[BRussell]

Have you noticed how all the ring-wingers are endorsing Dean for the Democratic nomination? Hmmm...

Bill Kristol here.

So we will have a choice, not an echo. This is perhaps as it should be. In polls, a majority of the Democratic party is anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush Doctrine, and anti-Bush's overall conception of the war on terror. Most of the country, on the other hand, basically supports Bush's foreign policy. That's why the president now runs ahead of his Democratic opponents, and why he must be favored in this election. But if the country is split about 60-40 on the most fundamental choice facing it, and if the bulk of one party is strongly opposed to the policy being promulgated by a president of the other party, the opposition presumably deserves a chance in the presidential election to take its argument to the country. They're going to get it.

And they may persuade some more people. Who knows how the world will look 10 months from now? Who knows what unforeseeable contingencies, capricious events, unpreventable setbacks, or errors in execution by the Bush administration might combine to give greater credence to critics of the Bush foreign policy? In any event, even if things do go reasonably well, it would be a mistake--perhaps a fatal mistake--for the Bush administration, or its supporters, to assume victory in 2004 will be easy.

Andrew Sullivan here.

Dean represents an opportunity for honesty, for relief, for a true cultural clash. At this point, in this divided nation, I think it's riskier to avoid that clash than to give it an opportunity to be explored and democratically decided. That's especially the case after the Dems' excruciating loss last time around. Do I think Dean would be buried in November? Maybe. But maybe not. Bush is vulnerable in many ways; and Dean is a conviction politician. We haven't seen someone with his ideological ferocity since the 1980s. He may command the respect even of those who disagree with him, which is why I think he's smart not to go all apologetic under the friendly fire of the primaries. Nasty will serve him well. Either the Dems nose-dive under his leadership and then reinvent themselves under Hillary; or they revive themselves as a party of the uncompromising left under his leadership. And why the hell not? It's what a lot of people believe in - all across blue America. If John Ashcroft can be attorney-general, representing the extreme fringe of evangelical fervor, why the hell shouldn't a Northeastern, secular, big-government liberal be given a shot at the presidency? If I were a Dem, I'd support him. And feel a lot better for it.

Jonah Goldberg in the Washington Times.

Which brings me to third reason I want him to be nominated: I think he'd lose badly (unless the economy and Iraq tank). And when Dean loses 40 states, I'd like to see him say, "I meant to do that."

[Millennium]

I can actually see them doing this. It's good political chess.

Think about it. Of the nine Democratic candidates, there are really only two of them that have any real chance of beating Bush: Dean and Clark. Of those two, Clark has the better chance, because he has better appeal with the moderates. Dean's almost as much of a polarizing factor as Bush is, and so the "divisive" moniker would sting more.

Given that, the neocons want Dean to get the nomination. It's a matter of risk management; Bush has a better chance of beating Dean than he would of beating Clark.

[davesimondotcom]

Don't forget Peggy Noonan's article about how she wants to like Dean...

Is Sullivan a "neocon" - or should he be called a Log Cabineocon?

[roger_ramjet]

Jonah Goldberg has said he's not a neocon. Andrew Sullivan has rejected the neoconservative label too. He prefers "South Park Republican". Peggy Noonan also isn't a neocon.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Jonah Goldberg has said he's not a neocon. Andrew Sullivan has rejected the neoconservative label too. He prefers "South Park Republican". Peggy Noonan also isn't a neocon.

Aha, denial! Typical neocon ploy.

[ink]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Think about it. Of the nine Democratic candidates, there are really only two of them that have any real chance of beating Bush: Dean and Clark

Gephardt? Kerry?

Clark scares me; he looks undead (and no, that's not the only reason he scares me).

[The Ayatollah]

Dean has no chance in a real election if the economy continues to improve and Iraq improves (or he starts bringing back larges #s of troops near election time.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by ink:
Gephardt? Kerry?

Clark scares me; he looks undead (and no, that's not the only reason he scares me).

Gephardt: Politics as usual. Folks will recognize that.
Kerry: As a Massachusetts native I have this to say: Just say no. PLEASE.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Dean has no chance in a real election if the economy continues to improve and Iraq improves (or he starts bringing back larges #s of troops near election time.

apparently you've not been reading the papers lately on the economy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Gephardt: Politics as usual. Folks will recognize that.
Kerry: As a Massachusetts native I have this to say: Just say no. PLEASE.

OT: hi max! /OT

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ink:
Gephardt? Kerry?

Gephardt has different politics from Bush, but his demeanor and skills are remarkably similar. He may command some support from the Anyone-But-Bush crowd, but the parallels are similar enough that they may well turn off voters at the polls.

Kerry doesn't have the voter base at this point. He also lacks the raw charisma of Dean, Bush, and Clark, and that will hurt his chances of broadening his voter base.

Clark scares me; he looks undead (and no, that's not the only reason he scares me).

Care to elaborate? Clark scares me, but that's mostly as a fan of Babylon 5. I get chills -and not the good kind- thinking of a President Clark in office. That would be true no matter his politics; it's the name that bothers me. Which really isn't very nice, but I can't help it any more than he can help what his name is.

I'm still wary of the current crop of Democrat candidates; all of them are likely to swing the pendulum too far the other way (it will swing -it must- but so far all of them are aiming too far past where it needs to go). Clark seems to be the one most likely to know when enough is enough.

[el chupacabra]

Why would anyone vote for Dean? The guys a psychotic bastard. He scares me.... I can just see him using that line he used the other day again, but next time it would be something like, " [insert several country's names here] you sit down! you've had your say now I'm going to have mine! ahahhahaaa".

Of course I'll end up having to vote for him if he's the only one that has a chance of beating bush since its better to exchange one hitler for a better hitler, but either way this is going to be a monkey race.

Why do americans seek out the stupidest, evil-est, insane-est people as their respected role models?

[BlackGriffen]

He let the guy lecture him for three minutes, at his own rally, to the boos and hisses of the audience. The guy stopped, Dean started back up, the old prick decided to interrupt him, and Dean wouldn't stand for it. What, you don't want the man to stand up for himself?

Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

BlackGriffen

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
He let the guy lecture him for three minutes, at his own rally, to the boos and hisses of the audience. The guy stopped, Dean started back up, the old prick decided to interrupt him, and Dean wouldn't stand for it. What, you don't want the man to stand up for himself?

Was it even three minutes? You're complaining about this citizen's "lecture" to Dean. Heaven forbid Dean actually listen to someone other than those who already support him. If all you're interested in is preaching to the choir, well, have it your way.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Was it even three minutes? You're complaining about this citizen's "lecture" to Dean. Heaven forbid Dean actually listen to someone other than those who already support him. If all you're interested in is preaching to the choir, well, have it your way.

Here is the AP story.

[...]
Dale Ungerer, a retiree from Hawkeye, Iowa, lectured Dean for nearly three minutes near the end of a forum aimed at winning voters for Iowa's Jan. 19 caucuses.
[...]
Ungerer accused Dean and other Democratic presidential hopefuls of dividing the country by bashing Bush instead of outlining their own plans and showing respect for authority.

"Please tone down the garbage, the mean mouthing, the tearing down of your neighbor and being so pompous," Ungerer told the former Vermont governor and Democratic front-runner. "You should help your neighbor and not tear him down."

"George Bush is not my neighbor," Dean replied.

"Yes, he is," Ungerer said, to which Dean responded: "You sit down. You've had your say and now I'm going to have my say."
[...]

Dean let the man have his say. He listened, without interrupting, and when the guy contradicted and probably interrupted him, Dean dressed him down for his rudeness.

What, you'd rather have a candidate who lets people walk all over him?

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Why do americans seek out the stupidest, evil-est, insane-est people as their respected role models?

dunno. *shrugs*

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Here is the AP story.

Dean let the man have his say. He listened, without interrupting, and when the guy contradicted and probably interrupted him, Dean dressed him down for his rudeness.

What, you'd rather have a candidate who lets people walk all over him?

BlackGriffen

He said, "Yes, he is." That's it. This is being rude? Are you people so insecure that merely contradicting someone is "walking all over him"? Dean started by contradicting the man. So only one side gets to do the contradicting?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
He said, "Yes he is." That's it. This is being rude? Are you people so insecure that merely contradicting someone is "walking all over him"? Dean started by contradicting the man. So only one side gets to do the contradicting?

Contradicting isn't the problem. As I said, he probably interrupted him.

The contradiction bit is gravy.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

I guess Dean should start orchestrating his public appearences and only allow pre-approved "journalists" with pre-approved softball questions into his events like Dubya.

Oh and only have a couple of them a year.

Don't you love American politics? Dean's critics hate him for alledgedly not focusing on issues and engaging in personal attacks.

Let the irony sink in for a minute.

[kindbud]

interesting factoid:

The DNC has always given the nomination to the candidate that raises the most money.

There's your answer to "who's gonna win the Democratic nomination?"

did somebody say Gephardt?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by kindbud:
interesting factoid:

The DNC has always given the nomination to the candidate that raises the most money.

Awfully cynical of you...

There's your answer to "who's gonna win the Democratic nomination?"

did somebody say Gephardt?

Last I checked, Geppy was behind both Dean and Clark.

BlackGriffen

[kindbud]

Not cynical. Fact.

Keep your eye on the AFL-CIO's wallet.

They love Gephardt.

It's too early to tell who will have the most money.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Not cynical. Fact.

Keep your eye on the AFL-CIO's wallet.

They love Gephardt.

It's too early to tell who will have the most money.

The old school industrial unions love the old warhorse. The service union and the government employees union (both huge and politically savvy) have backed Dean. the AFL-CIO as a whole won't be able to make up its mind until Gep or Dean drop.

If Gep loses Iowa, his campaign will die quick. If Gep wins Iowa, it may die slow.

I'm saying you're cynical because of the way you say the DNC chooses the leader, instead of that whole primary and convention thing.

BlackGriffen

[kindbud]

I suppose it could also be said that the DNC nominates the 'most popular' candidate - as opposed to the 'most well-financed' candidate. The two are nearly always the same person.

The fact remains that the candidate with the most money at the time of the convention has, historically, ALWAYS recieved the nomination.

Let's see if it still holds true this year.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm saying you're cynical because of the way you say the DNC chooses the leader, instead of that whole primary and convention thing.

BlackGriffen

well...the republicans ARE familiar with elections that are manipulated beyond the reach of the voter.
Perhaps that's the only way they can view elections anymore.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well...the republicans ARE familiar with elections that are manipulated beyond the reach of the voter.
Perhaps that's the only way they can view elections anymore.

As opposed to the Democrats who believe that every vote should count. Two or three times. [edit: except overseas active duty armed services personnel]


(that's why the neocons have to 'fix' things sometimes)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by kindbud:
The fact remains that the candidate with the most money at the time of the convention has, historically, ALWAYS recieved the nomination.

Wait, you're talking about money at convention time? You do realize that the perception of being a winner (by winning primaries) helps one's fundraising a lot, don't you?

BlackGriffen

[kindbud]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Wait, you're talking about money at convention time? You do realize that the perception of being a winner (by winning primaries) helps one's fundraising a lot, don't you?

BlackGriffen

dude.

I don't give a rat's behind who the DNC nominates nor how they do it.

I'm simply telling you a fact that I thought was interesting.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by kindbud:
dude.

I don't give a rat's behind who the DNC nominates nor how they do it.

I'm simply telling you a fact that I thought was interesting.

The RNC, OTOH, always grants their nomination to the one who is most Christlike. Or is it the one with the biggest penis? I can't remember.

[pooka]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The RNC, OTOH, always grants their nomination to the one who is most Christlike. Or is it the one with the biggest penis? I can't remember.

False. I have never received the nomination.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
dude.

I don't give a rat's behind who the DNC nominates nor how they do it.

I'm simply telling you a fact that I thought was interesting.

*almost hesitates to ask* Exactly how do you think the primary process works?
If I understand you correctly, I think you are mistaken in the mechanics of the process.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*almost hesitates to ask* Exactly how do you think the primary process works?
If I understand you correctly, I think you are mistaken in the mechanics of the process.

The 'primary process' doesn't accomplish anything.

The DNC chooses their nominee - the winner isn't based on votes.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
The 'primary process' doesn't accomplish anything.

The DNC chooses their nominee - the winner isn't based on votes.

then why are votes cast?