If you look at policy matters, Dean is not a far left guy.
The "far left" brand was stamped on him by members of the Democratic party, who voted like crazy for him in the primaries. They still believe that the center is "Bush lite," and copying Bush will win them the most appeal.
Dean is a candidate who actually has an inspiring message. His message and methods of organizing caught the Democratic establishment off guard.
He should be leading the next generation of Democrats, but Terry McAuliffe and the fewer than 1% of US voters who are registered Democrats and voted in the "important" primaries decided Kerry is their man-still haunted by the spectre of McGovern and Dukakis, no doubt.
In my opinion, Kerry still has a pretty good chance of winning, just because people dislike Bush so much. But the Democratic party in general has lost touch with its roots, is rapidly losing its appeal, and will not survive for long as a major party without some sort of new direction.
You're wasting your time. Guys like SDW don't give a sh*t.
I don't think Kerry will pick Dean. Regardless of that poll, Dean does represent the ultra-left, and that will only help Bush. After the meltdown (manufactured or not), Dean is over.
'Ultra-left'? You're so far to the right that I guess he is "ultra-left"...your left that is.
Quote:
Kerry's best choice is Edwards. Honestly, I think Edwards would be a better Presidential candidate to challenge Bush. He's not extreme...he's positive, he's good looking (ehhh) and well spoken.
Hmmm. Is he good looking enough to replace DUHbya's aircraft carrier poster in your bedroom?
I think it's gonna be Edwards. After the way Kerry bashed Dean during the primaries, I have a hard time seeing them running together.
I wonder if Kerry would be better served to pick someone that hasn't even been mentioned? Someone under the radar. An up and comer of some sorts. If he picks someone with solid convictions, and energy, it wouldn't be hard to overcome such a person's relative anonymity.
I mean there would be instante swarms of press the second Kerry picked someone that nobody saw coming. "Who is this guy?" pieces on TV. Lots of press telling said person's bio and how they got to this point. Seems like it'd generate an awful lot of free publicity, and for the most part that type of exposure is positive.
If you look at policy matters, Dean is not a far left guy.
The "far left" brand was stamped on him by members of the Democratic party, who voted like crazy for him in the primaries. They still believe that the center is "Bush lite," and copying Bush will win them the most appeal.
Dean is a candidate who actually has an inspiring message. His message and methods of organizing caught the Democratic establishment off guard.
He should be leading the next generation of Democrats, but Terry McAuliffe and the fewer than 1% of US voters who are registered Democrats and voted in the "important" primaries decided Kerry is their man-still haunted by the spectre of McGovern and Dukakis, no doubt.
In my opinion, Kerry still has a pretty good chance of winning, just because people dislike Bush so much. But the Democratic party in general has lost touch with its roots, is rapidly losing its appeal, and will not survive for long as a major party without some sort of new direction.
Well, Dean was certainly Left of the other candidates. I agree with your comments about McCauliffe and the Democratic party.
Lay off the personal attacks. I doubt you understand my scope of positions on the issues at hand. It's certainly much easier for you to paint me as an extremist, but perhaps you'd...I don't know....want to THINK instead?
Dean is more "Left" than the other candidates. Sure, Sharpton is insane and Kucinich was a peacenick, but Dean had the ultra-left following. No question.
I really don't think after Dean's meltdown (again, whether it was manufactured or not) that Kerry will go with him.
That would be very good news here in Bush Country. Any remote chance of a Kerry win would be destroyed by such a ticket. What are Democrats thinking? America does not identify with their liberal agenda. America does not support the "tax and spend" socialism of the democrats. America does not support the radial environmental agenda and the homosexual agenda and the anti-religion agenda. Kerry needs a close -to -center or slightly conservative running mate to have any chance. Why do you think he was courting JM?
America does not support the "tax and spend" socialism of the democrats.
Isn´t that "tax and balance (and repair republican generateed deficits)"? And would republican policy not be "borrow and spend (and jepardize the freedom of future generations)"?
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
America does not support the radial environmental agenda and the homosexual agenda
So "America" (whoever that is) doesn´t support the idea of freedom of choice and the idea that as long as you don´t hurt others you can do whatever you want?
Quote:
Originally posted by Common Man
and the anti-religion agenda.
So this Mr America doesn´t like freedom of choice? That we should be able to choose religion or not? That somehow some people know that religion is good for the people and you shall not be able to avoid it if you want? Isn´t that what we accused communism of doing?
Well, Dean was certainly Left of the other candidates.
Even if Dean was "certainly left of the other candidates" (he was not: sharpton and kucinich offered the most leftward choice to democratic party voters), it still doesn't justify saying he "represents the ultra-left." The ultra-left does not accept liberal politics, which only uphold the market economy and the state. The only thing Dean or any other Democratic Party candidate has to offer the ultra-left is a compromised choice between two evils. (Despite few differences and given the power of the presidency, that choice has significant consequences.)
Kerry-Dean? Absolutely not going to happen. Dean is far too much of a populist for the VP spot. My guess would be Edwards, not that I would welcome that bland, insipid, ersatz combo one iota.
Now if Hillary Clinton was the running "mate"......
Comments
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
If you look at policy matters, Dean is not a far left guy.
The "far left" brand was stamped on him by members of the Democratic party, who voted like crazy for him in the primaries. They still believe that the center is "Bush lite," and copying Bush will win them the most appeal.
Dean is a candidate who actually has an inspiring message. His message and methods of organizing caught the Democratic establishment off guard.
He should be leading the next generation of Democrats, but Terry McAuliffe and the fewer than 1% of US voters who are registered Democrats and voted in the "important" primaries decided Kerry is their man-still haunted by the spectre of McGovern and Dukakis, no doubt.
In my opinion, Kerry still has a pretty good chance of winning, just because people dislike Bush so much. But the Democratic party in general has lost touch with its roots, is rapidly losing its appeal, and will not survive for long as a major party without some sort of new direction.
You're wasting your time. Guys like SDW don't give a sh*t.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think Kerry will pick Dean. Regardless of that poll, Dean does represent the ultra-left, and that will only help Bush. After the meltdown (manufactured or not), Dean is over.
'Ultra-left'?
Kerry's best choice is Edwards. Honestly, I think Edwards would be a better Presidential candidate to challenge Bush. He's not extreme...he's positive, he's good looking (ehhh) and well spoken.
I think it's gonna be Edwards. After the way Kerry bashed Dean during the primaries, I have a hard time seeing them running together.
I mean there would be instante swarms of press the second Kerry picked someone that nobody saw coming. "Who is this guy?" pieces on TV. Lots of press telling said person's bio and how they got to this point. Seems like it'd generate an awful lot of free publicity, and for the most part that type of exposure is positive.
NOOOONOOONON!!!!!!! not Gephardt!! That would be shooting himself in the foot!
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
If you look at policy matters, Dean is not a far left guy.
The "far left" brand was stamped on him by members of the Democratic party, who voted like crazy for him in the primaries. They still believe that the center is "Bush lite," and copying Bush will win them the most appeal.
Dean is a candidate who actually has an inspiring message. His message and methods of organizing caught the Democratic establishment off guard.
He should be leading the next generation of Democrats, but Terry McAuliffe and the fewer than 1% of US voters who are registered Democrats and voted in the "important" primaries decided Kerry is their man-still haunted by the spectre of McGovern and Dukakis, no doubt.
In my opinion, Kerry still has a pretty good chance of winning, just because people dislike Bush so much. But the Democratic party in general has lost touch with its roots, is rapidly losing its appeal, and will not survive for long as a major party without some sort of new direction.
Well, Dean was certainly Left of the other candidates. I agree with your comments about McCauliffe and the Democratic party.
Gilsch:
Lay off the personal attacks. I doubt you understand my scope of positions on the issues at hand. It's certainly much easier for you to paint me as an extremist, but perhaps you'd...I don't know....want to THINK instead?
Dean is more "Left" than the other candidates. Sure, Sharpton is insane and Kucinich was a peacenick, but Dean had the ultra-left following. No question.
I really don't think after Dean's meltdown (again, whether it was manufactured or not) that Kerry will go with him.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It's certainly much easier for you to paint me as an extremist, but perhaps you'd...I don't know....want to THINK instead?
If you think Dean's policy is ultra-left, then you are an extremist.
Originally posted by Common Man
America does not support the "tax and spend" socialism of the democrats.
Isn´t that "tax and balance (and repair republican generateed deficits)"? And would republican policy not be "borrow and spend (and jepardize the freedom of future generations)"?
Originally posted by Common Man
America does not support the radial environmental agenda and the homosexual agenda
So "America" (whoever that is) doesn´t support the idea of freedom of choice and the idea that as long as you don´t hurt others you can do whatever you want?
Originally posted by Common Man
and the anti-religion agenda.
So this Mr America doesn´t like freedom of choice? That we should be able to choose religion or not? That somehow some people know that religion is good for the people and you shall not be able to avoid it if you want? Isn´t that what we accused communism of doing?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, Dean was certainly Left of the other candidates.
Even if Dean was "certainly left of the other candidates" (he was not: sharpton and kucinich offered the most leftward choice to democratic party voters), it still doesn't justify saying he "represents the ultra-left." The ultra-left does not accept liberal politics, which only uphold the market economy and the state. The only thing Dean or any other Democratic Party candidate has to offer the ultra-left is a compromised choice between two evils. (Despite few differences and given the power of the presidency, that choice has significant consequences.)
Now if Hillary Clinton was the running "mate"......
Originally posted by Existence
http://www.draftdeanforvp.org/petition.html
Oh brother!
"Because it worked soooo good with Clark"