or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dean for D Chair
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dean for D Chair - Page 5

post #161 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Funny how you appear to be the only one who doesn't get it. I'd love to try and explain it to you ONE more time but .....

Give it the old grade school try.
post #162 of 184
So...whoever is D chairman...the real question is: Who will the D's put up to win back the White House in '08? Hillary seems to be positioning herself...but could she possibly win? Edwards? Kerry?
post #163 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
So...whoever is D chairman...the real question is: Who will the D's put up to win back the White House in '08? Hillary seems to be positioning herself...but could she possibly win? Edwards? Kerry?

Old guard, Clintonian DLC new-democrat logic suggests someone like Mark Warner.

But the nomination of Dean (a left-centrist who was opposed by the right-centrists like Clinton, et al) suggests that the grassroots might be able to change things. The nomination of Dean suggests that the party is going to move back to the left (since its slide to the right since Nixon has worked OHSOWELL [one incumbent re-elected since NIXON]), which could bring interesting things.

Hillary and Boxer will almost certainly run. Edwards most likely. Kerry probably will, but it'd be stupid.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #164 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Old guard, Clintonian DLC new-democrat logic suggests someone like Mark Warner.

But the nomination of Dean (a left-centrist who was opposed by the right-centrists like Clinton, et al) suggests that the grassroots might be able to change things. The nomination of Dean suggests that the party is going to move back to the left (since its slide to the right since Nixon has worked OHSOWELL [one incumbent re-elected since NIXON]), which could bring interesting things.

Hillary and Boxer will almost certainly run. Edwards most likely. Kerry probably will, but it'd be stupid.

Don't know much about Warner.

I don't think Kerry has a real chance. Edwards? Maybe if he was still in office...but even then I'm not sure. Clinton has two things going against he...She's Hillary and she's a Senator (the jump from Senator to President appears to be much harder than Govenor or President in the past 30 or so years).

Grass roots seems like a risky strategy. These tend to be fueled by a passionate few...and flame out too soon.

A fiscal conservative Dem would be a good start I think.
post #165 of 184
Oh great. Republican-lite-ism is now considered a "good start." I suppose a "great start" would involve fielding a candidate offering dog-on-man economic policies in the guise of the "American Dream," "individual choice," and the "ownership society" (not knocking those goals, just criticizing their attainability under current policies). This isn't a rant against you either, atomic_chris, just a general lamenting of the direction this country seems headed.
post #166 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
Don't know much about Warner.

Gov. of VA.

Quote:
I don't think Kerry has a real chance. Edwards? Maybe if he was still in office...but even then I'm not sure.

Edwards is appealing to lots of people, but he's simply too young and too inexperienced to get the nod.

Quote:
Clinton has two things going against he...She's Hillary and she's a Senator (the jump from Senator to President appears to be much harder than Govenor or President in the past 30 or so years).

Yes. It's pretty clear that we want governors.

Quote:
Grass roots seems like a risky strategy. These tend to be fueled by a passionate few...and flame out too soon.

Tell that to the Republican party.

Quote:
A fiscal conservative Dem would be a good start I think. [/B]

Perhaps. A fiscal conservative anything at this point would be nice.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #167 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh great. Republican-lite-ism is now considered a "good start." [...snip...] This isn't a rant against you either, atomic_[...nope...], just a general lamenting of the direction this country seems headed.

I would just like to see a balance budget like we had under Clinton. I'd like to see this from either party.
post #168 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Gov. of VA.

Knew that...but not much more (about his politics I mean).

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Edwards is appealing to lots of people, but he's simply too young and too inexperienced to get the nod.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. It's pretty clear that we want governors.


As long as we don't get the "Governator"!

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Tell that to the Republican party.

Fair enuff.

Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
A fiscal conservative anything at this point would be nice.

True.
post #169 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
I would just like to see a balance budget like we had under Clinton. I'd like to see this from either party.

I don't know about a balanced budget. But a budget that is not utterly, utterly out of control would be nice.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #170 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
Knew that...but not much more (about his politics I mean).

My sense of the guy is that he's basically a centrist Clintonian type Dem governor of a red southern state.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #171 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know about a balanced budget. But a budget that is not utterly, utterly out of control would be nice.

You saying it wasn't balanced? Am I missing something?
post #172 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
You saying it wasn't balanced? Am I missing something?

No, I'm saying that a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing. Sounds great in principle, and it's something we all like to say, but in the end, everyone carries some degree of debt...cars, houses, credit cards, etc. We don't need to balance the budget; we need to have our spending under control.

Does that make sense? The Clinton balanced-budget thing was yet another example of his being right-of-center....
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #173 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
No, I'm saying that a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing. Sounds great in principle, and it's something we all like to say, but in the end, everyone carries some degree of debt...cars, houses, credit cards, etc. We don't need to balance the budget;

I would agree if we agreed to split the budget into two categories...operational spending and capital spending. Most businesses do this (and I understand many state budgest as well)...where capital spending is okay to incur debt but not operating expenses.

The only debt I have is a mortgage. I don't use debt to buy cars...computers...groceries...clothing. So I'm not sure I agree that we must have debt.
post #174 of 184
Thread Starter 
If Boxer runs for 2008, she has my vote. She recieved the third most votes in the 2004 election, after Bush and Kerry and is very popular in California (winning by 20 points).
post #175 of 184
If Boxer runs in 2008 the republicans will only have to drag one of the Gipper's dirty old sox out of the laundry basket to run against her and win.
post #176 of 184
How dare you disparage the memory of Ronald Reagan, patriot abd True American by deputizing him into your sorry excuse for an argument. Shame on you.

The real question for me is who the hell the Republicans will run. Jeb? Santorum?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #177 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by Existence
If Boxer runs for 2008, she has my vote. She recieved the third most votes in the 2004 election, after Bush and Kerry and is very popular in California (winning by 20 points).

but winning california isn't the problem for the d's...winning 270 is and as bush has shown...you don't need to win by 20 points...20 VOTES will suffice.

post #178 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
How dare you disparage the memory of Ronald Reagan, patriot abd True American by deputizing him into your sorry excuse for an argument. Shame on you.

The real question for me is who the hell the Republicans will run. Jeb? Santorum?

jeb seems like a real option. santorum seems to extreme (at least for my tastes). maybe condi rice?
post #179 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
jeb seems like a real option. santorum seems to extreme (at least for my tastes). maybe condi rice?

Rice would be in line with this admin's strategy (run a minority candidate who is ideologically antithetical to the Dems and then accuse the dems of being racist/sexist when they get upset...turnabout is fair play, I suppose).

Jeb is likely, but I find it difficult to believe people would go for another Son of Connecticut. Maybe Whitman? I actually like her.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #180 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Rice would be in line with this admin's strategy (run a minority candidate who is ideologically antithetical to the Dems and then accuse the dems of being racist/sexist when they get upset...turnabout is fair play, I suppose).

Jeb is likely, but I find it difficult to believe people would go for another Son of Connecticut. Maybe Whitman? I actually like her.

i do think that the first black/african american and first woman president are likely to be republicans...just kind of a gut feel.

jeb would be part of the master plan...kind of like the alleged kennedy dynasty...john...bobby...teddy...8 years each...well, the best laid plans anyway
post #181 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
i do think that the first black/african american and first woman president are likely to be republicans...just kind of a gut feel.

To be honest, considering the way the Dems have acted for the past few decades, this wouldn't surprise me, either.

Quote:
jeb would be part of the master plan...kind of like the alleged kennedy dynasty...john...bobby...teddy...8 years each...well, the best laid plans anyway

well, my understanding is that W is really Karl Rove's pet project (Rove is the one who orchestrated everything from his politics in Texas all the way through this second term...and is now deputy COS). Rove has also said that he's not going to work anymore national campaigns.

Seriously, though. What Republican governors are itching to run?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #182 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
To be honest, considering the way the Dems have acted for the past few decades, this wouldn't surprise me, either.



well, my understanding is that W is really Karl Rove's pet project (Rove is the one who orchestrated everything from his politics in Texas all the way through this second term...and is now deputy COS). Rove has also said that he's not going to work anymore national campaigns.

Seriously, though. What Republican governors are itching to run?

why...aaaarnold of course.

post #183 of 184
Quote:
Originally posted by atomic_angel
why...aaaarnold of course.


Aaaaahnold is too centrist. Hell, he's practically a liberal.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #184 of 184
I'd love to see Arnold run against the governor of michigan, Jennifer Granholm. That would have an interesting result either way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dean for D Chair