Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Truthteller said:
Certainly true.

Although I wonder how much Gore might have partied when he lived with Tommy Lee Jones in college. The media just doesn't play it up like they do with Bush: "In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row [8] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [5]" From the Gore Wikipedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

ha! yeah, i'm sure they did party a bit. although i have no idea what "partying" would be like for gore. he seems like the kind of guy who would pass out after two beers. :yay:
 
jaguarr said:
When Warner says he came to a realization that he wanted to spend time with his family because he felt like he was missing a big part of his girls growing up, I actually believe him. Most any other politician I'd figure there was a big skeleton in his closet that a political enemy found and was backing down to keep it from being exposed. I think Warner genuinely wants to step back and appreciate life a bit more than he has and I certainly don't fault him for that though I am very disappointed as I think he was probably exactly what this country needs in a President and leader.

jag
Sounds reasonable and sane. He's better off foresaking the delusion of the life politico.
 
sinewave said:
ha! yeah, i'm sure they did party a bit. although i have no idea what "partying" would be like for gore. he seems like the kind of guy who would pass out after two beers. :yay:
Yeah. Heh... I don't think they were quite up to speed yet back then... :o
 
sinewave said:
ha! yeah, i'm sure they did party a bit. although i have no idea what "partying" would be like for gore. he seems like the kind of guy who would pass out after two beers. :yay:


"golly, this alcholic beverage is having an inebriating effect on me"

:dry:
 
Mr Sparkle said:
"golly, this alcholic beverage is having an inebriating effect on me"

:dry:

hey! tone down the language! this is an all-ages site. :cmad:
 
LOL! You guys are cracking me up. I don't think Gore is electable, nor should he be. He should stick to his environmentalism campaigns as he's doing good things there.

For many of the same reasons Daisy stated, I'm not a big Edwards fan.

Hillary...*shudder*....the thought of her as President frightens me.

The Dem's better find someone worth a damn, that's all I can say. I used to really like McCain, but he's turned into a flip-flopper of the worst order and is rather ineffective as a politician. He'd be even more of a puppet to the Republican party leaders than Bush is. But....he's highly electable....

jag
 
jaguarr said:
LOL! You guys are cracking me up. I don't think Gore is electable, nor should he be. He should stick to his environmentalism campaigns as he's doing good things there.

For many of the same reasons Daisy stated, I'm not a big Edwards fan.

Hillary...*shudder*....the thought of her as President frightens me.

The Dem's better find someone worth a damn, that's all I can say. I used to really like McCain, but he's turned into a flip-flopper of the worst order and is rather ineffective as a politician. He'd be even more of a puppet to the Republican party leaders than Bush is. But....he's highly electable....

jag

I hope Wesley Clark runs again.
 
I'm still somewhat open to Clark.

I'm not wild about McCain though, nor Edwards but I was wondering what others thought about him.

I could vote for McCain if it ended up him vs Hillary. Right now I generally prefer Giuliani rather than McCain, but this is based on leadership ability because I really don't know much about Giuliani's policy positions.
 
Giuliani doesn't impress me that much, but I'm married to a New Yorker and have a lot of friends there. They weren't real fond of him when he was in office. HOWEVER, Giuliani has enjoyed a bit of a better reputation since Bloomberg took office in NYC. Between his decent handling of 9/11 and the crap that Bloomberg has done, there are some who wish Giuliani was back in office again in NYC. I just don't think Giuliani has what it takes to be successful at the Federal level of government, personally. And I like some of his policies, too.

jag
 
I've seen some speculation that Obama might be giving the idea of a Presidential run a second thought since he showed up at a Dem event in Iowa not too long ago. I think he'd be a really, really strong candidate for the Dems. He's a moderate who could appeal to a lot of demographics, and he's a great speaker. A very straight shooter. I think he'd devour opponents in debates.

jag
 
I have mixed feelings about Al Gore. He does have baggage, but so did Nixon when he ran for President 8 years later and won (after a certain war was going bad). I think I heard somewhere that every candidate bar Al Gore who won the popular vote eventually became President, regardless of whether they lost the electoral college in hat election (I'm not 100% if this is true). I do think it is somewhat possible, although I can understand people want to see someone new. Gore has the progressive/Dean/Fiengold supporters, the entertainment industry, a new passionate charisma, as well as the sophisticated gravitas, domestic and foriegn policy gravitas as House Representative, Senator, and Vice-President. I would prefer someone new, but I can't help but think he may have history on his side.

The only time I was rooting for Edwards was when the 2004 primary narrowed down to him and John Kerry. I thought with a Massachussets liberal with 20 years of Senate history and yet no motivation other than "I've been in Senate so long, its my turn to run for President", Edwards seemed like the best choice on top of the ticket. Now, though I think he's a stale choice, he doesn' thave the experience. He's a smiling face, charisma, and he tells good stories, but he doesn't have the credibility to tackle these issues. Notice he hasn't given a real opinion on the War on Iraq (I heard he mildly supported it during the 2004 campaign). Rumors where that if Edwards had run again for Senatehe'd have lost his election for being too liberal for his state. He doesn't have enough history to warrant another run.

Wesley Clark?
I don't get why people have a fetish over this guy. He was DRAFTED in 2004, and couldn't win more than..what...one or two states in the primary? People on the ground thought he was a boring campaigner. He is basically an opportunistic candidate. He had supported Bush at rallies previously before running. He was touted for a Independent campaign, but figured the Democratic campaign was the best shot. He came across as opportunistic. I don't know if he's a real Democrat in any sense. The only reason people like him is because of his military experience, which is the same reason people went for John Kerry. He's now a friggin Fox News analyst. You and I both know WE don't know where Clark really stands on issues or what he's passionate about, whether he would have initially supported the Iraq War in 2003, etc... Clark had his shot after being drafted. What more can you expect from him?

There's no way in hell I'd support triangulation Hillary Clinton. She's too Machiavellian for me.

Right now, I don't know who should run. Bill Richardson is interesting as Western governor with foriegn policy experience, but he seems more like a VP pick. Maybe Tom Vilsack....ehhh. I really don't know anymore.


EDIT: Guilliani will never make it out of the Republican primaries. Look what the primaries did to McCain, innuendos attacking his adopted child and such. What would they will do to a pro-choice, pro gay marriage (or at least pro civil union), divorced candidate like Guilliani. Plus, I was never fond of the guy, his reputaiton has been given a boost due to revisionism. Nobody would have wanted him to run again for Mayor before 2001 (he couldn't due to term limits).

McCain is the frontrunner in the GOP and he's successfully mended fences with the right to make a run. Despite my disappointment at McCain's reaching out to rightwingers, he hasn't done anything to suggest he'll cater to rightwingers after winning office or that he believes in the ideology of rightwingers. He's still the same straight talking guy who realizes he can't win primaries by being overly hostile to extremists. We'll see how that goes.

It's also WAAAAYYYY too early for Obama to even consider running. If he ran, he wouldn't have finished out one term. Just because you gave a great speech at a Democratic Convention doesn't mean you should be the friggin President of the United States. Let him build his resume first.
 
Matt said:
Gore running will be an unmitigated disaster. I am very disappointed about Mark Warner. Despite the low numbers it is only 2006. Once 2007 comes around and the campaign kicks into gear his views and record would've almost definitely given him a boost.
I doubt it would be a disaster. Early polling placed him very high. Furthermore a few faux 2000 elections have been done online and Gore has beaten Bush. I don't see him as unlikable anymore, and certainly getting 33% of Democratic support is not bad.
 
Truthteller said:
Whats wrong with John Edwards? He's southern, which helps in either party I think - he doesn't have Governor experience, which seems to help but is it needed?
yeah what's with that? It's like we Northerners have not problem giving a Southerner a shot at the job . Why won't Southerners give us the same respect?:(

Daisy said:
I always feel like I need a shower after listening to Edwards. :(
agreed:(
 
Like I've said earliler I think Kathleen Sebelius Democrat Governor of Kansas should run. I think she has a greater chance of winning then someone like Hilary because Republicans actually respect her.

-She was first elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1986. In 1994, she "left the House to run for state insurance commissioner and stunned political forecasters by winning--the first time a Democrat had won in more than 100 years. She is credited with bringing the agency out from under the influence of the insurance industry. She refused to take campaign contributions from insurers and blocked the proposed merger of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, the state's largest health insurer, with an Indiana-based company. The decision by Sebelius marked the first time the corporation had been rebuffed in its acquisition attempts."[1]

-Sebelius defeated Republican Tim Shallenburger in the 2002 election by a vote of 53%-45%. Her victory was partially the result of a bitter divide between conservatives and moderates within the Kansas Republican Party. This divide is touched upon in Thomas Frank's bestseller What's the Matter with Kansas?. Since winning election, Sebelius has successfully built upon her popularity and as of January 2006 was one of the most popular governors in the country.

-A hunter herself[1], she vetoed, like her Republican predecessor Bill Graves, a concealed carry law that would have allowed guns to be carried into the Statehouse, churches, and private establishments against the wishes of the property owner.[3]

In her veto message, Sebelius said she supports Kansans' right to own firearms but does not believe a broad concealed carry law would make them safer. "I don't believe allowing people to carry concealed handguns into sporting events, shopping malls, grocery stores, or the workplace would be good public policy. And to me the likelihood of exposing children to loaded handguns in their parents purses, pockets and automobiles is simply unacceptable."[4]

On March 21, 2006, she vetoed Senate Bill 418, a similar concealed carry bill. However, on March 25, Sebelius' veto was overturned after the Kansas House of Representatives voted 91-33 to override it. This followed the Kansas Senate's 30-10 override vote, which occurred the day after her veto.

-After the Kansas economy reached its lowest point in over a decade early in her term, the economy has since experienced 22 months of continuous job growth. Kansas has thrice balanced the budget, and not raised taxes significantly during her term.[citation needed]

Sebelius did not support the April 2005 amendment that would make gay marriage in Kansas unconstitutional. Sebelius said she "supported the existing state law and viewed it as sufficient, " [6] and therefore opposed any such amendment.

When in it comes to abortion rights, Sebelius is pro-choice when it comes to abortion and a supporter of Roe v. Wade. Sebelius also does not support capital punishment; during her term as governor, the Kansas capital punishment laws were declared unconstitutional by the Kansas Supreme Court.

In 2006, Sebelius approved a controversial state education budget that largely benefits rural and impoverished areas of Kansas while providing little additional benefit to more established and affluent districts. Not one representative from Kansas' wealthiest county, Johnson County, voted in favor of the budget, as the budget diverts funding from affluent school districts, favoring rural and impoverished districts.

-In 2001, Sebelius was named as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year while she was serving as Kansas Insurance Commissioner.[15]

In November 2005, Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education - all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing.[16]

In February 2006, the White House Project named Sebelius one of its "8 in '08", a group of eight female politicians who could possibly run and/or be elected president in 2008.[17]

There's our future president people!
 
SentinelMind said:
I have mixed feelings about Al Gore. He does have baggage, but so did Nixon when he ran for President 8 years later and won (after a certain war was going bad). I think I heard somewhere that every candidate bar Al Gore who won the popular vote eventually became President, regardless of whether they lost the electoral college in hat election (I'm not 100% if this is true). I do think it is somewhat possible, although I can understand people want to see someone new. Gore has the progressive/Dean/Fiengold supporters, the entertainment industry, a new passionate charisma, as well as the sophisticated gravitas, domestic and foriegn policy gravitas as House Representative, Senator, and Vice-President. I would prefer someone new, but I can't help but think he may have history on his side.

The only time I was rooting for Edwards was when the 2004 primary narrowed down to him and John Kerry. I thought with a Massachussets liberal with 20 years of Senate history and yet no motivation other than "I've been in Senate so long, its my turn to run for President", Edwards seemed like the best choice on top of the ticket. Now, though I think he's a stale choice, he doesn' thave the experience. He's a smiling face, charisma, and he tells good stories, but he doesn't have the credibility to tackle these issues. Notice he hasn't given a real opinion on the War on Iraq (I heard he mildly supported it during the 2004 campaign). Rumors where that if Edwards had run again for Senatehe'd have lost his election for being too liberal for his state. He doesn't have enough history to warrant another run.

Wesley Clark?
I don't get why people have a fetish over this guy. He was DRAFTED in 2004, and couldn't win more than..what...one or two states in the primary? People on the ground thought he was a boring campaigner. He is basically an opportunistic candidate. He had supported Bush at rallies previously before running. He was touted for a Independent campaign, but figured the Democratic campaign was the best shot. He came across as opportunistic. I don't know if he's a real Democrat in any sense. The only reason people like him is because of his military experience, which is the same reason people went for John Kerry. He's now a friggin Fox News analyst. You and I both know WE don't know where Clark really stands on issues or what he's passionate about, whether he would have initially supported the Iraq War in 2003, etc... Clark had his shot after being drafted. What more can you expect from him?

There's no way in hell I'd support triangulation Hillary Clinton. She's too Machiavellian for me.

Right now, I don't know who should run. Bill Richardson is interesting as Western governor with foriegn policy experience, but he seems more like a VP pick. Maybe Tom Vilsack....ehhh. I really don't know anymore.


EDIT: Guilliani will never make it out of the Republican primaries. Look what the primaries did to McCain, innuendos attacking his adopted child and such. What would they will do to a pro-choice, pro gay marriage (or at least pro civil union), divorced candidate like Guilliani. Plus, I was never fond of the guy, his reputaiton has been given a boost due to revisionism. Nobody would have wanted him to run again for Mayor before 2001 (he couldn't due to term limits).

McCain is the frontrunner in the GOP and he's successfully mended fences with the right to make a run. Despite my disappointment at McCain's reaching out to rightwingers, he hasn't done anything to suggest he'll cater to rightwingers after winning office or that he believes in the ideology of rightwingers. He's still the same straight talking guy who realizes he can't win primaries by being overly hostile to extremists. We'll see how that goes.

It's also WAAAAYYYY too early for Obama to even consider running. If he ran, he wouldn't have finished out one term. Just because you gave a great speech at a Democratic Convention doesn't mean you should be the friggin President of the United States. Let him build his resume first.

some of your statements make me wonder if you've been following these democrats since the '04 election. edwards has come out and said he made a mistake by voting for the war. clark has some good ideas and is very bright and moderate. i think he'd be a great unifier after the great divider leaves office.
 
sinewave said:
some of your statements make me wonder if you've been following these democrats since the '04 election. edwards has come out and said he made a mistake by voting for the war. clark has some good ideas and is very bright and moderate. i think he'd be a great unifier after the great divider leaves office.

The point is Edwards seemed a bit wishy washy in his support/opposition to the war during the 2004 campaign. I'd say he was a bit more supportive of the war than Kerry, who couldn't take a stand on whether he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force again. Furthermore, Edwards doesn't have foriegn policy expertise, which a President in the post -Bush world needs.

Clark...I still don't get it. He's simply sought over because of his military experience and Southern background..nothing else. If he won the nomination, I guess he'd have a good chance of winning, but what else is there to that man that inspires people? What direction would he take us? Nobody in here knows. If Clark on the campaign couldn't excite people more on the campaign trail than John Kerry, then god help us.
 
SentinelMind said:
The point is Edwards seemed a bit wishy washy in his support/opposition to the war during the 2004 campaign. I'd say he was a bit more supportive of the war than Kerry, who couldn't take a stand on whether he would have voted to give Bush the authority to use force again. Furthermore, Edwards doesn't have foriegn policy expertise, which a President in the post -Bush world needs.

Clark...I still don't get it. He's simply sought over because of his military experience and Southern background..nothing else. If he won the nomination, I guess he'd have a good chance of winning, but what else is there to that man that inspires people? What direction would he take us? Nobody in here knows. If Clark on the campaign couldn't excite people more on the campaign trail than John Kerry, then god help us.

yeah, i guess prior to his admission on iraq he might have come off as wishy-washy, but so were the majority of dems on the iraq war. that's what happens when you don't read the intelligence that the administration gives you, or worse, believe their intelligence to be factual. i do admire the fact that he was the first dem to come out and apologize to the american people for voting for war. he knew he was wrong and he owned up to it. that's rare in politics these days.

as for clark, i think the biggest draw for me is that he's not a politician and he seems genuinely honest and straightforward. i'll be honest, i don't know a lot about his politics, but from what i have seen, he's not a bad candidate. certainly better than the majority of the career politicians that were campaigning against him.
 
Truthteller said:
I'm sorry to say I just do not know much about him. He must have somewhat of a conservative streak or at least a practical streak for you to think highly of him though Daisy. Thats unusual to find in a Democrat these days and as I have said for some time I think it is sorely needed. Reminds me Zell Miller...

He's a moderate Democrat, much like many I grew up with in Minnesota (excepting Paul Wellstone), and he did very well as the governor of Virginia. I think practical is a better description than conservative (as 'conservative' is so relative)

His reputation is one of fiscal responsibility and social moderation - not too far left or right (although leaning a little left). He was able to really reach across party lines and make things work in Virginia. I think he really would have been just the type of leader we need right now, especially as he is also known for having high integrity. Like jag said, for Warner to say he's not persuing the presidency in order spend more time with his family and in order to not miss his girls growing up is actually believable.
 
Matt said:
For once we agree on something. Is the apocolypse near? :eek:

You say this everytime we agree on something. I've lost count of how many apocolypses (apocolypsi :huh: ) we've been near at this point. :D
 
Daisy said:
You say this everytime we agree on something. I've lost count of how many apocolypses (apocolypsi :huh: ) we've been near at this point. :D

I'm like Thesumofgod, constantly predicting the apocolypse and never being right ;) :woot:
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I doubt it would be a disaster. Early polling placed him very high. Furthermore a few faux 2000 elections have been done online and Gore has beaten Bush. I don't see him as unlikable anymore, and certainly getting 33% of Democratic support is not bad.

Early polls mean nothing. They are simply name recognition.
 
Matt said:
I'm like Thesumofgod, constantly predicting the apocolypse and never being right ;) :woot:

lol. after the latest south park episode i actually miss the bastard.
 
I hope Warner remains in the public eye and takes a shot at the Presidency in 2012/2016.
 
That's too bad. I like alot of what Warner has to say. Those damn Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are a bunch of losers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"