pissed off conservatives unite!

[Col. Crackpot]

seems we aren't alone. have a read:

linky-poo

[RedImperator]

seems we aren't alone. have a read:

linky-poo

The remark at the end about Kerry is pretty much dead-on. The Democrats managed to nominate the worst possible mainstream candidate as far as appealing to potential Republican defectors goes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

seems we aren't alone. have a read:

linky-poo

The remark at the end about Kerry is pretty much dead-on. The Democrats managed to nominate the worst possible mainstream candidate as far as appealing to potential Republican defectors goes.

Who do you think they should've put up?

Edwards was scum who'd never get any legitimate tort and medical reform through, and had a rather scummy lawyer past. Dean? Too controversial, too bombastic, too liberal. Gephardt never had a chance, nor did Lieberman.

[Joe]

Edwards was scum who'd never get any legitimate tort and medical reform through, and had a rather scummy lawyer past.

How bad is Edwards' past as a lawyer, anyway? Not all medical malpractice lawyers are scum, though a hefty chunk of them are nothing short of parasites.

Still, a scummy lawyer past is certainly not as ripe for attack as Kerry's voting record in the Senate, and Edwards lacks Kerry's somewhat sour disposition (a huge plus). Plus Kerry is a lost cause (no pun intended) in the South, where Edwards would have much more success.

[Glocksman]

Dean too liberal?
Compared to Kerry???

Shit, I would have voted for Dean.
Kerry? No fucking way.

[Hamel]

Dean too liberal?
Compared to Kerry???

Shit, I would have voted for Dean.
Kerry? No fucking way.

Dean was the guy who was viewed as an ultraliberal crank. Not Kerry.

[Glocksman]

Kerry has a 20 year voting record (average ADA rating of 92) that puts him squarely in nutjob central along with such liberal stalwarts as Kennedy, Boxer, and Leahy.

Dean's record as Governor was much more moderate.

Perception and reality are two different things.

[Hamel]

Kerry has a 20 year voting record (average ADA rating of 92) that puts him squarely in nutjob central along with such liberal stalwarts as Kennedy, Boxer, and Leahy.

Dean's record as Governor was much more moderate.

Perception and reality are two different things.

Ratings don't go into specifics, are therefore worthless if left standing on their own. Having just finished a quick readover of Kerry stances on issues2000.org, there are some questionable and stupid votes, but he doesn't seem like a nutjob.

[RedImperator]

Dean was a fiscal conservative and he favored gun rights. That would go a long way towards attracting moderate conservatives. The fundies would have hated him, but the fundies aren't voting democrat anyway.

[Glocksman]

A rating number alone doesn't tell you much, but when used in comparison with other Senators' ratings, it tells you how liberal, moderate, or conservative a particular Senator is.

For example, Al Gore's lifetime rating was 65, John Breaux's lifetime rating is 55, Bob Graham's was 69.

The ADA themselves state that a 'moderate' Senator will have a rating of between 40 and 60. Kerry's 92 places him in company with people such as Barbara Boxer.


If you want to know the specifics of the ratings and how they calculate them, here's a link


As far as the Issues2000 page goes, I'll judge Kerry by his votes, not what he says. It's the same way I'm judging Bush. Bush the candidate talked a nice game, but governed completely different

[Hamel]

Um, that page included what he voted on. Don't know if that's a complete list, though.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The remark at the end about Kerry is pretty much dead-on. The Democrats managed to nominate the worst possible mainstream candidate as far as appealing to potential Republican defectors goes.

The Democrats are justifiably concerned about maintaining what voters they have right now. The 2002 elections were not good for them, so they came up with a candidate guaranteed to secure their base. They're obviously hoping for his war record and consequently enhanced national security credibility to reach the moderate audience. I'm not sure if they have the breathing space to chase after the defector vote.

I think the best thing for the people who hate both Kerry and Bush to do is protest vote to the third party of their choice. Another strong showing as in '92 might shake up the political landscape a bit.

As for Dean, I think his early momentum was more or less a case of hype exceeding reality. He was pegged as the front-runner, but his dismal showing in the primaries suggests that the media assessment was spurious. Me, I rather liked him and didn't mind that he was "animated." I like a president who can give a badass cheer.

EDIT:
And another key point I liked about Dean--he didn't always remember to do the 'non-threating point.' When your average politician punctuates his speech by jabbing a finger and pointing, look at where he's going with it. 9 times of 10 he's pointing straight up, at the cieling. That's the non-threatening point. Dean sometimes forget to do this, and jabbed at the audience or the cameras, which suggests a confrontation. This betrayed an endearing and encouraging lack of experience.

[Glocksman]

Um, that page included what he voted on. Don't know if that's a complete list, though.

It wasn't.

The ADA (and their conservative counterpart ACU) scores are a pretty reliable indicator of ideological belief, especially if you use both.

For example, Kerry's lifetime ACU rating is 5 (92 ADA). John Breaux's lifetime ACU rating is 46 (55 ADA).

The ratings from each group track pretty closely to each other.

The ADA and ACU scores prove that Kerry's attempts to paint himself as a moderate are simply bullshit.

[KrauserKrauser]

Honestly if I were to vote for someone other than Bush it would have been Dean. He at least had some principles and could allow me some standing to support his actions. Kerry is just a wishy-washy sum' bitch that I can never justify voting for.

Bring back Dean, then I might be able to justify acting on my points of disagreement with Bush.

[Darth Wong]

Dean was a competent governor, from the sounds of it, but he was victimized by the media, which seized on a few inopportune (and wholly inconsequential) outbursts and made him out to be a madman.

[Joe]

Dean was a competent governor, from the sounds of it, but he was victimized by the media, which seized on a few inopportune (and wholly inconsequential) outbursts and made him out to be a madman.

The media didn't kill Dean, if anything he got as far as he did because of the media. It was only after actual Democratic voters got to express their opinion of him at the polls that things went bad. Dean simply couldn't make the case to the Democratic base that he was the man to beat Bush.

[Darth Wong]

The media didn't kill Dean, if anything he got as far as he did because of the media.

I don't see how; the media made a point of mocking him.

It was only after actual Democratic voters got to express their opinion of him at the polls that things went bad. Dean simply couldn't make the case to the Democratic base that he was the man to beat Bush.

I saw something similar here in Ontario, where we have the opposite problem: the liberals are huge ass-faced liars while the conservatives can't get their shit together. The conservatives picked a leader who "moderated" their position compared to the last guy, which meant that he tried to pick a position which was just a little bit to the right of the liberals. The problem with this strategy is that it completely neutered their best avenues of attack; they couldn't nail the liberals for spending like drunken sailors because they were running around promising big money too. They couldn't nail the liberals for making promises they obviously couldn't keep because they were doing the same thing (and "I'm making fewer bullshit promises than the other guy" just doesn't sound the same as the old leader's "doing what I said I would do" harsh-but-necessary medicine).

Similarly, the Dems figured that it was dangerous to oppose the President on the war, so they picked a guy who would have good war credentials and would not look "excessively" anti-war. The result is that just like the conservatives in Ontario, the Dems in the US neutered their most powerful line of attack.