would a Kerry/Clark campaign beat Bush/Cheney?
ok, lets say things keep on the pace they are currently going (kerry tops with dean, clark and edwards trailing)...could/would a Kerry/Clark ticket take the white house?
and would Kerry pick Clark?
pluses:
both military men (neither bush nor cheney can make any legit claims to this compared to these two)
Clark would give a "washington outsider" side to Kerry's long time elected office side
Clark would give a foreign service/ knowledge side to Kerry's domestic service/knowledge side
the only down side: Clark's lack of held office and lack of polish campaigning could easily be seen by many as pluses...
i actually see the democrats going well this year...after bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote, he came into office saying he would be a uniter, not a divider...yet i have not seen him reach out to the other side at all...i think alot, if not all, democrats are upset with him as president and will show up strong at the voting booths (like they did in New Hampshire on a sub freezing day)...i also see many hard line conservatives sitting it out because bush hasn't held the budget down in any way shape or form. i guess time will tell...but is seems a Kerry/Clark ticket would cover both the domestic and foreign policy side, would keep the democrats happy, yet still draw the independents and even liberal republicans more than Bush/Cheney would draw the "Reagan democrats"...
g
as a side note...i am surprised they are staying with cheney...i really don't think anybody truely trusts him and usually a lame duck ticket wants to set up the next run at the presidency...cheney would never ever never win the presidency, the repubs would have to start from scratch (unless they know that a whole "Left Behind" thing is coming in the next 4 years and they don't really care)
and would Kerry pick Clark?
pluses:
both military men (neither bush nor cheney can make any legit claims to this compared to these two)
Clark would give a "washington outsider" side to Kerry's long time elected office side
Clark would give a foreign service/ knowledge side to Kerry's domestic service/knowledge side
the only down side: Clark's lack of held office and lack of polish campaigning could easily be seen by many as pluses...
i actually see the democrats going well this year...after bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote, he came into office saying he would be a uniter, not a divider...yet i have not seen him reach out to the other side at all...i think alot, if not all, democrats are upset with him as president and will show up strong at the voting booths (like they did in New Hampshire on a sub freezing day)...i also see many hard line conservatives sitting it out because bush hasn't held the budget down in any way shape or form. i guess time will tell...but is seems a Kerry/Clark ticket would cover both the domestic and foreign policy side, would keep the democrats happy, yet still draw the independents and even liberal republicans more than Bush/Cheney would draw the "Reagan democrats"...
g
as a side note...i am surprised they are staying with cheney...i really don't think anybody truely trusts him and usually a lame duck ticket wants to set up the next run at the presidency...cheney would never ever never win the presidency, the repubs would have to start from scratch (unless they know that a whole "Left Behind" thing is coming in the next 4 years and they don't really care)
Comments
They cannot question major Bush policies and decisions because they have either said laudatory things about them or have voted for them. They cannot claim that they have been misled without seeming gullible and incompetent.
the theme seems to be, front runner + clark. i remember when dean was ahead, everyone was saying how dean + clark would rock our world.
Originally posted by Existence
It won't be Bush/Cheney, it will be Bush/Giuliani and neither of those two Democrats have a chance.
They cannot question prime Bush policies because they have either said laudatory things about them or have voted for them. They cannot claim that they have been misled without seeming gullible or incompetent.
thanks for adding to your post...i was going to ask you why you felt that way...i see it this way...i don't think a single person that voted for Gore/Liberman 4 years ago would vote for Bush/Cheney...so, if the democrats get out the vote like last time, plus 500 more votes in florida, democrats win...i don't see the current Bush/Cheney ticket doing any better than it did 4 fours ago when the repubs tried hard to get out the vote to stop 8 years of democratic control and wanted to say a "nix" to the clinton whitehouse...
Kerry/Clark can still easily claim that they will do better with the economy and with domestic issues...and will say that while they had some support of the war, it was mostly based on misinformation supplied by the white house
i don't see a Bush/Giuliani ticket doing any better...Giuliani has more baggage than clinton and his 9/11 bounce has since faded away
g
1. Nominees don't usually pick one of their primary opponents for veep, and
2. Presidents don't usually change veeps mid-term.
Originally posted by thegelding
thanks for adding to your post...i was going to ask you why you felt that way...i see it this way...i don't think a single person that voted for Gore/Liberman 4 years ago would vote for Bush/Cheney...so, if the democrats get out the vote like last time, plus 500 more votes in florida, democrats win...i don't see the current Bush/Cheney ticket doing any better than it did 4 fours ago when the repubs tried hard to get out the vote to stop 8 years of democratic control and wanted to say a "nix" to the clinton whitehouse...
Kerry/Clark can still easily claim that they will do better with the economy and with domestic issues...and will say that while they had some support of the war, it was mostly based on misinformation supplied by the white house
i don't see a Bush/Giuliani ticket doing any better...Giuliani has more baggage than clinton and his 9/11 bounce has since faded away
g
don't forget that we'll get the nader vote. however, i wouldn't count on winning FL for two reasons:
1) minority voters feel very disenfranchised and carry a "they are going to do what they want anyways, so why bother voting?" attitude
2) FL migration is very right-wing
Originally posted by thegelding
thanks for adding to your post...i was going to ask you why you felt that way...i see it this way...i don't think a single person that voted for Gore/Liberman 4 years ago would vote for Bush/Cheney...so, if the democrats get out the vote like last time, plus 500 more votes in florida, democrats win...i don't see the current Bush/Cheney ticket doing any better than it did 4 fours ago when the repubs tried hard to get out the vote to stop 8 years of democratic control and wanted to say a "nix" to the clinton whitehouse...
You forget the September 11 and the Iraq War factors.
Kerry/Clark can still easily claim that they will do better with the economy and with domestic issues...and will say that while they had some support of the war, it was mostly based on misinformation supplied by the white house
i don't see a Bush/Giuliani ticket doing any better...Giuliani has more baggage than clinton and his 9/11 bounce has since faded away
By claiming that one is misled, one claims that one is gullible or incompetent. Dean and millions(no BILLIONS) of other people around the world were not 'misled'. A trusting rubber-stamp politician is an incompetent politician.
Kerry cannot critize Bush on any of the following without being a hypocrit or seeming incompetent/gullible:
1. Iraq war
2. Federal Deficit
3. No Child Left Behind
4. Bush tax cuts
All we're left is Kerry harping on Bush about how Bush has failed to create jobs while Kerry twiddled his thumbs doing nothing in the Senate or voted with Bush.
The situation is similar for Clark. All Bush has to do is drag out old tapes of Clark praising Bush and tell how Clark has raised money for Bush. If Clark claims he was misled, he'll also seem incompetent/gullible.
In the end, what we're left with is a race to the middle and courting independents/undecideds since neither Clark nor Kerry excites the base. You won't get the Nader vote with either Kerry or Clark.
And the undecideds aren't going to go for Mr. Gullible Kerry/Clark no matter how slick they are.
As for Bush/Giuliani, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4065772/
No wait! Bush/Zell Miller!
How's that for Bringing Us Together?
Aries 1B
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What is this infatuation with Clark? There are a LOT of Dems who would make a better choice than Clark. Wesley's problem isn't his lack of "polish". It's that he's a crackpot.
Crackpot? Come on. The guy is a bona fide war hero who dedicated his like to the military. Sure, he's not that great on the stump or the debates (though it doesn't help to get stupid and biased questions), and he's said some silly things to try to burnish his image as a real Democrat. And I'm sure he's got a nice big ego, but who doesn't when running for prez. But crackpot? That's just a Republican pre-emptive strike against the imminent threat he poses to Bush's war-president image.
Edit: didn't see the MSNBC link until just now.
Originally posted by BRussell
Crackpot? Come on... That's just a Republican pre-emptive strike against the imminent threat he poses to Bush's war-president image.
He just finished a distant third in New Hampshire after making a strategic decision to focus his efforts there. "Imminent threat"? Nope. That ain't it.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
He just finished a distant third in New Hampshire after making a strategic decision to focus his efforts there. "Imminent threat"? Nope. That ain't it.
I dunno, those Bushies have a, uh, broad interpretation of "imminent threat."
you get my drift.
Think Clark has to place at least second in SC and win OK to stay in it. But what do I know?
Originally posted by Existence
[B By claiming that one is misled, one claims that one is gullible or incompetent. Dean and millions(no BILLIONS) of other people around the world were not 'misled'. A trusting rubber-stamp politician is an incompetent politician.
Kerry cannot critize Bush on any of the following without being a hypocrit or seeming incompetent/gullible:
1. Iraq war
2. Federal Deficit
3. No Child Left Behind
4. Bush tax cuts
All we're left is Kerry harping on Bush about how Bush has failed to create jobs while Kerry twiddled his thumbs doing nothing in the Senate or voted with Bush.
The situation is similar for Clark. All Bush has to do is drag out old tapes of Clark praising Bush and tell how Clark has raised money for Bush. If Clark claims he was misled, he'll also seem incompetent/gullible.
In the end, what we're left with is a race to the middle and courting independents/undecideds since neither Clark nor Kerry excites the base. You won't get the Nader vote with either Kerry or Clark.
And the undecideds aren't going to go for Mr. Gullible Kerry/Clark no matter how slick they are.
As for Bush/Giuliani, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4065772/ [/B]
sorry i wasn't around yesterday to reply...i will try my best to today:
1. Clark: can claim two things: first, that he stated that this war would be a mistake if the UN was not involved. history has shown him to be correct. second, he can easily claim that he thought Bush was a good man that could do good things for this country. then he can say that sadly he, like almost 50 percent of the people who voted 4 years ago, was wrong. he can further say that Bush is likely still a good man, but he has been bad for America, has been bad for it's workers and for it's image abroad. he can finish by saying, i was wrong about Bush being good for this country, but it is ok to admit you were wrong, to learn from it and move forward. this administration can not admit it was wrong about yellowcake, about WMD, about releasing CIA secret identities, about needing UN involvement in iraq, about needing a clear post war plan in iraq, etc etc
2. Kerry: his job is just as simple...i could easily write the whole speech for him. first, bush would never be silly enough to say, "you voted with me when i was wrong, so you are wrong too"...that would look very bad for bush and would open him up to attack and would also require him to admit he was wrong, which he will never do.
what kerry should do is say, "when president bush took office it was a very turbulent time in america. we had a president who had lost the popular vote being annointed by the supreme court as president for the first time in the history of the united states. people were confused and the country was at risk of being split in two. the president came in and asked for healing, better communication and for bi-partisan cooperation. in the best interest of this wonderful country i worked with the president as much as i could to give him a chance to see if his programs would work. sadly his programs have not worked and his staff has worked hard to decrease communication and decrease bi-partisan cooperation. four years later we find that 2.5 million less people are working, we find that the united states is thought of worse in almost every country around the world, we find that the economy is worse that when bush took office, we find that personal freedoms and constitutional rights are being eroded and we find that intelligence we used to go to war is "suspect" at best.
If I am elected president i expect there to be more people working 4 years later, i expect relations with other countries around the world to be better than when i took office, i expect the economy to improve, i except that the citizen of this great country will believe that their constitutional rights will be protected and secured, i would expect our intelligence to be the best and most reliable in the world. If, after four years in office, i found that there were fewer americans working, that the economy was down from when i took office, that our image around the world was down, that our intelligence was not working and that our citizen thought that their constitution rights were weaker than when i took office, then i would not expect to be re-elected. How can president bush expect the citizens of the united states to re-elect him when all of his programs have failed?"
as for the base democrats and nader people....
i think the base democrats are actually getting quite excited by the thoughts of having somebody running that could actually beat bush...
as for the nader people, two things: 1) maybe they will feel slightly bad that they helped bush win in 2000 and will come back to the democratic nominee, especially since bush has done absolutely nothing for them 2)when clinton beat the first bush, many claimed that he won because of the perot people, but at least clinton did many of the things those people wanted...changed deficts into surpluses, added jobs, etc etc...when the nader people helped bush win, he did none of the things they wanted...
and don't forget the fact that soooo many people now vote not for a canidate, but against a canidate...sad but true..
as for attacking kerry for being so dang gullible to supporting bush's failed programs...that would be suicide for bush..."Ha ha, you are so incompetent and gullible for voting for my incompetent programs."
g
edit: as for clark being a crackpot...you have to see him talking about things he is very comfortable with...when he is talking about foreign policy and war, there are few better (there is a reason he made 1.6 million in speaking fees)...he just isn't quite prepared for how BIG campaigning for president is....he would be a fine vice president and will learn as he goes along how to handle the press and the silly questions they ask
And make no mistake, Bush won't be debating Al "Where'd my personality go?" Gore this time around... he's going to get trashed if the Dems do their homework and the moderators in question hold Bush's feet to the fire.
It will also be interesting to see who Bush chooses as his partner, if someone other than Dick Haliburton. Choosing a new running mate would be more or less admitting he made the wrong choice the first time around in the eyes of many in the media and public at large.
might I say that the post above is an example of a fine post and should be required reading for new AO members . . . based soley on its stylistic merits . . . not to mention its thoughtfull content as we
I second that! good one g!