Is the Tide Turning?

Remove all ads!

Ragusa - You probably meant the reverse. Dean has been anti-war from the beginning and has been very vocal in his anti-war rhetoric; Kerry had voted for, and still supports the war. Kerry disagrees with two things: How the war is being conducted, and the way in which Shrub got us into the war.

That is why I believe Dean would be a better president (among other issues). But the election is no longer about "principle," which is Dean's message, but about being "elected." I am not that pragmatic to believe that "who ever can be elected" should be more important than what the candidate stands for. The thing about Kerry is that he "seems" to be such a nice guy; very mild and somewhat low-key in his demeanor, which is unusual for a politican these days.

[ February 07, 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Embarassing. Yes, you are right Chandos. Oh well, due to my haste there goes my point. But I don't move an inch from my position on the hawk on Israel part and especially on Clark.

... I'm somewhat confused today, exam preparations ...

 

I was looking at the polls today for the seven states that are conducting primaries. Dean is going to lose all of them - by a large margin.

Clark ans Edwards may win a few - well at least one.

 

For clarification, Dean HAS been accused of being too 'hawkish' with regards to the Israel/Palestinian hoopla. Here is a 'leftist' site with some of the complaints:

"Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove's Clothing?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

Ragusa's post talks about Iraq and Israel. Dean was opposed to war in Iraq but has taken criticism for being 'hawkish' regarding Israel.

However, Kerry has also been accused of being too 'hawkish' with regards to the Israel/Palestinian debate.

It seems to me that doing ANYTHING with regards to Israel/Palestine gets you branded one way or another. Saying that you're rather fond of the low humidity in the area would probably upset some people. Saying NOTHING has its own attendant problems though as well.

All of that said, if Dean were elected, I wouldn't anticipate much to happen on the Israel/Palestinian front. I'm not sure with Kerry, but I think something is more likely to be done (for better or for worse). Kerry has been in the region, met with the Saudis (and criticized them pretty heavily), met with Arafat (and criticized him), met with the Israelis (and criticized them, but less) etc. So, he knows these folks and has been working in that field before.

With regards to Iraq, if Kerry runs he may play the, "I was misled by Bush and that's why I voted for the war in Iraq" angle. More likely though, I'll think he'd say something like "Hussein was the suck and we should've worked through the UN to get him out. I wanted him out all along but didn't like the way it was handled. Look at me, I'm sitting on a fence."

Oh well, two issues anyways.

 

Ragusa - Yes, I should have stated that my post was only dealing with the war in Iraq, since that is where we are currently at war, and I have no opinion on Dean and Israel. But my feeling is that Laches is right.

Good luck on the exams, Ragusa.

 

Dean sounds very moderate on this issue, but I would not call him a hawk. Opposition to terrorism is not a hawk position.

The article makes a rather fallacious argument by equating suicide-murders to an Israeli soldier who shoots a man who is throwing rocks at him.

Interesting article, though. Thank you.

[ February 04, 2004, 09:03: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

We have seen that Bush II is walking in the footsteps of his dad. Much like the elder Bush, Shrub appears to be heading for a one-termer. But could Shrub have a secret weapon of his own? Here is some news that may put a new twist on the situation:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2004/02/04/cheney/index_np.html

Politics, politics and more politics...don't you love it?

 

I heard about that a few days ago. While the Halliburton (sp?) thing can't be helping Cheney, another big problem with him being VP is that the Republicans would almost be forced to run him 4 years from now if Bush won re-election. The problem with that of course being he is so damn old, and has no personality. The voters won't really connect to him in any way. Rudy Guiliani on the other hand, was Time Magazine's "Man of the year" back in 2001. He has a great personality and is liked by a large number of people regardless of whether they are democrat or republican. So it not only improves Bush's chances of getting re-elected (short term) but it gives the republicans a viable canidate in 2008 to boot (long term).

 

AtFI - The possibilities would be astounding. Say your scenario is correct - Bush gives Cheney the heave-ho and in comes Rudy, and they bungle their way to a victory in 2004. Now, the Dems finally do tap Hillary. So, in 2008 it's the Rudy and Hillary media show. And that boggles the mind!

[ February 07, 2004, 07:18: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Oh, no doubt Hillary will eventually be tapped. If Bush wins this fall, I am very confident she will run in 2008. I believe if the Dems win the White House, she will put off running for president in the immediate future. She will wait until there is no Democrat incumbent running for re-election, so more like 2012. The big difference between Hillary and all the other women who have run for president up to this point is Hillary would have a chance of winning. Come what may, I do believe that we will see a woman president in our life time. If not Hillary someone else.

EDIT: While I would much prefer to see a democrat in office, I do believe Guliani would make a much better president that Bush - which I suppose isn't much of an endorsement - but I mean from a relative standpoint, Guliani would be better. Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing a pisano get into the White House.

 

I think there is ZERO chance of Rudy being tabbed as VP by Bush. I also think there is virtually NO chance of him ever winning a Presidential nomination - unless he switches parties and becomes a Democrat.

Rudy has less of a chance of winning the Rep. nomination than Lieberman had of winning the Dem. nomination - and for analagous reasons.

 

For those who are interested, Bush appeared on "Meet the Press" this weekend to try to stage a comeback after taking quite a beating by the Dems over the last month or two. But his responses fell curiously short of their mark. I had expected a much more focused Bush, with greater self-confidence (arrogance). This is the kind of thing that Bush usually does well in. Is anyone else as surprised as I was by his poor showing?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228

 

Actually, no, what surprised me is that they let him do an unscripted interview at all.

 

@ Chandos

I was actually pissed off...at Tim Russert. Russert has a reputation for grilling his guests and getting them to admit tough truths by surprising them with factoids and quotes. He was way too easy on Bush. He let him just roll out with his same standard BS ambiguous answers he always gives, and instead of pressing him, just moved on to the next question. It was very disappointing.

As for Bush...I don't think he did any better or worse than he always does. Just the same vague, patriotic, disengenious, factually lacking line of rhetoric we've all come to know and love.

 

Was this a serious title? I mean why not just make the title, "Does a bear s**t in the woods?"

 

Here is an electoral map that is easy to use - click once for blue and twice for red.

http://www.edwardsforprez.com/map.html

I tend to place some value in the ability of a free market to make fairly accurate predictions over time. Here is one market that is fairly interesting and has a certain degree of credibility as far as track record goes:

As % chance of Bush winning state (no DC available):

AL 0.95
AK 0.94
AZ 0.78
AR 0.73
CA 0.17
CO 0.80
CT 0.18
DE 0.36
FL 0.68
GA 0.90
HI 0.13
ID 0.95
IL 0.32
IN 0.87
IA 0.42
KS 0.92
KY 0.88
LA 0.83
ME 0.43
MD 0.18
MA 0.04
MI 0.51
MN 0.37
MS 0.94
MO 0.65
MT 0.88
NE 0.95
NV 0.70
NH 0.58
NJ 0.16
NM 0.58
NY 0.15
NC 0.88
ND 0.95
OH 0.65
OK 0.93
OR 0.43
PA 0.51
RI 0.05
SC 0.82
SD 0.95
TN 0.85
TX 0.93
UT 0.95
VT 0.07
VA 0.85
WA 0.35
WV 0.50
WI 0.45
WY 0.96


http://www.tradesports.com/

You can do the electoral count if you'd like.

 

@ Laches - so what's the tally? Or didn't anyone both to do it? I certainly can understnad if they didn't - personally I don't have the time or inclination either.

EDIT: YEAH!!!! 700th post!

 

*Shrug. Some folks may be interested in seeing how close the electoral vote is and might want to see what are shaping up to be the key states in advance. If they're interested in this sort of thing they may want to see which states may surprisingly hold the entire key to the election. Surprising in that small states like W.V. could be crucial. Going directly on what is above and changing just 1 state results in 269 to 269. Guess what happens then.

All the tools to explore and learn on your own are above.

My not spoon-feeding people the result also has the added benefit of perhaps avoiding a round of attacks by people who may not necessarily like the results.

 

Ahh... You are wise Laches. I withdraw my earlier request.

 

Since, certain voices seem to be putting themselves on the line, so to speak, we will have to wait for the American people to actually cast their ballots in an election that is still very far-off. And it would be nice to know who the actual candidates will be for that election. We can say with some certainty that Bush and Kerry will be there. But there is still some doubt as to who else will share the tickets.

I will say that Bush has had a considerable slide downwards over the last few months. But some may not like the results of current opinion polls, and thus, say that they don't matter much, I suppose, and will attempt to point to other forecasters that will help their cause, whatever that may be. As for now, I am enjoying watching the current administation squirm and wiggle a bit, as they are on the defensive on several fronts right at the moment. But a lot can still happen, and the conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong. Politics really can be fun.