it's very rare to get elected president directly from either house of Congress, especially recently. Kennedy did it. But since then, all the non-incumbents have been governors: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. The idea that Kerry et al like to spin, that you aren't electable if you don't have the kind of "foreign policy experience" that you get in the congress, is actually not borne out by these facts. These facts show that, unless you have executive branch experience, either as governor or vice-president, you're nearly unelectable. (BTW, Nixon is an anomaly, because he was elected president from a law practice. His most recent political office before that was Vice-President, an executive branch position. He had also served in both the house and the senate.) So, okay, here's the Iowa guy: Dang, I wish I lived closer....... I would walk into a coffee shop wearing my Iowa Dean Precinct Captain t-shirt. I would ask people if they would like to hear about what really happened in Iowa. Then I would tell them the story of the booklet my daughters high school teacher was waving while slandering dean telling people he is opposed to public education which is an outright lie. Then I would tell them that my precinct chair, a Kerry supporter assigned locations for signs in my precinct and only Kerry signs were permitted on the front wall. And how she had placed the undecided participants next to the Kerry participants as far away from the Dean folks as possible. And then tell her how Kerry had planted Kerry supporters in the group of undecideds to influence. No media spin just a simple explanation of the truth of what actually happened in Iowa. Then I would show them my actual precinct captain manual for Dean.....with my name on it and what we were coached to say and point out to them there is not ONE single negative word about another candidate. I would say, well maybe it was a mistake for the Dean campaign not to attack the other candidates; but you see it is exactly that difference between Dean and the other candidates that has earned him my support and why I came all the way from Iowa to tell the truth the media refuses to tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 23 Jan 04 - 05:53 AM More interesting Kerry info below. The gist: a Kerry smear caller was caught on tape claiming that Dean was an "environmental racist" (because Vermont's nuclear waste was dumped in Texas, at a site that Dean had no role in selecting and no ability to influence). Kerry's campaign fired the push-poller, claiming that it was a terrible mistake for a young person to make to utter such claims about Dean. But this was pure hypocrisy, because Kerry himself had made the same charges. Below are an excerpt from ABC about the caller, and from the Des Moines register about Kerry's own unfair attack. From ABC: But two nights ago, Cornell College psychology professor Suzette Astley, a Dean volunteer in Lisbon, Iowa, received a phone call from a Kerry's Cedar Rapids headquarters in which, she says, a Kerry volunteer had some less than kind things to say about Dean regarding his foreign policy experience, being from a largely white state, and so-called "environmental racism." Since a documentary filmmaker was staying with Astley, the exchange, which has been confirmed by the Kerry campaign, was caught on videotape. (...) The Kerry campaign's response was swift. "The person who made the call is a young volunteer whose remarks were not authorized or condoned by this campaign," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said in a statement. "It's a terrible mistake for a young person to make, and he is apologizing to the person he called. While we appreciate his support, we have asked him to leave the campaign." From the Des Moines Register: A 1993 agreement to send Vermont nuclear waste to Texas has resurfaced a decade later in a political attack by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry on a chief rival for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry said last week that Dean showed environmental and ethnic insensitivity when he signed a compact to allow Vermont and Maine to send low-level nuclear waste to the largely Hispanic west Texas town of Sierra Blanca. Kerry's attack comes as Dean's chief rivals in the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire - where Dean leads in polls -seek to link the former governor with more conservative positions than his liberal stances now suggest. Dean has defended the compact by saying that Vermont was responding to a federal requirement that states dispose of their nuclear waste and that his state had no role in choosing the site. A Texas environmental agency ultimately blocked the nuclear waste dump from being built there. Environmentalists in Texas and Vermont said Dean did nothing to urge Texas to reconsider the location, despite an outcry from environmental and Latino activists and Democrats in Congress. They also said there was little Dean could have done about the site selection because that was Texas' legal responsibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Teribus Date: 23 Jan 04 - 08:21 AM GUEST 20 Jan 04 - 11:30 AM Oh my apologies Guest, it's all about deciding issues. In which case what issues were decided upon in Iowa? What's in and what's out? And if it was all about issues how could anyone candidate "Take Iowa". If it is all about issues why were individual candidates campaigning? Was it to try and convince folks that they were behind most of the issues being decided upon. As has been said by someone else your political system is on its head. A country should be governed by those elected to government, not by the election of one man who then brings in his administration to do the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:38 AM Teribus, you are obviously pig ignorant of the American political system. You clearly aren't willing to learn anything about it that challenges your ignorance, so maybe you should find someone else with whom you can carry on a false, misinformed debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Mark Clark Date: 23 Jan 04 - 11:11 AM I said “… I very much doubt that the Kerry camp actually violated caucus rules” but I didn't mean to imply that the Kerry camp, or any campaign, is somehow above doing that. My opinion is only based on the fact that we were on the lookout for such things. In a political campaign, voters must decide—among other things—who they can trust. If the answer turns out to be a politician, the voter has made a grievous error. In the words of my old government instructor who, in 1959, taught us how the process really works, “It isn't whether you win or lose… it's whether you win!” - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa, then melts down From: Nerd Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html From ABC News Kerry campaign reporter Ed O'Keefe: LACONIA, NH, Jan 22-- 400 people filled the Elks Lodge with an overflow crowd. Kerry, who arrived nearly a half hour late for his first and only event of the day, abbreviated his stump to a twelve minute presentation, then took forty-four minutes worth of audience questions. After the event, as is quickly becoming custom, a media swarm engulfed the candidate, eventually forcing Kerry to Wade step-by-step into a throng of immovable reporters, cameras, and stills. Having finally broken through the crush of media, Kerry stormed onto the "Real Deal Express", ripped off his Timberland Barn Coat, and tossed it into the gray and red striped seat by his side. "Don't they get it?," Kerry bellowed to no one in particular. "I can't have this," he continued, referring to the media horde now watching his every move. David Wade, traveling press secretary, entered the bus and immediately faced the Senator's wrath. Thrashing his arms, Kerry asked several times, "Where are my boots?" Once located, the previously nervous Kerry seemed a bit more serene. Surrogates continue to flank the state, while the candidate grows less willing to take any risks or chances given the current volatility of the Democratic field. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:05 PM Considering Kerry's front runner status, and his propensity to remain scripted in the Republicrat vein, I think it is hugely important for the Dean camp to keep the pressure on Kerry. Unfortunately, they seem to have backed off totally in the wake of the Iowa speech backlash & his third place showing. See this letter from Michael Moore for another opinion on the importance of the Dean camp to keep the pressure on: Michael Moore letter thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 23 Jan 04 - 08:36 PM Glad you're with us, Michael, but what's this bit about Clark switching party affilation? Just because something appears in print doesn't make it true. In this case, it's a lie. Clark was an independent before he registered as a Democrat (common practise in Arkansas and in the military). Ah, but to go on to what isn't really any of our business, Clark says he voted for Reagan and (gasp!) Nixon and George Bush Sr.!!! Did that make him a de facto Republican? If so, he switched "party affiliation" in this very loose sense when he voted first for Clinton and then for Gore -- not exactly a recent switch and not, I think, what sloppy journalists are implying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 23 Jan 04 - 09:37 PM PS. Be very, very careful when you read any or these quick fixes on Clark -- that he's "really" a Republican or "pro-war" (Dean people were distributing fliers proclaiming both of these untruths in New Hampshire, and I must admit that their candidate, whom I'd previously respected, lost all credibility in my eyes -- here he was complaining about "unfair attacks" and telling lies himself, or authorizing them, about the one candidate who hadn't been attacking him at all. Was he that desperate? Obviously yes...) You have to be especially careful of journalistic distortions in Clark's case. First, because he's a highly intelligent man who doesn't see things in black and white. So his lengthy testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2002 can be "cherry picked" for statements that taken violently out of context and strung together "with malice aforethought" (as CJR puts it) give an opposite meaning to what he was in fact telling them -- that we DIDN'T need to wage war. But why the "malice"? Well, that comes to the second reason for caution, which I covered in my previous posting: that the hard core right really is scared of the Dems nominating Clark. They really are ABC (anybody but Clark) to the point of asking their supporters to donate money to competing Dem campaigns. (I know this sounds like gossip, but I posted the link on my last message -- it's for real). And if they're willing to give MONEY, for sure, they're up for twisting a few words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Nerd Date: 24 Jan 04 - 02:14 AM Robinia, Clark went on the record in the British press praising George Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve in Iraq. He also attended GOP fundraisers in 2002, praising Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice as a great team. He raised money for Republican candidates two years ago. So you're right that he's not a republican, technically. But he's not a democrat either. The truth is he'd have gone with any party in order to become President. This is not a sin (many of the founding fathers wanted American politics to be free of parties entirely), but he isn't being honest about it. When first asked if he would have supported the war resolution, he said he probably would have. Then the next day he said he definitely would not have. He attributed this change to "I bobbled the question" (whatever that means--"I waffled because I bobbled! Actually, you got me. I noofled"). So he pretty clearly supported the war at first, from his own comments and from his first answer to this direct question. He does not agree with the way Bush is playing it. Fine, that's the same position as Lieberman takes (or Kerry & Edwards, if his position is that he would not have supported the war if he had known then what he knows now). Again it's not a sin. But he tries to hide it. So Clark is fundamentally dishonest about some of his positions, which makes me nervous. Because he has no record on virtually any issue. Where does he stand on Human Rights? Taxes? Health Care? He TELLS us, but we can't consult a record of accomplishment or policy. He just has to say "I'm pro-choice, pro responsible gun ownership, pro health care, pro-environment, pro-cute-puppy, etc, etc, and we are forced to simply believe him. Why? We can't check because he has no record on any of these issues. Dean's record is long and distinguished. He was elected governor of Vermont five times after he served part of the previous governor's term. Remarkably, he achieved this even though he was a Democrat and they had elected a Republican! (Dean's Republican predecessor died in office). Dean then turned the state around fiscally, improved the State's bond rating, went from huge deficits to balanced budgets, increased jobs by 20 %, and cut taxes twice. He increased funding and fairness for education, implemented health care coverage for children and the working poor, and a real drug plan for seniors. He created a program where every mother who wishes gets visits from a state social worker just to help with child-raising concerns. Since this program started, child abuse has decreased 45 %, and child sexual abuse decreased over 70 %. Dean protected vast tracts of land which will never now be developed. He signed the controversial Civil Unions bill, giving gay couples equal rights to straight married couples. Dean also happens to be against any further federal gun-control legislation, though he supports extending the Brady Bill and implementing gun show background checks, etc. In other words, his position on this is pretty much the same as Clark's. (But Clark is a little tougher on guns at the federal level, which will make him less electable, not more). That's how we know what Dean stands for. He implemented his ideas. He delivered. And he'll deliver again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Teribus Date: 24 Jan 04 - 05:03 AM Well, GUEST 23 Jan 04 - 10:38 AM, as a pig ignorant outsider, observing, the circus that ultimately leads to the selection of the next challenger for the forthcoming Presidential Election. All I see is a popularity contest whereby the Democratic candidates, tear each other apart, in an attempt to advocate not only their own fitness for the office to which they aspire, but the weaknesses and faults of the others. In doing this, they suceed in highlighting the weaknesses of the very arguements and policies with which they hope to convince the American public to vote for and provide more than ample supplies of political ammunition for their opponents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:20 AM Ok, to take your points one by one, Nerd, I don't see that Clark's comments in the British press AFTER the invasion was already launched are nearly as relevant as his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee BEFORE it was launched -- and there, when he hoped to have some influence on our actions, he argued forcefully and at great length against Richard Perle's pro-war testimony. Even in the British press, while praising Bush's 'resolve', he had reservations about what remained to be done (reservations that have been amply vindicated). And yes, he said nice things about Bush & co. at that fundraiser (though he'd already put in print his substantial differences with the Bush team). But, hell, the man's a diplomat (surely no bad thing at this juncture in time); he was hoping (as many Americans hoped) that Bush meant what he said about unifying the nation; he was hoping (like Powell?) for more international direction to American foreign policy. It didn't work, but to say he didn't try is to say that you haven't read his book Waging Modern Warfare, followed his comments as CNN commentator, or of course read his testimony -- it sounds like you've read what the press has chosen to print (including that unfortunate answer to a reporter -- yes it was a "bobble", and it was also the result of trying to be totally honest and wondering if at that time he might not have wanted the president to have "leverage," in other words, doing the kind of thinking out loud and considering all alternatives that I'm doing right now . . .) He's learned that you don't think out loud to reporters, (or make jokes to them, either), but there's not much he can do about the complexity of his thought -- except say, "read the rest of it." And then judge for yourself. Karl Rove is hoping you won't bother. I'm hoping he's wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 24 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM PS. For a quicker rebuttal to the latest Big Lie -- that Clark testified in 2002 before HASC (House Armed Services Committee) FOR the Iraq war when, in fact, he was arguing AGAINST it -- I was going to post a link that doesn't seem to be working from mudcat. So, to quote the whole Kleiman article (www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2004/01/exclusive_falsehood.php): "January 15, 2004 Exclusive falsehood Drudge has a breathless "exclusive" today on the transcript of Wesley Clark's HASC testimony that Digby found three days ago and I commented on yesterday. A reader wants to know what Drudge thinks is "exclusive." I think the answer is pretty obvious: what's exclusive is Drudge's complete misinterpretation of what Clark said. Drudge says that Clark "made the case for war." That is the opposite of the truth. Clark, in his testimony, made it clear that we ought to be ready to go to war, if Iraq failed to disarm and submit to inspections, but that war ought to be a last resort, and that in the absence of any imminent threat continued pressure short of an invasion was the better course. I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that's what's required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war. Is that clear enough? Or is there some part of "I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq" or "solving this problem short of war" that Mr. Drudge needs to have explained to him more slowly? In the course of arguing against going to war, or authorizing the President to go to war, right then, Clark brushed away a number of bad reasons against going to war before getting to the good ones. That's called "intellectual honesty": a virtue with which Drudge, like many of Clark's critics, seems unfamiliar. Among grown-ups, saying "Argument X is a bad argument against Proposition Y" is not the same a saying "I think Proposition Y is true." Be sure to add Drudge to your bookmarks if you want exclusive misinformation delivered directly to your screen. Update: Robert Tagorda, no Clark supporter, agrees. So does Tom Maguire, who says of Clark: "His full remarks are sensible and consistent with what I understand him to have been saying on Iraq." Kudos to both Tagorda and Maguire for crossing partisan lines to defend the truth, and to Glenn Reynolds for linking to Maguire. Intellectual honesty is a rare enough virtue in political discourse to be worth treasuring. Second update: "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has its boots laced." Lou Dobbs repeats Drudge's lie, according to this account at MWO. (I encourage readers to use the MWO click-through to send emails to Dobbs and his boss.) Ed Gillespie, chair of the RNC, is also repeating the lie, according to this Knight-Ridder story. The reporters, Dana Hunt and Drew Brown, do their job properly, reporting the false accusation and simultaneously documenting its falsehood. " THIS IS CRITICAL because it represents what Clark was saying when it mattered, when his testimony was (he hoped) being taken into account. Unfortunately it wasn't. You know, sometimes I feel like a voice wandering in the wilderness, saying "hey, two and two really is four" . . . . I'd give up in despair if I didn't think it mattered to this country, and indeed to the whole world, that we vote George W. Bush out of office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 24 Jan 04 - 04:32 PM PPS. Since this is a Kerry thread, I can't resist sharing a comment from the wesleyclarkweblog: "I'm not interested in having a good nominee, I'm interested in a good President. It might be okay in Massacusetts that Kerry is the most liberal Senator in the country, who threw his country's medals back at the White House. It's even okay with me. But its not going to be okay with the other three-fourths of the country. The nomination of John Kerry, another Northeastern liberal Democrat, means one thing, and one only: four more years of George W. Bush. I don't know how many times we Democrats are going to try this before we get this through our heads." Right. I might add that the press has been trying in vain to get some espression of patriotic outrage from Clark on this issue. Because it really is okay with him too. He really does believe in patriotic dissent. (It's the misnamed Patriot Act that outrages the general) . But my fellow Clark supporter is right, I fear. Kerry won't play well with a lot of decent people who AREN'T all that happy with Bush and who COULD be on our side -- who will be on our side if we have the sense to nominate someone who speaks their language. Like Clark (who comes from small town America). Or like Edwards, you say? Yes, Edwards is an eloquent speaker, with a positive message . . . and a gaping hole in his resume; he dismisses that hole with the comment that "national security is a background concern"; I don't think voters will dismiss it all that easily in November. Not for anyone aspiring to the presidency (vice president, yeah, he could be a real asset!) Which brings us to Dean . . . or maybe Kucinich? The delusion that if you just feel passionately enough about your candidate, the rest of the country will fall into line -- that Bush will be a cinch to topple if we just mobilize the people's anger, or alterately that he's so entrenched that you don't have to think about winning the damn election; you can just "feel good about yourself" for your candidate's wonderful positions? (How curious that Kucinich and Clark have so many actual "positions" in common and come across so differently to voters. . .) Yes, we want to make voters angry; we want them to boot Bush out of office. But we need to make THEM angry ('which isn't the same thing as being angry AT them). And this reporter saw Wesley Clark doing just that. Okay, I'll step down now.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Alice Date: 24 Jan 04 - 04:44 PM I posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. This is my view of the way the media ignored Dean until they had something to laugh at on late night TV talk shows: ------- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi Go Dean. It's not over yet. Other candidates are now trying to copy his style and many actually imitating his words. Alice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,JTT Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:21 PM Every time I see this subject line I have a brief, scary moment when I think the county of Kerry has gone ballistic and is successfully seeking colonies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: robinia Date: 25 Jan 04 - 12:23 AM Thanks for the light touch, Guest! I needed it.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 25 Jan 04 - 02:08 AM Robinia, this is not a Kerry thread. I was just reporting what I heard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 04 - 12:25 PM From a John Kerry bio: "In his role as Senator he has been a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform, and refused to take PAC contributions for his campaign. While still a freshman Senator, John Kerry started an investigation that led to the exposure of the Oliver North's ties with the Contras. He has worked with John McCain extensively to address the issue of Vietnam POW/MIAs, and to normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Senator Kerry has worked with a number of Republicans on public school reform, including changing teacher certification and ending tenure. He broke with many in the Democratic party when he supported the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Throughout his Senate career he has supported the rights of unions to collectively bargain, and has consistently cosponsored legislation to provide federal funds for hiring new fire fighters. "Senator Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are deeply devoted to their family and faith. In his free time Senator Kerry enjoys hunting, sailing, playing the guitar and participating in competitive hockey. In addition, like many fire fighters, Senator Kerry is also an avid Harley-Davidson rider." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: Walking Eagle Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM Playing guitar and riding a Hog? Well, damn Sam, that sure qualifies him to be a 'catter! *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 25 Jan 04 - 05:03 PM Kerry put it very succinctly. He said that bills coming before Congress have good and bad features and you have to weigh which are more important to get through. The Republican controlled Congress bundle the bills with their agenda. Also, there are many versions of the same bill. With a Republican Congress getting any Dem stimulated bills would never get through. It's a trade-off. Some say "flip-flop" and others say "flexibility". It's all spin. Teribus, if you watched the New Hampshire primary debates you would have seen that there was no emnity between any of the candidates toward one another. It was a refreshing sign that the Democrats aren't as split as predicted. Kerry believes that ridding the world of Saddam was important. He actually believed Bush about the phony "military intelligence"and I think now he sees the naivite of that position. He was had big time. I would look to him to lead a veteran's march in protest of the Iraqi war in Washington as he did against the Vietnam war. Everyone, he didn't take PAC money. He mortgaged his house and insists that none of his campaign money is coming from the Heinz fortune.I tend to believe him. He is characterized as a "Washington Insider". I have no problem with that. I would like to see a president that has some understanding of negotiating the treacherous shoals of government. This "anti-government" crap plays right into the hands of the conservatives whose agenda is to practically privatize everything. Maybe some would like their children to be educated by Enron or have Eli Lilly or other drug companies control the price of prescriptions or have wars determined by Halliburton, Brown and Root and have essential programs like welfare taken over by the Religious Right but not me. I'll put my faith in the US government which has some checks and balances left even in spite of the lobbyists and the power brokers who control much of it. The US government has worked well for a long time. Maybe it's time for Big Corporations and their privatized followers to love it or leave it. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry takes Iowa From: GUEST,pdc Date: 25 Jan 04 - 05:10 PM Upthread someone posted about the Drudge Report's take on Clark, and how Drudge omitted enough facts about Clark's speech to make it read exactly the opposite of what it was. A warning -- watch for ellipses in the Drudge Report. Legally, they have to use them, but an ellipse, either . . . or (. . .) signals that material has been cut. Drudge is infamous for this trick. |
