[slow moe]

Drudge has got the early exit polls on his site, and it looks like John F'ing Kerry and the Breck Girl are in the lead.

Now if anyone can explain the differences between their foreign policies, and their stance on small business growth, I would appreciate it.

[Twilly Spree]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4164256

America is conservative not liberal. We are pro war and conservative. Dean doesn't stand a chance to become president.

[Millennium]

Certainly surprising results. And Dean's speech was not exactly a rousing success either; it sounded like something I'd hear from a pro wrestler, not a presidential candidate.

At this point, I'd say it is still too close to call. Iowa is a big loss for Dean, but not insurmountable. Once New Hampshire is in, we'll have a somewhat clearer picture (two states are better than one after all), but it won't be for a few more states that we really see a good picture of what's going on.

At the same time, I expect at least three Democrats to drop out of the race today.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4164256

America is conservative not liberal. We are pro war and conservative. Dean doesn't stand a chance to become president.

A survey of voters entering the caucus sites Monday suggested that what had been Dr. Dean's central appeal — his opposition to the war in Iraq — did him little good on Monday night. Just 14 percent said the war in Iraq had shaped their final decision, even though 75 percent said they opposed the war.

(NYTimes)

[Mithras]

I'm really in a quandary. Like most Democrats my overriding goal is defeating Bush. I'll take any reasonably principled, decent man or woman who I think can do that.

To me, that means Clark or Edwards, on a strictly geographic basis. I think Kerry and Dean are good guys, but who wants Dukakis syndrome? A Clark-Kerry ticket might be nice.

[MacGorilla]

When I heard Kerry won I was shocked. Kerry?? Mister Personality of Wallpaper Kerry? Mister Let Dubya Roll Right Over Him In Congress Kerry?

Strange Days indeed.

[voyageur]

I find it amusing people consider Howard Dean so liberal. You need to go back to Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern to see what really liberal means.

[slow moe]

What are the major differences between Clark and Dean's foreign, domestic, and economic policies?

[maxelson]

I'd love to take the opportunity to remind folks here that Geo HW Bush won Iowa over Ronny R as well.
Iowa ain't a lock. And for the sake of the removal of the current administration, I sure as hell HOPE it ain't a nomination lock. I'm not sure Kerry can win.
A Dean/ Clark ticket would make a good fight.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by Mithras:
I'm really in a quandary. Like most Democrats my overriding goal is defeating Bush. I'll take any reasonably principled, decent man or woman who I think can do that.

To me, that means Clark or Edwards, on a strictly geographic basis. I think Kerry and Dean are good guys, but who wants Dukakis syndrome? A Clark-Kerry ticket might be nice.

Clark has no chance. That guy has less charisma than a sea slug. "Vote for me, I know about the military." That's all he has. "Yeah, these other guys were in the military, but I was a General!" If he won he'd get clobbered by Bush.

I don't know about Edwards. He seems a little slimy to me, but I guess all politicians have a little of that.

Caveat emptor: I will probably vote for Bush unless the Democrat impresses me when they have the presidential debates. I'm one of those "in the middle" voters -- fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
Caveat emptor: I will probably vote for Bush unless the Democrat impresses me when they have the presidential debates. I'm one of those "in the middle" voters -- fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

You find Bush fiscally conservative?

*scratches head*

[BRussell]

Yeah, everyone says they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Who the hell wants that?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You find Bush fiscally conservative?

*scratches head*

Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives borrow and spend.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, everyone says they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Who the hell wants that?

That does seem rather odd - the exact opposite of what most independent voters say they want. Next thing ya know, he'll throw everyone completely off by naming Al Sharpton as his running mate . . .

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
A Dean/ Clark ticket would make a good fight.

I firmly believe that Bush and Cheney would demolish this ticket both in debates and in the general election.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket would a tougher duo to beat.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives borrow and spend.

mind if I amend that?

Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives borrow and spend...
on themselves and their cronies.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
mind if I amend that?

Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives borrow and spend...
on themselves and their cronies.

And remember, according to conservative economics, "Deficits don't matter."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
And remember, according to conservative economics, "Deficits don't matter."

Of course they don't. I mean, its not like its their money. And since taxes are for suckers, they won't have to worry about their friends or family paying it back either.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
mind if I amend that?

Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives borrow and spend...
on themselves and their cronies.

Amended again:

Conservatives borrow and spend on themselves and their cronies; print money whenever they need it.
....Then leave the problems and dept to the next libral in power to fix by raising taxes...thus looking like the bad guy.

(the circle continues)
Librals tax and spend.... repaying borrowed money after the conservatives spending.

[thunderous_funker]

Couple of observations:

1) Even if Dean eventually fails, he did succeed in re-igniting the party, bringing in the youth and defining the party message. Notice how much Kerry and Edwards are talking about taking on the "lobby culture" or "special interests"? If nothing else comes of the Dean Movement, at least he succeeded in getting the Democrats to talk about shyt that really matters.

2) Edwards is almost garaunteed a spot on the ticket. If he doesn't win, he will be the VP for whoever does win. You heard it here first. Its a no-brainer.

3) Drawing on #1, when Kerry co-opts Dean's message and says all the right things to steal Dean's thunder, do you believe him? In the last 2 weeks he finally figured out what people wanted to hear (it was what Dean had been saying all along) so now he's saying it. Does he mean it? Or is this just electioneering?

4) Do you believe Edwards? When a millionare trial lawyer starts in about "the little guy" and how we have 2 Americas, the one for the rich and another for everyone else, do you believe he'll actually do anything about it?

5) I don't understand why Kerry and Edwards are considered more "electable" than Dean. Edwards is practically genetically engineered for TV politics and Kerry is a surprisingly persuasive communicator. Dean got to where he is on sheer content and conviction. His message resonated with Americans, but the real power was that people really believed those were his convictions and not just empty campaign promises. If that isn't "electable", what is? Are we such a TV nation that style counts for so much?

[kindbud]

Liberals like to spend money on social programs and wealth-distribution schemes - in order to feel good about "helping" people.

Conservatives like to spend money on the things like securing the blessings of liberty, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare. Whoa. That sounds like the preamble to the US Constitution.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Liberals like to spend money on social programs and wealth-distribution schemes - in order to feel good about "helping" people.

Conservatives like to spend money on the things like securing the blessings of liberty, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare. Whoa. That sounds like the preamble to the US Constitution.

You mean like $200 Billion for farm subsidies, 80% of which goes to massive agribusinesses and not family farmers?

Or $500 Billion for prescription drugs for old people, instead of solving the essential problem of exorbitant costs in the first place?

Or $200 billion for leaving Afghanistan nearly as bad as we found it or privatizing Iraq?

Or $1.5 billion for the moon? Or $1.5 billion for marriage counseling?

Oh, and wait till the State of Union speech tonight. I predict you'll hear Bush get out the Big Bad Government's checkbook and write bad checks (cuz we're broke) for all kinds of "feel good" social programs in order to buy as many votes as possible. Just wait and see.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Couple of observations:

Are we such a TV nation that style counts for so much?

if style counted kerry wouldn't be in the picture. I'm starting to like Dean a little more. I'm somewhat turned away from him 'cause he seems like kind of a bastard. He goes at people with a butcher knife....and that would be fine except he's not a good butcher.

Now,
Ralph nader was a good butcher

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Are we such a TV nation that style counts for so much?

Yes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Couple of observations:

IMHO, Dean is not presidential material, and the more the people see of him, the more this becomes apparent.

"Coolness under pressure" is an attribute that is neccessary to perform in the Oval Office. Dean has shown repeatedly that he does not possess this attribute - like his admission of hyperventilating when realizing that he was to assume the governorship of population 600,000 Vermont after their governor died, the mishandling of a heckler in Iowa, the whacky off-the-cuff remarks regarding Saddam/Bin Laden, and his weird and scary response after finishing 3rd in Iowa.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Couple of observations:

1) Even if Dean eventually fails, he did succeed in re-igniting the party, bringing in the youth and defining the party message. Notice how much Kerry and Edwards are talking about taking on the "lobby culture" or "special interests"? If nothing else comes of the Dean Movement, at least he succeeded in getting the Democrats to talk about shyt that really matters.

No Democrats other than Dean have talked about special interests? No, I think what he's succeeded in doing is energizing the anti-Dean people. He's shown what Dems don't want.

2) Edwards is almost garaunteed a spot on the ticket. If he doesn't win, he will be the VP for whoever does win. You heard it here first. Its a no-brainer.

Good call. And Gephardt is guaranteed a spot in the new administration.

3) Drawing on #1, when Kerry co-opts Dean's message and says all the right things to steal Dean's thunder, do you believe him? In the last 2 weeks he finally figured out what people wanted to hear (it was what Dean had been saying all along) so now he's saying it. Does he mean it? Or is this just electioneering?

I haven't noticed that. I've heard him talk about how important it is to be strong on defense and foreign policy - a clear dig at Dean - and to not raise taxes on the middle class - another clear dig at Dean.

4) Do you believe Edwards? When a millionare trial lawyer starts in about "the little guy" and how we have 2 Americas, the one for the rich and another for everyone else, do you believe he'll actually do anything about it?

Don't really believe it, but who do you believe? Dean, an aristocratic millionaire physician?

5) I don't understand why Kerry and Edwards are considered more "electable" than Dean. Edwards is practically genetically engineered for TV politics and Kerry is a surprisingly persuasive communicator. Dean got to where he is on sheer content and conviction. His message resonated with Americans, but the real power was that people really believed those were his convictions and not just empty campaign promises. If that isn't "electable", what is? Are we such a TV nation that style counts for so much?

They're not more electable because of their superficial qualities. They're more electable because of their policy positions on things like taxes and foreign policy. I don't think Dean got high in the polls because of content - I think it's just the opposite. He got where he is/was through a take-no-**** attitude toward Bush, in a time when Dems are angry and frustrated about Bush's presidency. It was Dean who got where he is on style, and now people are starting to think a little more carefully about that style as well as the substance, and, at least in Iowa, decided that it wouldn't fly.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Liberals like to spend money on social programs and wealth-distribution schemes - in order to feel good about "helping" people.

Conservatives like to spend money on the things like securing the blessings of liberty, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare. Whoa. That sounds like the preamble to the US Constitution.

Social programs are promoting the general welfare. Even though it doesn't seem like it, distributing money where it's seemingly undeserved greatly increases the efficiency of the nation and the economy. You can't have money flowing in only one direction with a dead end, but that is one of the flaws of capitalism; and that is why there are economic down turns. Money needs to be redistributed from the top to the bottom, not accumulated at the top and the rich will get richer and the poor will get richer, 'because the bottom is where the spending/working class is, the rich just don't see it in the long run because they're republican and their stupid. (ok just kidding bout the stupid thing).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
IMHO, Dean is not presidential material, and the more the people see of him, the more this becomes apparent.

"Coolness under pressure" is an attribute that is neccessary to perform in the Oval Office. Dean has shown repeatedly that he does not possess this attribute - like his admission of hyperventilating when realizing that he was to assume the governorship of population 600,000 Vermont after their governor died, the mishandling of a heckler in Iowa, the whacky off-the-cuff remarks regarding Saddam/Bin Laden, and his weird and scary response after finishing 3rd in Iowa.

Translation: I want someone who looks good on TV, not someone who very passionately means what he says.

I'm not surprised. It seems that is the general consensus. You're certainly not alone in your position.

How's this for a humdinger? How did the former owner of the texas rangers suddenly become "presidential"? An embarrasing military record, a sordid personal character past, a total failure as a business man and very dodgy record as governor of a state in all kinds of crisis who literally embarassed himself when asked questions about foreign policy during his campaign (like who the president of Pakistan was..) and ran on a platform of non-interventionism, sensible tax cuts in time of prosperity and small government.

Do people pay attention to anything beyond what liars say on TV any more? How does some idiot on TV saying something suddenly make it true against all verifiable facts in the real world??

Yeah. I'm really feeling disillusioned. Again. Once again we're gonna be stuck with the government that people deserve because they are so utterly and completely gullible.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
They're not more electable because of their superficial qualities. They're more electable because of their policy positions on things like taxes and foreign policy.

You mean like voting for the war? Voting for the privatization of Iraq? Lying down like doormats for Bush at every single turn?

From where I sit, there is a massive gap between Kerry's rhetoric and his record. In the last 6 months he abstained on several big votes on big issues when he claims to have a passionate and principled position. I don't get that.

And Dean's record as governor speaks for itself. He's done all the things he taks about--healthcare, tax equity, social investment, civil rights, balanced budgets, etc.

I don't believe him because of who he is or where he is from or how good he looks on TV. I believe him because he's actually done it. How's that for a novelty in American politics? Candidates with a record of doing exactly what they are advocating.

[Millennium]

Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives tax and spend.

Deal with it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Translation: I want someone who looks good on TV, not someone who very passionately means what he says.

Actually, it's more like 'I want someone who won't disintegrate in the face of disaster'. That's what killed McCain in 2000; lots of people, Democrat and Republican alike (and myself included), really liked him, but his temper scared too many people away from actually voting for him when the time came to nominate a Republican candidate. And, perhaps, rightfully so; can you imagine what would have happened had he been in charge on 9/11? If Bush is a hawk, McCain would have been a rabid wolverine.

Dean, it seems, basically went nuts after placing 3rd. I don't want someone who can't keep his composure in the face of such a small defeat -and it is small, compared to what a sitting President can face- at the head of my nation or any other.

Don't forget; we're not just electing an ideology here, we are electing a person. That has some important ramifications which must not be ignored.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
if style counted kerry wouldn't be in the picture.

That's just it ... Kerry embodies precisely the kind of generic non-style that we increasingly demand in our leaders, a kind of unassuming plainness that make lazy voters think "He's just like me!" Truly charismatic politicians like Reagan and Clinton are few and far between, and Dean certainly is no Clinton. But Dean, love him or hate him, does have a passion that is completely unfeigned, and it's a shame that that quality is frightening to so many people. It really baffles me. Why do we insist that our leaders be these smiling milquetoasts?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Liberals tax and spend.
Conservatives tax and spend.

Deal with it.

Sorry, but there is a difference, even if only in who gets taxed and where the money goes.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sorry, but there is a difference, even if only in who gets taxed and where the money goes.

Not really. Each group wants to take money from one set of people and give it to another, based on arguments which basically reduce to circular logic, with only the occasional valid point on both sides of the fence.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I don't believe him because of who he is or where he is from or how good he looks on TV. I believe him because he's actually done it. How's that for a novelty in American politics? Candidates with a record of doing exactly what they are advocating.

I agree, and that's what endears me to him. I don't agree with all of his positions, but he's actually accomplished the things he talks about and has shown some real conviction. When Dean attacked the Iowa caucus for being undemocratic all I could say was 'it's about time someone did.' He's also one of those rare candidates that actually says what he thinks without consulting the opinion polls. Frankly -- Kerry and Edwards just strike me as bland, artificial candidates with safe, unchallenging opinions. They're Al Gore with a little bit more social appeal.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not really. Each group wants to take money from one set of people and give it to another, based on arguments which basically reduce to circular logic, with only the occasional valid point on both sides of the fence.

not sure that really negates what I said.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Translation: I want someone who looks good on TV, not someone who very passionately means what he says.

Wrong. I want my President to remain composed in the face of pressure and adversity. Dean loses it.

BTW: Anyone else wondering WTF is going on with all the Yale presidencies and candidates? Talk about a recruiting slogan (not that they need one).

George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton (grad degree)
George W. Bush

John Kerry
Howard Dean
Joseph Lieberman

It would be interesting to study the behind-the-scenes Yalie power brokers who have been so successful at continually propelling it's alumni to the upper echelon of US leadership.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not sure that really negates what I said.

You said there's a difference. I say there isn't one.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It would be interesting to study the behind-the-scenes Yalie power brokers who have been so successful at propelling it's alumni to the heights of US leadership.

Oh dear God, please no more Skull-And-Bones conspiracy theories...

[BRussell]

Millennium, why did two terms of Clinton produce a surplus whereas Reagan, Bush, and Bush have produced huge deficits? Is it not because spending increased less and tax revenue increased more under Clinton than the others?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It would be interesting to study the behind-the-scenes Yalie power brokers who have been so successful at continually propelling it's alumni to the upper echelon of US leadership.

AFAIK, Havard still has the most. But at least Georgetown can claim one president -- even if it was Clinton.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Oh dear God, please no more Skull-And-Bones conspiracy theories...

Well, actually, I'd like to see that, too.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Oh dear God, please no more Skull-And-Bones conspiracy theories...

it's hardly a conspiracy theory anymore,some of its members are pretty much blatantly open about it. have you seen the Bohemian grove issue? That is scarier, and more freakier than the skull & bones, and yet Bush is an acknowledged member,as well as virtualyl every other powerful person in the US.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Millennium, why did two terms of Clinton produce a surplus whereas Reagan, Bush, and Bush have produced huge deficits? Is it not because spending increased less and tax revenue increased more under Clinton than the others?

it was a result of the economic rebound more than anything else. The huge deficit we had became a surplus in just a 6-month period.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Oh dear God, please no more Skull-And-Bones conspiracy theories...

I didn't mention Skull and Bones because I think the Yalie power infrastructure extends far beyond just that one society. Besides, only the Bushes and Kerry were Skull-and-Bones AFAIK.

We very well could be looking at 20+ consecutive years of Presidents with Yale degrees. That's an awfully impressive coincidence.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
it was a result of the economic rebound more than anything else. The huge deficit we had became a surplus in just a 6-month period.

Then why didn't the "Reagan miracle" result in surpluses too, rather than massive debt? There are always economic recessions and rebounds, but why do we sometimes produce surplus and sometimes debt?

[BlackGriffen]

Dean's speech after Iowa was, shall we say, not good looking on TV. My understanding of it is that it was like a (hoarse) coach rallying the team. Inappropriate? No, especially considering how unrealistically high expectations were running. It was "unpresidential." That's right, Dean's sin is that he doesn't act like a neutered, lifeless, boob in front of the camera.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Dean's speech after Iowa was, shall we say, not good looking on TV. My understanding of it is that it was like a (hoarse) coach rallying the team. Inappropriate? No, especially considering how unrealistically high expectations were running. It was "unpresidential." That's right, Dean's sin is that he doesn't act like a neutered, lifeless, boob in front of the camera.

BlackGriffen

I think his fundamental problem is he just doesn't think TV. His actions were perfectly appropriate for the people in that room. After all, they loved it and were whoopin it up.

What is awkward is the TV audience looking in on what should be a backroom at campaign headquarters kinda deal, rather than a chance to "address the nation".

The other candidates had a prepared message that was clearly aimed at the TV audience primarily.

Someone in Dean's campaign has got to start stage managing this thing for TV better or all the substance in the world won't change the fact that he won't escape the perception box that the media and pundits put him in.

The "angry" thing still baffles me. I've never seen him angry. Even his "red meat" thingy last night wasn't angry. Over-the-top enthusiasm? Shameless hoorah-ing? Sophomoric? Maybe. But he looked like he was having a helluva lot of fun and laughing a lot for someone who was alledgedly angry.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Dean's speech after Iowa was, shall we say, not good looking on TV. My understanding of it is that it was like a (hoarse) coach rallying the team. Inappropriate? No, especially considering how unrealistically high expectations were running. It was "unpresidential." That's right, Dean's sin is that he doesn't act like a neutered, lifeless, boob in front of the camera.

He looked and acted like a psychopath.

BTW: Look for Dean to be waving a lot of flags over the next few weeks. An embedded reporter mentioned that the Dean camp, in a campaign shift made once the Iowa results started to come in, frantically purchased boxes of flags. Once the flags arrived on-site, the entire room was ordered to wave the flags and be enthusiastic once they were on the air.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
...but why do we sometimes produce surplus and sometimes debt?

Because sometimes we bring in more than we are spending, and other times we spend more than we bring in.