Democratic Presidential Candidate Discussion (aka "No Bush in '04!")

adambyte

adambyte

Registered
I'm surprised nobody has started a thread like this already. At elast as far as I know.

With Bush doing a horrible job at being president and all, we might as well get started with a discussion of replacing him, eh? So, I would like to know what your thoughts are on the Democratic side of things. There are quite a few candidates.

http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/index.html

Here's my take on them (yes, I know, some of the arguments are a little superficial, but even good looks have to be taken in to account in the age of television)...

1. Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun - as ready as I am for a black woman to be president, try telling that to anybody else. Considered a "novelty" candidate, sadly. Next!

2. Reverend Al Sharpton - same here. There's nothing I'd love to see more than a "brotha" (insert dorky white laughing here) in office, but... yeah, alas, he is a "novelty," too. Next!

3. Congressman Dennis Kucinich - a nice guy with good values, alas, he is lacking charisma, something that every good president should have. Next!

4. Senator Joe Lieberman - at first I was like, "hey, Cool! I'll vote Jewish!" However, after looking at Joe's record, one realizes that he is really a republican who has managed to sneak in to the democratic party. Plus, he STILL thinks the war was justified. Psh! NEXT!

5. Senator John Kerry - Lacking charisma, AND voted FOR WAR. Now he's doing back-peddling. Plus, if you want to get superficial, he's just ugly. lol. NEXT!

6. Senator Bob Graham - He gets major points for voting against the war, as well as being in charge of investigating Bush's lying. however, he doesn't seem to have much in the personality department. Dang.

Hmm... We're getting down to the wire, here!

7. Senator John Edwards - Another moderate who was FOR war. Jesus! What, were all these guys under the "dumb" spell of George Bush? NEXT!

8. Congressman Dick Gephardt - A guy with charisma, decent looks, and for the most part, a true Democrat... except for, WHOOPS! Voted for war!

Some of these candidates have back-pedalled, saying they wouldn't have voted for war knowing that Bush was not giving us the truth. However, even if Bush WAS telling the truth, it was still a horrible case for WAR. WHO THE HELL IS CAN WE ELECT THAT STILL HAS BALLS?

Thusly, I give you...

9. Governor HOWARD DEAN, M.D.- Charismatic, decent in the looks department, and against war. This guy is the only democrat with the drive, resources, AND balls to stand up for what he believes in. He is known as a blunt "straight-talker." He was governor of his home state, Vermont (also home to Ben & Jerry, who do lots of charity on the side with their ice cream). First, he was a Doctor of medicine (so this man knows the health care system, and how it can be improved). Then, while governor of Vermont, Not only did the he pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn. Plus, he signed a bill giving gay people "civil unions" which gives benefits like hospital visitations, spousal health coverage, and all the sort of marraige benefits, without actually giving "marraige" (which he says is a religious sort of bond). Equal rights for gay couples, while still not upsetting people who hold the term "marraige" so dear, religiously.

Visit his bio page for a whole list of his achievements. He is more than qualified to take the office of President.

http://www.deanforamerica.com
and, to SEE him in action...
http://www.howarddean.tv

</soapbox>

Well? Comments? Please feel free to correct me if I made any errors. Though I still think Kerry is ugly.
 
I'll vote either for Dean or for Sakellarides of the MOX party... but probably Dean.
 
I predict Dean will win over moderate Republicans in the general election, who disagree with Bush's more radical right-wing policies, thus winning the Presidency handily against Dumbya.
 
Adam, when was there ever a vote for war? The was never an official declaration of war by congress, as it's not needed by the president to take military action when he deams it necessary. The only stipulation there is the president has to keep congress abreast of the situation, and they can (required to ) vote on funding for the conflict within a set time period. 30 or 60 days or so if I remember right. If Congress doesn't like it, they cut funding and the conflict is forced to end. The whole checks and balances idea.

As far as the democratic nominee, there are no good choices.

On another note, it seems your only reason stated for disliking Bush is because of the war, something that should have happened long ago under our last president (a Democrat). Instead, Clinton let Iraq get away with murder while he was in office. I hope you had other reasons than just a decision to remove Hussein from leadership as a sign of Bush being a poor leader, if so you may want to make them known.

As sad as it is to say, there is only one african american who has enough polotical clout to give a good run for the Presidency, and that's Colin Powell. It's the sad truth of the world today.
 
I'll be old enough to vote this year. I think myself Bush has done a fine job as President. Better then what Clinton has ever done IMO. So when I go to vote, I already know who is going getting it. Unless I really see someone better. :p
 
I still am amazed how new/young voters still don't get it. Yes Presidential elections count. The President does seem to set the mood of the Federal government. But, many, many voters can't even name the Vice President let alone their own two Senators and Congressional people. Don't even dare to ask them the name of their Mayor/County Executive. Don't forget about your congressman/woman State Representatives and Governor.

Yet you will vote for all these people. IMHO these representatives have more influence over your daily life than the President ever will.
 
Originally posted by mdnky
Adam, when was there ever a vote for war? The was never an official declaration of war by congress, as it's not needed by the president to take military action when he deams it necessary. The only stipulation there is the president has to keep congress abreast of the situation, and they can (required to ) vote on funding for the conflict within a set time period. 30 or 60 days or so if I remember right. If Congress doesn't like it, they cut funding and the conflict is forced to end. The whole checks and balances idea.
Click to expand...

Right... excuse my general use of the phrase "voting" for "war." I think i was tired and pissy at the time of writing. I should have just made the general statement of "supporting" a "military action." Though, when it comes right down to it, that's what Congress was doing. Giving financial approval to an act of war. When you send guns and people over there to do killing, and to take control, that's freakin' war, man, whether you "declare" it, put it in quotation marks, or whatever.

Originally posted by mdnky
On another note, it seems your only reason stated for disliking Bush is because of the war, something that should have happened long ago under our last president (a Democrat). Instead, Clinton let Iraq get away with murder while he was in office. I hope you had other reasons than just a decision to remove Hussein from leadership as a sign of Bush being a poor leader, if so you may want to make them known.
Click to expand...

Reasons for disliking Bush have been discussed plenty of times before in other threads. This thread is about democrats. But if you want to know, between making war on a nation when a threat is not imminent and you're already in a financial slump, attacking gay rights, having disregard for foreign relations and the U.N. (thus pissing off most of Europe, as well as half of this country), and being a just plain bad speaker, he's a bad president in my book. But as I said, this thread is about Democrats, not about why Bush sucks.

Originally posted by mdnky
As sad as it is to say, there is only one african american who has enough polotical clout to give a good run for the Presidency, and that's Colin Powell. It's the sad truth of the world today.
Click to expand...

Well, I doubt there's "only one." And, I don't know much about Colin Powell, but what with his resigning after this term, it sounds like his advice is being ignored by the administartion. Poor guy.
 
Originally posted by Satcomer
I still am amazed how new/young voters still don't get it. Yes Presidential elections count. The President does seem to set the mood of the Federal government. But, many, many voters can't even name the Vice President let alone their own two Senators and Congressional people. Don't even dare to ask them the name of their Mayor/County Executive. Don't forget about your congressman/woman State Representatives and Governor.

Yet you will vote for all these people. IMHO these representatives have more influence over your daily life than the President ever will.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree with your statements. I'm currently 20, and a young voter. A few months ago, I voted for the officials of my city, based on the flyers at other information I got from them, and made informed and well thought out decisions. I try to keep up with people's backgrounds and positions, and think about the consequences of decisions those people make. But yes, many young... acutally, just many people in general only vote every four years... sad, but true.

And yes, the president of the U.S. very often DOES just set a "mood" or "tone" of government. But who says that the tone of government cannot be an important part of how a country is governed?
 
Originally posted by marz
I predict Dean will win over moderate Republicans in the general election, who disagree with Bush's more radical right-wing policies, thus winning the Presidency handily against Dumbya.
Click to expand...

heh. let's hope you're right. The funny thing is, many people see Dean as very left because of his positions on gay rights, environmental protection, judicious use of the military, and universal health care.

At the same time, many people see him as a centrist with the way he handles money. *shrugs* It will be interesting to see how people feel about this guy.
 
Over here in canada there's a PC party..... There should be a MAC party in the US... Steve as president....... hehe
 
Reality, is this the good job that Bush has done that you were talking about? Even better than Clinton's accomplishments?

I really do not know why anybody votes for Bush. Is it because he's a smooth talker? Well, that's out the window from the start. Is it because of his foreign policy? I didn't know he had one. Is it because of his economic policy? Oh, that's a good topic: rich corporations getting richer while the American worker suffers amid soaring national debt.

People badmouth Clinton because of his covered up affairs with women. Well, newsflash: Lots of men, both in and out of elected office, cheat on their wives! Sure, it's not pretty or right, but it's no reason to throw all of a president's accomplishments out the window. Bush has done far more heinous transgressions, and people actually support him! And it's not just El Presidente Non-elect, it's his whole administration. They're scary.
 
Whichever president you vote, I hope he has internal affairs high on his agenda. I do not live in the US, but there are a few things to be addressed IMHO, that are much more important than another war overseas.
Things like healthcare, insurance, a healthy economy, workers rights, etc. I can't remember any of Bush's breakthroughs in these fields... I suppose a democrat would be better suited to address these than a republican.
 
I remember hearing talk of Hilary Clinton going up against Bush. Is that realistic at all?

Reality, of course you are entitled to vote for whoever you want, but please, please do some reading up on the politics of your country and the prospective candidates before you do. The current administration is one of the worst things that has happened to America in recent years, don't let it happen again.

Another point, obviously the more or less two party system in the US is broadly similar to the one here and in other European countries but it seems to me that the tradition of voting for an individual as president as opposed to a party is quite limiting. As Satcomer was saying, many Americans don't have a clue who represents them, even at the level of State and Congress, which is worrying. I admit that I don't know who my local councillor is, or what the name of my MSP is, but in the recent elections I did look into who the candidates were and what they were standing on and voted accordingly. I was brought up to see a real value in my vote, and although I'm disillusioned with party politics in general, I make sure I vote when I can. From what I know about American politics, it seems like the system needs some reform in order to give the people more choice and freedom of political expression. If the Democrats mess up with their choice of candidate there are going to be many Americans who will be horrified at the prospect of another 4 years of dubya. And given the current global political situation, this election will be important to millions of non-Americans too. As one of them I just hope that Bush won't be back next year, for the sake of America and the rest of the world, 'democratic' or not.

Forgot to say, I should know who my MSP is but another New Labour clone got in this year so it didn't make much difference to me. The good thing about our parliament is that it has an element of proportional representation but with that stability of first past the post. This means that we've got a good range of stances from socialist to centre-right but that there haven't been any problems forming a coherent government so far (as opposed to say New Zealand).
 
Originally posted by arden
Reality, is this the good job that Bush has done that you were talking about? Even better than Clinton's accomplishments?
Click to expand...

<< Info regarding Clinton from above site is in italics >>
The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

This is a mood point as this is no longer the case. Now it's fill out a yellow form and the dealer calls a FBI hotline. Takes a total of 15mins to decide on what you want and fill the form out, have the check, then pay and leave the store. As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, that's a complete joke. Criminals don't buy guns legally...they buy them on the black market or steal them. The only thing this did was limit law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. And since it'll be brought up, NO police force in the US is responsible for protecting individual citizens. They are responisble for protecting the public as a whole, not individually. Another example is the states with the harshed, tightest gun control laws have extremly high levels of violent crime rates, yet those with lax laws have very low levels. Every state that has passed CCW (Concealed Carry of Weapons) legislation has seen a large drop in the violent crime rate. Maybe Califorina, Illionis, Ohio, New York, and etc. would take a hint.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

This is good, but he comprimised. Well over 500,000 new officers could have been put on the streets, but to keep peace within his party and garuntee his re-election he didn't aggressively persue this issue.

President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.

All they did was demo ideas, showed no improvements. Waivers never should have been issued. They should have been forced for REAL REFORM before receiving the waiver.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.

Public School Choice severly hurts the nations schools. Taxpayers SHOULD NOT have to fund private education with their tax monies. This is also a clear violation of seperation of church and state.

The Clinton Administration forged a bipartisan coalition to pass NAFTA, after concluding tough negotiations on side agreements covering workers' rights, the environment, and import surges. Exports to Mexico rose 23 percent in the first 11 months of 1994.

One of the main problems with our economy is the loss of jobs, something NAFTA has a direct impact on, allowing companies like General Motors to move jobs outside the US to Mexico with no penalities.

------------------------------------------------

I was not a supporter of Clinton, but I will give him credit for doing some good while in office. He also did some things that were not good. His handling of the economy was excellent.
 
Yes, no president is perfect, but Clinton did lots of good and bad. I have yet to see much good come out of the Bush administration.

Around the end of Clinton's administration, the (predominantly Republican) Congress voted to impeach him because he covered up an alleged affair with Monica Lewinski. Recently, the Republicans in California, most notably Darrel Issa, decided to get a recall movement going to oust Grey Davis from office because of the economic problems California is having, despite the poor condition of the economies of both many states individually and the US as a whole (as in CA isn't the only state having problems), adding an unnecessary burden on California voters and the economy. Republicans often seem to get away with pointing the finger at their enemies (usually the Democrats) while avoiding responsibility themselves, much like Microsoft.

If Bush wins the '04 election, I think I can kiss many of the programs at my college away. I will vote against him, no matter who is the other candidate. If you don't like either Bush or the Democratic candidate, vote for someone else entirely.
 
Clinton was impeached. Surprises me that alot of people think he wasn't. All impeachment is is the actual hearing (i.e. trial). Impeaching doesn't necessarily mean they give him the boot, just put him on trial. It's a "fancy" term for the trial. Of course party bounds had some to do with it, but none the less he did lie to investigators under oath. He should have admitted it outright, then there would been no cause for the impeachment.

The Davis recall is a much needed thing, Cali is on of the most politically scewed states in the Union. Not to knock on anyone there, but there is some MAJOR reform needed in Cali. I feel bad for anyone living in a state that is that anti-constitution. As far as the Republicans causing it Arden, I doubt that's the main problem in the recall. A majority of voters asked for the recall, after a similar majority had elected Davis in the first place. That tells me they're sick of the BS.

Regardless of who wins in 04, there's alot of work that needs to be done. The major concern for that person will have to be the economy as a whole, nationally and locally.
 
Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. He was the second president in history to be impeached, and fairly undeserving, considering the nature of his original transgression (as in not important enough or too common to care about too much).

I don't know that this recall is going to help anything. I doubt anybody else can swoop in here and save California from itself, and I don't think the corrupt politicians are going to pay much attention or think this will apply to them. This recall could start a chain of events, where governors get recalled all the time for doing little things. Granted, it may make them shape up, but I don't think this is a very good or cost-effective idea.

A majority of the voters did not ask for the recall. Darrel Issa spent a million dollars and got a million people to sign their names in favor of the recall. Yes, a million is a lot of people, but we are a state of 25 million (and probably more), and 1 million is hardly a majority. I, and many around here, feel that those who started this, especially Issa, should foot the $30 million dollar bill. One dollar for each who signed the petition enabling the recall in the first place, one dollar for each citizen of the state.

BTW: Did you mean "screwed" or "skewed?"
 
Originally posted by mdnky
<< Info regarding Clinton from above site is in italics >>
The President signed into law the Brady Bill, which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases so that background checks can be done to help keep handguns away from criminals.

This is a mood point as this is no longer the case. Now it's fill out a yellow form and the dealer calls a FBI hotline. Takes a total of 15mins to decide on what you want and fill the form out, have the check, then pay and leave the store. As far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, that's a complete joke. Criminals don't buy guns legally...they buy them on the black market or steal them. The only thing this did was limit law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. And since it'll be brought up, NO police force in the US is responsible for protecting individual citizens. They are responisble for protecting the public as a whole, not individually. Another example is the states with the harshed, tightest gun control laws have extremly high levels of violent crime rates, yet those with lax laws have very low levels. Every state that has passed CCW (Concealed Carry of Weapons) legislation has seen a large drop in the violent crime rate. Maybe Califorina, Illionis, Ohio, New York, and etc. would take a hint.

The President's Crime Bill will put 100,000 new police officers on the street. More than 1,200 communities have already received grants to hire 27,000 additional officers.

This is good, but he comprimised. Well over 500,000 new officers could have been put on the streets, but to keep peace within his party and garuntee his re-election he didn't aggressively persue this issue.

President Clinton granted waivers to 25 states -- half the nation -- providing for comprehensive welfare reform demonstrations.

All they did was demo ideas, showed no improvements. Waivers never should have been issued. They should have been forced for REAL REFORM before receiving the waiver.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice.

Public School Choice severly hurts the nations schools. Taxpayers SHOULD NOT have to fund private education with their tax monies. This is also a clear violation of seperation of church and state.

The Clinton Administration forged a bipartisan coalition to pass NAFTA, after concluding tough negotiations on side agreements covering workers' rights, the environment, and import surges. Exports to Mexico rose 23 percent in the first 11 months of 1994.

One of the main problems with our economy is the loss of jobs, something NAFTA has a direct impact on, allowing companies like General Motors to move jobs outside the US to Mexico with no penalities.

------------------------------------------------

I was not a supporter of Clinton, but I will give him credit for doing some good while in office. He also did some things that were not good. His handling of the economy was excellent.
Click to expand...

Most of the states with low crime rates and little or no gun legislation are rural not urban. Concealed weapons invariably lead to more violence not less and it has been proven numerous times that homeowners who own guns are more likely to be injured by their own gun during a robbery than those who don't own guns. The idea that guns lead to safety is naive.

Additional police on the streets do little to deter crime in those areas where it is most prevalent. Take those officers off the streets and the crime rate drops substantially. Clinton was instrumental in getting those guys out of their cars and onto bikes and their feet.

The headlines of the last few days show that welfare rolls are substantially lower than during any previous economic downturn. This is due largely to those Clintonian waivers. The states have proven very effective, creative and compassionate in revising welfare.

Charter schools are a mixed bag. Some work and some don't but they are public not private. The vouchers that gw & co. would like to put in place would clearly destroy public schools. Charter schools are different in every state but those that do work show once again that education is most successful when the community gets to make its own choices about it, not when the Fed. Govt. does. Bush' "No Child Left Behind" has only made schools worse, not better.

My biggest complaint about Clinton was NAFTA. It was too much too soon, has devastated employment in the US, Mexico and Canada and has only succeeded in benefitting big business and the transportation industry. Bush has not proven to be any better though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top