Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Some democrats want a hothead from Vermont who will have popular support in two or three northeast states but will fail at beating Bush in the general election.
It is quite troubling. I guess these tranced Dean freaks really want 4 more years of Bush.
One has to be intoxicated to believe Dean can win the south.
Clark on the other hand could beat Bush so bad it is not even funny.
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Lieberman took well to his constituency in Connecticut, chich is another way of saying the big insurance company lobbyists, and spearheaded the effort to stop Clinton from passing a law that would have allowed the SEC to watch corporate boards and also that did not allow teh sort of conflict of interests that resulted in ALL of the major scandals that hit the fan in the last several years
in other words he caved in to corporate pressure to the point where he became the spokesman for a push against an EXCELLENT bill . . . . a Liberal bill . . . . his push defeated the bill and stopped it dead in the water . . .
That in itself is enough for me not to vote for him . . .
Dean has been conferring with Gore since last September... they've developed a rapport...
I think it's silly to act like this is some big betrayal... that Gore has been out stumping for Leiberman and all of a sudden he switches candidates? that's not what happened... I bet Leiberman was extremely distant from Gore... and didn't even ask for his endorsement. It goes both ways.
no, betrayal in that senator lieberman kept his aspirations in check, while waiting for gore to decide if he was going to run again. he was showing gore respect.
add to that that senator lieberman hears about the endorsement from someone other than gore.
and as i said before party elders historically keep their preferences to themselves, and let the game play out. gore is bush league doing this.
and he didn't carry his own state in the 2000 election. for a smart guy he sure is a bone-head.
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
Man you are such a bullshit artist. There are aspects of both the left and right that endorse free or fair trade respectively. The problem is of course that when the left endorses fair trade, they aren't called racist. Likewise when the left endorses free trade they aren't called corporate raiders, globalists, and robber barrons.
There are plenty of folks on the right who happen to endorse only fair trade. I happen to be one of them.
Quote:
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
Well obviously that wouldn't be my definition of fair trade would it. Could you start with less hyperbole or do you just enjoy ranting?
The reality is that free traders consider the U.S. to be generating excessive jobs. The jobs that become too expensive to keep here are considered shipped off overseas via free trade. That is why people will call fair traders racist when they suggest keeping all the manufactering/union type jobs here. It doesn't put an American out of work. That has already happened. It puts someone in Mexico, or China out of work.
However when you basically allow those jobs to become high paying but unskilled union type work, then nobody wants them shipped overseas. Who wouldn't want to make $100k a year as a longshoreman for example.
It is easy even for someone not as politically blind as yourself that when you adopt American safety standards, pensions, healthcare and wages, there isn't an advantage that you gain from shipping the job overseas. When Dean says he is bringing up the standards on the foreign soil side, it is just another way of saying tariff.
Quote:
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
And the way to stop this flight to the bottom is...what? Consider that you contend we have to not only stop it for ourselves but for the entire world. How is that possible? If we stop it at home by using protective measures then we are racist, hypocritical, etc. We can't even be sure we could stop it from abroad. I've ready articles where Mexico is losing manufactoring jobs to China now. We don't control either of those two countries. The only we can put a stop to this is here at home. Doing so doesn't make us racist. It doesn't mean we want to harm other countries. It just means we are going to stop the race to the bottom here first.
Quote:
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
I don't think the Bush tariffs have only been used to protect the powerful. Textile industries are mostly in the rural south and around parts of California. Steel production is hardly considered a Bush ally. I think it is that middle ground. The U.S. knows it is going to shed jobs in certain industries abroad for lower cost. However we can't just have the entire industry systematically stamped out and destroyed. We keep some of the jobs here. They are unionized, they often make more than is justified and as a result they need periodic protection when the competitive pressures bite too hard. It is the middle ground. The other path would entail basically shipping that entire industry off shore. That would give the fair traders (like me) too much of an argument for raising more tariffs. "Hey we don't even make steel in the U.S. anymore! It is all imported."
Instead they can say we make some, but not all of what we need. We ship plenty of jobs away and the middle ground is struck that makes us mostly free but occasionally caving when the political pressure gets to be too much or when an entire industry really is in danger of disappearing domestically.
I'm not saying I endorse this. I'm saying it is what has been done to keep fair traders from getting a foothold in the arena of ideas regarding this issue. It is why the majority of the left and the right have managed to do what they have done with it. But don't go making it some bullshit conservative conspiratorial fable when Clinton signed NAFTA and made the environmental and worker protection promises that were broken. (in 1993 for you conspiracy nutjobs out there)
Quote:
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
I agree but realize that the left and the right have sold up the common man in this instance.
see, i think clark would destroy bush, dean, no way.
clark is strong in the areas where bush is supposed to be strong. then to top it off, he's strong where bush is weak. he would completely steam roll bush if they went head-to-head.
then again, McCain was a much better canidate, and look how that fared. the reps. elected bush instead.
then again, McCain was a much better canidate, and look how that fared. the reps. elected bush instead.
senator mcCain had better ideas,(and he's a better human being) i don't know if he was a better candidate, he spent half of the primaries defending his "hothead" reputation.
i feel certain that if he'd been the G.O.P.'s candidate we wouldn't be in the shit-hole we find ourselves in today.
You attack my rhetoric then systematically assume teh wrong reading of what I said.
i did not say racist!
I am talking about the free trade stipulations appended to every IMF loan. I am talking about the growth of "Tax Free Zones" promoted by the IMF loan agreements and all of the related items pushed by these loans . . . as well as the subsidization of American produce and exports
These things are contrary to [edit: balanced human centered Trade] and are bad for people and developing countries
as far as benefitting the powerful . . . clearly Bush is only watching his own arse here . . . he doesn't care how much the idea of tariffs runs counter to his espoused conservative Lessez Faire philosophy he merely wants to maintain support in Penn and Ohio and retain lobbyist money . . .
And yes... the extreme left sold out people . . . but thoughtful allocation of resources and regulation is not selling out the common man as much as blind corporatism and the IMF
I knew Bill Clinton, sir, and Joe Lieberman is no Bill Clinton.
Three reasons:
1) Most liberals, so far as I can tell, believe Joe a Republican (didn't he used to be?)
2) He's not an inspiring public speaker.
3) America has a long and rich tradition of not electing non-Protestant presidents. Sad, but true.
Lieberman is right where Clinton was. This new Democratic party has changed, apparently back to the way it was before Clinton. Only liberals who forget that Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it, balancing the budget, decreased domestic discretionary spending, spearheaded NAFTA et al., and ended the era of big government, think that there's something wrong with Lieberman. Hell, Clinton was more "conservative" than Bush, on all those counts I mentioned.
I like his campaign style. I guess I don't go for the big political rhetorical speeches. He has a kind of self-effacing humorous self-conscious (stereotypically Jewish) style. Remember how everyone loved him in 2000? Everyone wanted the tickets to be reversed after Cheney and Lieberman had their VP debate.
clark on the other hand is someone i would vote for. that's what i mean.
Still, in the primary, I don't see how Dean trumpts Clark on all counts. That's why I don't understand how people believe this is the end for the democrats.
I still say Clark should run as VP with Dean. That'd screw everyone up.
Lieberman is right where Clinton was. This new Democratic party has changed, apparently back to the way it was before Clinton. Only liberals who forget that Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it, balancing the budget, decreased domestic discretionary spending, spearheaded NAFTA et al., and ended the era of big government, think that there's something wrong with Lieberman. Hell, Clinton was more "conservative" than Bush, on all those counts I mentioned.
I like his campaign style. I guess I don't go for the big political rhetorical speeches. He has a kind of self-effacing humorous self-conscious (stereotypically Jewish) style. Remember how everyone loved him in 2000? Everyone wanted the tickets to be reversed after Cheney and Lieberman had their VP debate.
Bingo. Lieberman was the last gasp at where the Democratic party was going under Clinton. All other candidates are to the left of him. The Democratic party seems to have found its vision for what it should be about and it is a repudiation of where Clinton took the party. Of course, Clinton basically adopted moderate Republican positions on many issues for the 96 election cycle.
All in all, I like Lieberman. I don't agree with him on many issues, but he strikes me as the most realistic and down to earth of the Democratic candidates and he is not trying to spin his own fantasy, but speaking honest words of reality to the party. Sadly, primaries are about appealing to your base as much as possible, not about being a sensible candidate. Clinton's legacy dies with Lieberman and Clinton is ceeding his "king making" control over the DNC to... Gore. What a sad day for Clinton- his legacy about taking the democratic party to the middle is about to become history.
Even if I would buy a Clark/Dean ticket I don´t think they want to play on the same state. And Dean is not the person I see accepting "only" to be a vice president.
SOme observations from the recent Democrat debate:
Most said phrase: "I am the only candidate on this stage bla bla bla". SOmething I hated Dean for doing. Now he is the one doing it the least.
Everybody bitching on eachother and everyone talking about the need to not battle eachother. Way to go...
Edwards trying to invent himself as the outside candidate. Sounds like "hey it worked for Dean so why not try". How many times did he say "outside candidate"?
Liebermann as the whineboy. He is pathetic. I remember seeing him for the first time when he was debating with Cheney before the election and liking him immediatly. He surely made that go away rather quickly.
Actually Kuchinich and Mosley-Brown won the most on this debate. Kucinich has great humor and makes jokes on his own expence which none of the other candidate dares to do
People come at him with lame questions and he doesn't just play along. The media tries to pidgeon hole him and he refuses to be labeled. He's liberal on somethings he's conservative on others.
You people need to get off the clich?s.
And he's not a tax and spender. He balanced his budgets. Unlike Bush.
And Leiberman is as exciting as a game of go-fish.
He'd probably make a great Secretary of State but he's a bit to Pro-Sharon.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
One has to be intoxicated to believe Dean can win the south.
And you'd have to certifiable to believe that a Jewish man from Connecticut could win it.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Some democrats want a hothead from Vermont who will have popular support in two or three northeast states but will fail at beating Bush in the general election.
It is quite troubling. I guess these tranced Dean freaks really want 4 more years of Bush.
One has to be intoxicated to believe Dean can win the south.
Clark on the other hand could beat Bush so bad it is not even funny.
Fellows
Originally posted by majorspunk
Why? What's wrong with him? Policy wise, he seems to be the closest to Clinton.
Lieberman took well to his constituency in Connecticut, chich is another way of saying the big insurance company lobbyists, and spearheaded the effort to stop Clinton from passing a law that would have allowed the SEC to watch corporate boards and also that did not allow teh sort of conflict of interests that resulted in ALL of the major scandals that hit the fan in the last several years
in other words he caved in to corporate pressure to the point where he became the spokesman for a push against an EXCELLENT bill . . . . a Liberal bill . . . . his push defeated the bill and stopped it dead in the water . . .
That in itself is enough for me not to vote for him . . .
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Betrayed?!
Dean has been conferring with Gore since last September... they've developed a rapport...
I think it's silly to act like this is some big betrayal... that Gore has been out stumping for Leiberman and all of a sudden he switches candidates? that's not what happened... I bet Leiberman was extremely distant from Gore... and didn't even ask for his endorsement. It goes both ways.
no, betrayal in that senator lieberman kept his aspirations in check, while waiting for gore to decide if he was going to run again. he was showing gore respect.
add to that that senator lieberman hears about the endorsement from someone other than gore.
and as i said before party elders historically keep their preferences to themselves, and let the game play out. gore is bush league doing this.
and he didn't carry his own state in the 2000 election. for a smart guy he sure is a bone-head.
Originally posted by midwinter
I knew Bill Clinton, sir, and Joe Lieberman is no Bill Clinton.
at this point in the 92 primary bill clinton wasn't bill clinton either.
what if ted kennedy or someone else would have come out for a different candidate at this stage of the game?
i mean there are nine candidates and the all should be given the opportunity to reach the starting gate.
have i mentioned gore didn't even win his own state in the 2000 election? what a pin-head.
Originally posted by pfflam
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
Man you are such a bullshit artist. There are aspects of both the left and right that endorse free or fair trade respectively. The problem is of course that when the left endorses fair trade, they aren't called racist. Likewise when the left endorses free trade they aren't called corporate raiders, globalists, and robber barrons.
There are plenty of folks on the right who happen to endorse only fair trade. I happen to be one of them.
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
Well obviously that wouldn't be my definition of fair trade would it. Could you start with less hyperbole or do you just enjoy ranting?
The reality is that free traders consider the U.S. to be generating excessive jobs. The jobs that become too expensive to keep here are considered shipped off overseas via free trade. That is why people will call fair traders racist when they suggest keeping all the manufactering/union type jobs here. It doesn't put an American out of work. That has already happened. It puts someone in Mexico, or China out of work.
However when you basically allow those jobs to become high paying but unskilled union type work, then nobody wants them shipped overseas. Who wouldn't want to make $100k a year as a longshoreman for example.
It is easy even for someone not as politically blind as yourself that when you adopt American safety standards, pensions, healthcare and wages, there isn't an advantage that you gain from shipping the job overseas. When Dean says he is bringing up the standards on the foreign soil side, it is just another way of saying tariff.
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
And the way to stop this flight to the bottom is...what? Consider that you contend we have to not only stop it for ourselves but for the entire world. How is that possible? If we stop it at home by using protective measures then we are racist, hypocritical, etc. We can't even be sure we could stop it from abroad. I've ready articles where Mexico is losing manufactoring jobs to China now. We don't control either of those two countries. The only we can put a stop to this is here at home. Doing so doesn't make us racist. It doesn't mean we want to harm other countries. It just means we are going to stop the race to the bottom here first.
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
I don't think the Bush tariffs have only been used to protect the powerful. Textile industries are mostly in the rural south and around parts of California. Steel production is hardly considered a Bush ally. I think it is that middle ground. The U.S. knows it is going to shed jobs in certain industries abroad for lower cost. However we can't just have the entire industry systematically stamped out and destroyed. We keep some of the jobs here. They are unionized, they often make more than is justified and as a result they need periodic protection when the competitive pressures bite too hard. It is the middle ground. The other path would entail basically shipping that entire industry off shore. That would give the fair traders (like me) too much of an argument for raising more tariffs. "Hey we don't even make steel in the U.S. anymore! It is all imported."
Instead they can say we make some, but not all of what we need. We ship plenty of jobs away and the middle ground is struck that makes us mostly free but occasionally caving when the political pressure gets to be too much or when an entire industry really is in danger of disappearing domestically.
I'm not saying I endorse this. I'm saying it is what has been done to keep fair traders from getting a foothold in the arena of ideas regarding this issue. It is why the majority of the left and the right have managed to do what they have done with it. But don't go making it some bullshit conservative conspiratorial fable when Clinton signed NAFTA and made the environmental and worker protection promises that were broken. (in 1993 for you conspiracy nutjobs out there)
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
I agree but realize that the left and the right have sold up the common man in this instance.
Nick
clark is strong in the areas where bush is supposed to be strong. then to top it off, he's strong where bush is weak. he would completely steam roll bush if they went head-to-head.
then again, McCain was a much better canidate, and look how that fared. the reps. elected bush instead.
Originally posted by alcimedes
then again, McCain was a much better canidate, and look how that fared. the reps. elected bush instead.
senator mcCain had better ideas,(and he's a better human being) i don't know if he was a better candidate, he spent half of the primaries defending his "hothead" reputation.
i feel certain that if he'd been the G.O.P.'s candidate we wouldn't be in the shit-hole we find ourselves in today.
Why is it that Clark could 'destroy' Bush, but can't beat Dean?
it's easy. if you had a choice between bush or clark, you'd vote clark.
if you had a choice between bush or dean, you'd vote dean.
if i had a choice between bush or dean, i'd vote bush.
if i had a choice between bush or clark, i'd vote clark.
dean is not electable to folks who sit between voting democrat or republican, but he is very pallatable to democrats.
clark on the other hand is someone i would vote for. that's what i mean.
i did not say racist!
I am talking about the free trade stipulations appended to every IMF loan. I am talking about the growth of "Tax Free Zones" promoted by the IMF loan agreements and all of the related items pushed by these loans . . . as well as the subsidization of American produce and exports
These things are contrary to [edit: balanced human centered Trade] and are bad for people and developing countries
as far as benefitting the powerful . . . clearly Bush is only watching his own arse here . . . he doesn't care how much the idea of tariffs runs counter to his espoused conservative Lessez Faire philosophy he merely wants to maintain support in Penn and Ohio and retain lobbyist money . . .
And yes... the extreme left sold out people . . . but thoughtful allocation of resources and regulation is not selling out the common man as much as blind corporatism and the IMF
Originally posted by midwinter
I knew Bill Clinton, sir, and Joe Lieberman is no Bill Clinton.
Three reasons:
1) Most liberals, so far as I can tell, believe Joe a Republican (didn't he used to be?)
2) He's not an inspiring public speaker.
3) America has a long and rich tradition of not electing non-Protestant presidents. Sad, but true.
Lieberman is right where Clinton was. This new Democratic party has changed, apparently back to the way it was before Clinton. Only liberals who forget that Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it, balancing the budget, decreased domestic discretionary spending, spearheaded NAFTA et al., and ended the era of big government, think that there's something wrong with Lieberman. Hell, Clinton was more "conservative" than Bush, on all those counts I mentioned.
I like his campaign style. I guess I don't go for the big political rhetorical speeches. He has a kind of self-effacing humorous self-conscious (stereotypically Jewish) style. Remember how everyone loved him in 2000? Everyone wanted the tickets to be reversed after Cheney and Lieberman had their VP debate.
Originally posted by alcimedes
clark on the other hand is someone i would vote for. that's what i mean.
Still, in the primary, I don't see how Dean trumpts Clark on all counts. That's why I don't understand how people believe this is the end for the democrats.
I still say Clark should run as VP with Dean. That'd screw everyone up.
Originally posted by BRussell
Lieberman is right where Clinton was. This new Democratic party has changed, apparently back to the way it was before Clinton. Only liberals who forget that Clinton ran on ending welfare as we know it, balancing the budget, decreased domestic discretionary spending, spearheaded NAFTA et al., and ended the era of big government, think that there's something wrong with Lieberman. Hell, Clinton was more "conservative" than Bush, on all those counts I mentioned.
I like his campaign style. I guess I don't go for the big political rhetorical speeches. He has a kind of self-effacing humorous self-conscious (stereotypically Jewish) style. Remember how everyone loved him in 2000? Everyone wanted the tickets to be reversed after Cheney and Lieberman had their VP debate.
Bingo. Lieberman was the last gasp at where the Democratic party was going under Clinton. All other candidates are to the left of him. The Democratic party seems to have found its vision for what it should be about and it is a repudiation of where Clinton took the party. Of course, Clinton basically adopted moderate Republican positions on many issues for the 96 election cycle.
All in all, I like Lieberman. I don't agree with him on many issues, but he strikes me as the most realistic and down to earth of the Democratic candidates and he is not trying to spin his own fantasy, but speaking honest words of reality to the party. Sadly, primaries are about appealing to your base as much as possible, not about being a sensible candidate. Clinton's legacy dies with Lieberman and Clinton is ceeding his "king making" control over the DNC to... Gore. What a sad day for Clinton- his legacy about taking the democratic party to the middle is about to become history.
SOme observations from the recent Democrat debate:
Most said phrase: "I am the only candidate on this stage bla bla bla". SOmething I hated Dean for doing. Now he is the one doing it the least.
Everybody bitching on eachother and everyone talking about the need to not battle eachother. Way to go...
Edwards trying to invent himself as the outside candidate. Sounds like "hey it worked for Dean so why not try". How many times did he say "outside candidate"?
Liebermann as the whineboy. He is pathetic. I remember seeing him for the first time when he was debating with Cheney before the election and liking him immediatly. He surely made that go away rather quickly.
Actually Kuchinich and Mosley-Brown won the most on this debate. Kucinich has great humor and makes jokes on his own expence which none of the other candidate dares to do
People come at him with lame questions and he doesn't just play along. The media tries to pidgeon hole him and he refuses to be labeled. He's liberal on somethings he's conservative on others.
You people need to get off the clich?s.
And he's not a tax and spender. He balanced his budgets. Unlike Bush.
And Leiberman is as exciting as a game of go-fish.
He'd probably make a great Secretary of State but he's a bit to Pro-Sharon.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And Leiberman is as exciting as a game of go-fish.
Heh.