16 words; 16 questions.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 07:11pm

We shall see. Remember that Candidate Dean implemented a successful statewide health care system in Vermont during his tenure as Governor. His national healthcare proposals may find greater acceptance from Americans seeing as they come from a doctor, rather than a lawyer.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:12pm

The President's wife had more power in crafting what would have been one of the most important bills in U.S. history than most Congressmen did. That is fucked up.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 07:13pm

Only because the people have been propagandized to believe that national health care = communism.

Not Communism, but a decrease in standards.

However, it may well be won by a fiscal conservative campaigning against a man whose fiscal policy has proven to be woefully prodigal.

Like it or not, this election will be won over issues of national security. Bush already has it in the bag.

That said, I’m also apt to favor the “one man in the saddle at a time” policy. Bush knows best about Iraq. I’d hate to see somebody like Dean inject a new spin – or worse, damage our credibility beyond repair by pulling out altogether.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:15pm

Iceberg wrote:We shall see. Remember that Candidate Dean implemented a successful statewide health care system in Vermont during his tenure as Governor. His national healthcare proposals may find greater acceptance from Americans seeing as they come from a doctor, rather than a lawyer.

You are mistaken. A universal healthcare system just got voted down overwhelmingly in Oregon, one of the most liberal states in the country. It's a loser.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 07:15pm

I think the one in the saddle right now is doing a lousy job, though...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:17pm

Bush's domestic policy is an absolute fucking disaster. I would love to vote against it, if I could find a good candidate.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-18 07:17pm

Axis Kast wrote: However, it may well be won by a fiscal conservative campaigning against a man whose fiscal policy has proven to be woefully prodigal.

Like it or not, this election will be won over issues of national security. Bush already has it in the bag.

I completely disagree, history has shown time and time again that the American people are first and foremost concerned about their pocketbooks and where they're next paycheck is coming from. If there is no discernable recovery coming by election time, Clinton's motto "It's the economy stupid" will be proven the genius that it was then.

Unfortunately not a single democrat has the charisma or politcal skill to pull off what Clinton did.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:19pm

Clinton won by focusing on the economy and moving to the center. Something I don't see the main Democratic hopefuls doing.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 07:22pm

Durran Korr wrote:Clinton won by focusing on the economy and moving to the center. Something I don't see the main Democratic hopefuls doing.

Are you kidding? Clinton ran on two traditionally liberal issues - civil rights and universal healthcare. It wasn't until after his election that he moved to the center.

The number of hardcore straight-ticket Republicans and Democrats in the country is about equal, which means that it's the candidate who can best engage and keep the uncertain voters in the middle who's going to win the election.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-18 07:23pm

Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Clinton won by focusing on the economy and moving to the center. Something I don't see the main Democratic hopefuls doing.
Are you kidding? Clinton ran on two traditionally liberal issues - civil rights and universal healthcare. It wasn't until after his election that he moved to the center.

The number of hardcore straight-ticket Republicans and Democrats in the country is about equal, which means that it's the candidate who can best engage and keep the uncertain voters in the middle who's going to win the election.

Did you wacth the War room? Clinton stuck to the straight center pissing off the liberal elite in the party which never forgave him for what he did.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 07:23pm

I completely disagree, history has shown time and time again that the American people are first and foremost concerned about their pocketbooks and where they're next paycheck is coming from. If there is no discernable recovery coming by election time, Clinton's motto "It's the economy stupid" will be proven the genius that it was then.

In my opinion, national security will win the upcoming election for George Bush - even assuming a Democratic candidate challenges his economic initiatives. Clinton won against a man whose war was already over.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 07:26pm

Axis Kast wrote:
I completely disagree, history has shown time and time again that the American people are first and foremost concerned about their pocketbooks and where they're next paycheck is coming from. If there is no discernable recovery coming by election time, Clinton's motto "It's the economy stupid" will be proven the genius that it was then.
In my opinion, national security will win the upcoming election for George Bush - even assuming a Democratic candidate challenges his economic initiatives. Clinton won against a man whose war was already over.

Creating a neverending war wasn't exactly an election-winning strategy for Lyndon Johnson, you realize.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:27pm

Are you kidding? Clinton ran on two traditionally liberal issues - civil rights and universal healthcare. It wasn't until after his election that he moved to the center.

Are you crazy? The middle class tax cut? Chastising racist rappers? Clinton ran fully in the center, and it was only after he was elected that he moved left (and ended up having a very liberal administration both times).

The number of hardcore straight-ticket Republicans and Democrats in the country is about equal, which means that it's the candidate who can best engage and keep the uncertain voters in the middle who's going to win the election.

35 percent of the voters are going to vote Republican, and 35 percent Democrat. That's how it is these days.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-18 07:27pm

Axis Kast wrote:
I completely disagree, history has shown time and time again that the American people are first and foremost concerned about their pocketbooks and where they're next paycheck is coming from. If there is no discernable recovery coming by election time, Clinton's motto "It's the economy stupid" will be proven the genius that it was then.
In my opinion, national security will win the upcoming election for George Bush - even assuming a Democratic candidate challenges his economic initiatives. Clinton won against a man whose war was already over.

Who was in a much better position than this one who's war is starting to be questioned, whose troops are angry at him and whose reasons for going to war are coming under question. This war is not the crown jewel in his foreign policy/national security crown yet. It may in fact be a loadstone for him ESPECIALLY if the economy is still in the toilet.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:28pm

Iceberg wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:
I completely disagree, history has shown time and time again that the American people are first and foremost concerned about their pocketbooks and where they're next paycheck is coming from. If there is no discernable recovery coming by election time, Clinton's motto "It's the economy stupid" will be proven the genius that it was then.
In my opinion, national security will win the upcoming election for George Bush - even assuming a Democratic candidate challenges his economic initiatives. Clinton won against a man whose war was already over.
Creating a neverending war wasn't exactly an election-winning strategy for Lyndon Johnson, you realize.

Vietnam was a fucking disaster. Bush's foreign policy has not been, in the eyes of most Americans (including this one).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 07:29pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Axis Kast wrote: In my opinion, national security will win the upcoming election for George Bush - even assuming a Democratic candidate challenges his economic initiatives. Clinton won against a man whose war was already over.
Creating a neverending war wasn't exactly an election-winning strategy for Lyndon Johnson, you realize.
Vietnam was a fucking disaster. Bush's foreign policy has not been, in the eyes of most Americans (including this one).

Expect Iraq to be a BIG campaign issue if we're still there and still losing men this time next year.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-18 07:30pm

Stravo wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Clinton won by focusing on the economy and moving to the center. Something I don't see the main Democratic hopefuls doing.
Are you kidding? Clinton ran on two traditionally liberal issues - civil rights and universal healthcare. It wasn't until after his election that he moved to the center.

The number of hardcore straight-ticket Republicans and Democrats in the country is about equal, which means that it's the candidate who can best engage and keep the uncertain voters in the middle who's going to win the election.
Did you wacth the War room? Clinton stuck to the straight center pissing off the liberal elite in the party which never forgave him for what he did.

Indeed. Clinton branded himself as a "New Democrat" precisely to distance himself from the old, more liberal character of the party.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-18 08:05pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Iceberg wrote:We shall see. Remember that Candidate Dean implemented a successful statewide health care system in Vermont during his tenure as Governor. His national healthcare proposals may find greater acceptance from Americans seeing as they come from a doctor, rather than a lawyer.
You are mistaken. A universal healthcare system just got voted down overwhelmingly in Oregon, one of the most liberal states in the country. It's a loser.

Measure 23 got smacked down because it was poorly written, not necessarily because Oregonians disagree with the idea.

Read the text of the measure sometime, it was a real stinker. There was no requirement for residency or even citizenship, for example.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-07-18 08:09pm

Read the text of the measure sometime, it was a real stinker. There was no requirement for residency or even citizenship, for example.

I seriously doubt that was pertinent to most voters.

Who was in a much better position than this one who's war is starting to be questioned, whose troops are angry at him and whose reasons for going to war are coming under question. This war is not the crown jewel in his foreign policy/national security crown yet. It may in fact be a loadstone for him ESPECIALLY if the economy is still in the toilet.

Now it's coming down to, "How do we percieve public opinion?" Media rants aside, I hear nothing about Bush from day to day among the people I live and work with. I have a strong feeling there'll be confidence in our current President come next November even if we are still losing soldiers on an occasional basis.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-18 08:15pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Read the text of the measure sometime, it was a real stinker. There was no requirement for residency or even citizenship, for example.
I seriously doubt that was pertinent to most voters.

LOL! I live here. I voted on it. I know people who voted on it.

You live half a world away.

And you have the balls to question my interpretation of my fellow voters just from your own personal beliefs?

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-07-18 08:56pm

Lets bear in mind, we did NOT go to war based SOLELY on the guesses about the sale of African Uranium.

Said sale, aslo, has not been proven to be true but has also not been proven false either.

So far the number of dead has barely matched that of the first Gulf War. It is not a stacking of bodies like cordwood in a Vietnam style deathfest. In fact I would say that the rabid, irrational hatred and attacks on Bush are fueling the resistance movement as surely as they did the Vietnmese in that war.

Saddam was evil; lets not enable his hangers-on and give them hope.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-18 11:30pm

Coyote wrote: Said sale, aslo, has not been proven to be true but has also not been proven false either.

Thats not how it works, friend.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-19 12:18am

Coyote wrote:Saddam was evil; lets not enable his hangers-on and give them hope.

So it's giving Saddam's hangers-on hope by debating and investigating what may very well have been a felony perpetrated against the United States of America??

John Dean wrote: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.""

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-19 12:42am

Please. The same case could be made against Bill Clinton.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-19 12:44am

Durran Korr wrote:Please. The same case could be made against Bill Clinton.

So in which manufactured scandal did Clinton defraud the American government? Actually, during the Clinton affair, the GOP was defrauding the American government, as they were using Government money to finance a partisan vendetta against a sitting president with no evidence.