What an unbeatable ticket during a time of war

[NNN0LHI]

[Joe the Revelator]

1. What do you think the chances are

that we get that lucky?

[hellhathnofury]

2. Way to let them frame the debate.

Capitulation is patriotic.

[HFishbine]

4. Yep.

Welcome to the softer side of fear.

[redqueen]

10. It's the New Democrat way!

Back the WTO, support military action in case of 'developing' threats, let the jobs go to India...

*sigh*

[krkaufman]

17. I guarantee that those policies will continue..

... if you elect Bush/To-Be-Named this Fall.

With a Dem President, even if it's Kerry, we stand a chance of fighting back against the Republican-controlled Congress and Supreme Court. It will be up to us, once he's elected, to keep the pressure on him to make sure he's not another Bill Clinton Republican-light President.

Edwards and Dean (and Dennis and Al) stand a slim chance of defeating Bush were they to be nominated. I'd much rather put my support behind someone who can implement 30% of my agenda, rather than someone who insures implementation of 100% of the opponents'.

[redqueen]

22. This I know

This is why I don't support Kerry. He's no different that bush IN THIS REGARD. (to ward off the histrionics of the less nuanced)

This is why I support someone who will be DIFFERENT.

You think that Kerry has a better chance of beating bush. Great.

I'll say to you that Kerry has less of a chance than any of them because he's all over the place on nearly every issue.

What everyone should be suspicious of is this:

Why wasn't AWOL an issue to the media in 2000? Why is it suddenly now getting attention?

[krkaufman]

35. Heard it before... "No difference between Gore and Bush"

> Why wasn't AWOL an issue to the media in 2000?

Because the media meme was "Gore the liar", after 8 years of Repugnant attacks on the Clinton Administration. Smirky McChimp was given a free pass across the board, not just on AWOL, if you care to recall. e.g. Houston schools "miracle", Governor of big state (though little power, in actuality), cocaine, drug abuse and alcoholism, (abortion?), etc.


> Why is it suddenly now getting attention?

Ummm... Because Shrub has totally fucked our country, maybe? And the media feels it's now not wholly un-American to question the Wad-in-Chief.

And please note that I said the remaining non-Kerry candidates stand a "slim chance" of defeating The Smirk, not no chance. But I feel this election is too critical to play for a tie. I'd have rather gone in with our strongest candidate (to be specific, Wes Clark), but that appears undoable at this juncture; I'll have to accept 2nd best.

Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton all would be less viable/competitive against Bush in the Fall, primarily due to a total lack of national security experience. The American people are currently controlled by fear; and the domestic issues won't enter into the campaign unless we can deflect the underlying national security concerns.


> I'll say to you that Kerry has less of a chance than
> any of them because he's all over the place on nearly
> every issue.

OK. We'll differ on this, then. But I repeat that "nearly every (other) issue" won't matter a hill of beans if Rove has the American people pissing themselves in fear over national security concerns.

Let's campaign to make Kucinich the Secretary of Health and Human Services, eh? Or Housing and Urban Development? Other?

[redqueen]

40. LOL I didn't say that, but nice try!

And I even tried to be specific about how they were too much alike. Alas...

So anyway, you really believe that now the press are all just good Americans doing the best they can?

You believe that their epiphany about who bush was and what he was doing to our country just occurred in the last week?

[krkaufman]

44. Nope. Misstatements and misinterpretations

> So anyway, you really believe that now the press are
> all just good Americans doing the best they can?

Nope. Still view them nearly wholly as gutless, corporate mediawhores... but now that a majority of the American people appear to be turning against Bush (according to polling), they view it as safe and not as detrimental to their profits.


> You believe that their epiphany about who bush was and
> what he was doing to our country just occurred in the
> last week?

Nope. Didn't put a timeframe on it. But it's been building over time, and has gained momentum in sync with public opinion -- especially since the non-effects of capturing Saddam.

Another major contributing factor has been the Democratic Pres campaign process, with 9 campaigns out there continually bashing the Chimp. I think that's helped wake people up, too. (And the media follows, rather than leads.)

[Monte Carlo]

13. The debate has already been framed

To some extent, anyway.

If the Democratic nominee is talking about schools and hospitals while Bush and his friends are going non-stop about the threats to the nation, the outcome would be disastrous.

[krkaufman]

14. Methinks ye doth protest too much

Siggie and moniker sum it up pretty well.

A wise, reasoned decision made for the greater good is not capitulation. And cannibalizing fellow Democratic candidates is NOT exemplary of new, fresh outsider politics; it is desperation.

[JasonDeter]

23. The American people are not that naive.

Wes Clark is a man of character. For him to stand there with John Kerry and endorse him is for me very moving and hightens my respect for both men. I have a very high regard for Wes Clark and a renewed respect for John Kerry. Wes Clark has proved himself to be a Democrat by his speeches, by his actions and by endorsing Kerry he has shown a great Democratic principle of getting behind the person who IS the nominee, for the purpose of uniting the party, so that person can concentrate on beating the most hated man in the world: bush*. Good for Clark! Lets hope the other Democratic candidates have the stuff Clark is made of!

[revcarol]

30. And Kerry/Clark think that the bloated defense budget is no threat to the

nation?

Think of all the harbors and cities we could have protected by using 40 BILLION $$, then 87 BILLION $$, then heaven knows how much against REAL TERROR?

Think of all the first responders we could pay and train to act against REAL TERROR.

Think of all the chemical plants and nuclear power plants we could have protected against REAL TERROR with that money.

And think of all the mon;ey that Kerry is going to spend putting 40,000 additional troops into THE OCCUPATION WHEN THE MONEY IS NEEDED FOR SECURITY AT HOME!!

BTW, didn't Clark say he would reduce the defense budget some as President. Guess he has just SOLD OUT!!

DREAM TEAM MY PATOOTIE!! They want us LESS SAFE!!

[JasonDeter]

33. I have no problem with the defence budget.

To talk about cutting it in this day and age is naive. Repealing the tax cuts and increasing the taxes on the bush*ies and those in that tax bracket will go a long way in fixing alot of the problems facing the country today. There are alot of extremely wealthy people in the country today who aren't paying for the priviliage of living in this country. Corporations are practically stealing from the American people because of corporate welfare. Countries who have are the beneficiaries of the export of American jobs and pay slave wages should have to pay tarifs on the imports. There are many ways to pay for the things you mentioned WITHOUT cutting defence. America is not a cheap country but the bush*ies have made us look cheap.

[redqueen]

34. Unless you're talking about raising the rate significantly

this won't help.

Please consider the effect that the new middle-class job losses will have on tax receipts.

Remember that truism about the tax burden being carried by the middle class? Those are the people currently unable to find work again after years of looking.

[JasonDeter]

50. Can you tell me whats wrong with this Cato Institute analysis?

There is a glaring example of republican era lie here, can you spot it?

Cato Institute analysis pre Reagan years and post Reagan Years up to Clinton years.

Executive Summary

Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 261 (HTML)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

[redqueen]

51. Not right off no

Which statement is the lie?

[JasonDeter]

55. All that BS about pre reagan and post reagan

and look at the last line in what I cut and paste from the article.

"and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's."

A brave President needs to use the bully pulpit to force the congress to raise taxes!
Reagan raised taxes, bush1 raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes. bush* 2 ran on being the MBA pResident and look what a pathetic mess he's made with the economy!

[krkaufman]

36. Get your facts straight. Clark is for trimming defense budget.

I'm not sure what Kerry's stance is, but I *know* Clark has stated that the defense budget needs to be trimmed and directed to resources relevant to today's potential threats.

And who stands a better chance of getting public and Congressional support for addressing the out-of-control defense budget than one (or TWO) military men at the top of the executive branch of government?

...self-referencing, somewhat, but will continue looking for related quotes...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_clark.html

He (Clark) says Eisenhower was correct to "beware the military-industrial complex," and would reduce the defense budget by one quarter.

More good info on defense spending...
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/spinney.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript245_full.html
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spinney_testimony_060402.htm

[redqueen]

41. You're right of course

But who's in the P slot and who's the VP?

Whose agenda do you think gets pushed / implemented?

[krkaufman]

46. Agreed.

So long as the facts regarding Clark's position are straight. But I can't speak currently for Kerry's position on the issue.

Regardless, it will be on us to keep pressure on a Democratic administration -- whoever it is -- to make sure they don't tilt right of center again, like Illbay Intonclay.

[redqueen]

49. lol

Agreed. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. Wes said would REDUCE the Defense spending.

I don't know how much "pull" he would have as a VP, but he did say that when he was campaigning. I have no clue what Kerry's position on the Defense spending is and I really don't give a shit. I don't plan on voting for him.

[retyred]

3. It's the dream team

retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[BL_Zebub]

52. Freddy Krueger has inspired better dreams than ANY Kerry ticket.

Maybe Freddy should be the nominee.

"Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue"

[CWebster]

5. Tell that to the parents of the 500+ soldiers

who died for a lie Kerry endorsed.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

7. how would kerry know that bush was lying? just asking

[HFishbine]

9. That's a great question

And here's a great answer from Kucinich's press secretary:

"The Coming October War in Iraq, and How You Can Stop It"

http://www.lexingtonjpc.org/Scott_Ritter_Boston_723.html (Jul-24-02)

Notice that the call to action is directed at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes John Kerry.

[Skip Intro]

11. Why does Kerry still support the invasion?

Ok, he was lied into support, I can accept that. But he still supports going in - even after realizing the whole thing was a sham, he still supports it - doesn't he? Why?

[JackRiddler]

12. How did 23 other senators know Bush was lying?

How did I know? How did Hans Blix know? How did Scott Ritter know? How did millions of antiwar activists know? How did William Rivers Pitt know? How did Kucinich know? How did the majority of people on DU figure it out? How did the foreign media know? Was Kerry the only that smart who was fooled?

[krkaufman]

37. Hey, we all had a chance to get behind the right candidate

Hey, we all had a chance to get behind a candidate who was against the Iraq war; who has the national security credentials to deflect all BushRovian "weak on defense" smears; who has the military credentials to gain support for resetting the defense budget for addressing real threats; who has the economics background to understand and address the economic mess we're in; who has the integrity and respect to heal divides between the political parties and between the US and international allies and bodies.

We gave up the ideal candidate and are now left with a lesser of 5 evils choice. And I'll go with the evil that stands the best chance of winning this Fall.

My "electability" rankings...

Clark
Kerry
Edwards
Dean
Kucinich
Sharpton

... with The Chimp sliding up and down the scale depending on the circumstances, as they develop.

[bushisagungrabber]

20. lying is a great BFEE tradition and Kerry knows that

BCCI, Iran/Contra, S & L scandal...
He knows better than anybody else.

[redqueen]

24. LOL - he did all those glorious investigations

and still sides with the other team.

What an asset!

[bushisagungrabber]

27. Not only that

Nothing real ever came out of it. No major heads have rolled
for it <---that's really indicative of what is going on.

[Carolina]

26. because past is prologue

and Bush has always lied.

Moderate: no
Compassionate: no
Served his country: no

[Carolina]

28. exactly, check this out

John Kerry's Broken Promise on the War by John C. Bonifaz

There is a test as a commander in chief as to when you send young Americans off to war, Senator Kerry said at that New Hampshire debate. You got to be able to look in the eyes of a family and say you exhausted every possibility and you only sent their son or daughter to die because you had no other choice.

I believe George Bush failed that test in Iraq, the senator continued. I said so at the time??

In fact, the senator did not say anything at the time. Like so many of his colleagues in Congress, Senator Kerry remained on the sidelines as the president marched the nation into this reckless war. And, because of that, the senator shares today the burden of responsibility for its consequences.


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0212-01.htm

[sadiesworld]

6. The dems will be largely ieffectual in framing the debate until there is

some liberal/objective media. For now, winning is good.

[Monte Carlo]

8. That's what I was thinking - use Bush's sole issue against him.

AWOL would try, but it'd be pretty hard to lecture a retired Lt. and Gen. on matters of national security.

That, or Bush would have to run on his domestic record and agenda... good luck.

[JackRiddler]

15. WHAT WAR?

The only war being waged is by the ruling elite on your mind. Apparently they are winning.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Ask the families of the over 500 dead soldiers what war. See ya n/t

[JackRiddler]

21. No, you ask them...

about Kerry voting for the war.

Your implication is that the war needs warrior leadership.

What it needs is AN END.

So, did you support it?

[nightperson]

54. Thanks.

Wowza. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[sadiesworld]

16. I don't worry so much about WTO and outsourcing with a dem president

Any democrat would not survive these job loss numbers.

[redqueen]

19. It doesn't seem to me

that you've given the matter serious consideration.

This is not only about jobs leaving this country, eroding our tax base further, which will result in cuts to social sevices, because... you know, well... war is peace now and all. No reason to cut the pentagon budget, nosiree. Half the discretionary spending you say? Sign me up! :eyes:

The really important threat from the WTO is the loss of national sovreignity. The WTO issues judgments based on what's best for corporations, not people. They are not subject to any country's laws, on the contrary, they put corporate interests ahead of any country. Including ours.

[sadiesworld]

25. Actually I have given the matter serious consideration...

Your guy is the only one with a handle on this issue and he lost his chance the minute he called for a Department of Peace. Bush will do nothing. The choice is a dem nominee who will try.

[NNN0LHI]

32. May I ask just what in the hell are you talking about? n/t

[Kolesar]

29. Best of health to Mr. Kerry then

Wes Clark could become another Lyndon Johnson.

[BL_Zebub]

53. Well, some of Kerry's fans DO insist on calling him "JFK"

Which, BTW makes a Devil (and JFK) :puke: every time we see it.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[dawn]

38. No thanks.

I dunno, I'm ABB, but I don't think this ticket would bring in the swing voters.

[mrgorth]

39. We're not at war

newsflash

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. THAT is a very DEPRESSING pic.

:cry:

[madfloridian]

45. When was war declared?

Against whom?

[NNN0LHI]

58. December 8, 1941 was the last time the US has declared war

But since then we have had many undeclared wars. But they are still considered wars by most people. I hope that explains my statement?

Don

[MrSlayer]

47. Kerry/Clark would crush.

Let's see what happens.

[AP]

48. I'm more worried about Great Depression II.

And these two guys say nothing to me about that issue.

[BootinUp]

56. I can live with it, but can Clark?

I mean it looks like Kerry needs a stronger anti-perspirant!

:spank:

hehe

[WiseMen]

57. Repubs may have fallen into a terrible trap, launching criminal war