How to Fix a Sinking Political Party (or how to save the Democrat Party)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TripleB, Nov 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Undomiel Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2002
    star 4
    Cyrpus,

    When it first starts off, give incentives. Actually let the philanthropists get tax breaks from their other taxes because of their donations. At the moment, there's a cap on it. There wouldn't have to be such a strict cap on it if the welfare system was totally revamped and only administrated for determining what subsidies were still required, coordinating community projects and collecting efficient energy resources.

    When working models of energy saving or alternative energy devices were produced, the manufacturing of them could create jobs for those who are unemployed. And then the community projects could place orders for them, per household that qualified (welfare receipents). That, in itself, would knock off a big chunk of welfare costs per household - payments to utility companies. In the average month I pay almost 500 dollars just in utilities. 500 dollars can go a long way for a family accustomed to living on a shoestring budget. Not only that, it would help the environment in a way we don't seem to be able to do with the current standards. As long as it isn't mainstream, the concern about energy efficient tech overtaking our established utility companies would be nil. Many poor families that are on welfare and not on welfare, don't have enough to even pay their utilities with the exception of their lights (if they're lucky). This would provide them access to alternative energy, as well.

    Having survived 4 hurricanes in Florida, one of the things i immediately noticed was how the lack of power due to downed power lines and such, created alot more suffering than was necessary in this day and age.
  2. Undomiel Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2002
    star 4
    (this is keeping in mind that all the other needs, including mass transit (if available), would be met by the business owners in the area, who would get a tax incentive for participating.)
  3. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    [Democrats] remain unserious about terrorism.


    I'm not trying to start an arguement, but how?

    Democrats don't have a platform on 'moral values'.


    How, exactly, don't they have a platform on 'moral values'? Democrats views on such issues may not be moral to you, but they may be perfectly be moral to another person. They want equal rights, which is stated in the Bill of Rights, for all American citizens (which includes homosexuals). They want to make abortion safe and legal, so a woman isn't dieing from a coat-hanger in an alley (you should take not of your fellow Republican, Gov. Mitt Romney, who lost a close relative to an illegal abortion). They want to protect the environment, to make sure that it is around for their grand-children and further down the line. That means not polluting rivers, not paying for a corporation to clean up their waste-sites (with government tax dollars), admitting global warming exists, and keeping mercury out of streams and rivers.

    Gay marriage isn't a 'moral value', it's an abomination to morality.


    That is honestly one of the most disgusting and inaccurate things I have ever heard in my life. If anything, the banning of gay marriage is an abomination of equal rights.

    On a lighter note, did anyone else catch that Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa may be considering running for president in 2008? I saw it on CNN today, he said that he would most likely run if the Iowa Caucuses was kept (or something to that effect, didn't catch all of it). For all of those who wants a Moderate Democratic Governor from a 'red' state to run, I think you just got your wish. Sadly, I don't know much about his issues or his record other than from reading this website.

    There is also an article on CNN which talks about what Republicans may be running for the Presidency in 2008. They list Gov. George Pataki (NY), Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY), Sen. John McCain (AZ), Sen. Bill Frist (TN), Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), and Sen. George Allen (VA).
  4. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Sicne it has killed two threads about the elections so far I fully expect to do so here.

    What does it say to you democrats and you liberals of these boards that if you fold the votes Nader got into Gore's total, Bush got roughly 47 times more new voters Kerry did in Massachusetts?

    That number is indeed correct.

    Going for rough totals here... Gore + Nader = 1,789,000

    Kerry= 1,793,000


    An increase of only four thousand votes.

    Bush on the other hand...

    2000 878, 000

    2004 1,067,000

    That's One Hunded and Eighty Nine Thousand more votes for Bush.


    Even if we wanted to pretend all of naders voters disappeared or move to Canada or wer eotherwise too high to vote, Bush gained 12,000 more votes in those four years then the Democratic party did in Massachusetts.

    Are you going to pretend those votes came from the redneck rural hillbillies of Massachusetts?

    Alright then, lets look at the most populus of MAssachusetts counties, Middlesex.

    2000
    Gore 61.5% 404,043
    Bush 30.3% 198,914
    Nader 6.9% 45,529
    Other 1.3% 8,562

    2004
    Kerry 64.2% 438,786
    Bush 34.7% 237,129
    Other 1.0% 7,068

    Look at that. The increase in votes for the Democratic party is actually smaller then the number of votes Nader got in '00.

    Again, lets pretend Nader's voters were too high to vote at all.

    Democratic vote increase... 34,000

    Bush vote increase... 39,000


    Yes, all those solidly bush states are racist throwbacks trying to halt the march of progress and all those other invectives you want to pile onto them to make yourselves feel better. But how do you explain away the fact Bush made such large gains in those solidly democratic states? Are all your neighbors racist throwbacks trying to halt the march of progress too?
  5. Crix-Madine Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2000
    star 4
    I leave town for a couple days and people manage to take my posts and mangle them into something else entirely.

    Let's look back at what I said for a minute.

    Although the more independent women do seem to come from the Democratic Party

    I made this statement on my experiences and what I've seen in the political realm.

    You see, I'm trying to think of prominent Republican women who hold seats in the Senate, have been Presidential candidates, or maybe even lead a party in the House of Representatives. Furthermore women have generally voted Democratic throughout history, that's no secret. The politically minded woman I do know personally pretty much vote Democratic every time.

    People are criticizing me for not laying out "facts" for them? It was an opinionated post and if you look a little bit farther into the matter, it's not hard to see where the view comes from.

    Now everyone take a step back and calm themselves.

    faraday

    Interesting example, although I can tell you right now Middlesex isn't going Republican anytime in the near future. ;)
  6. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Well I wouldn't wager any amount of money on it doing so, but the raw numbers themselves should tell you something.

    All this talk about how the christian right won the election for bush blah de friggen blah. Here's a better question, where did the democrats hold their ground? Where did they gain ground?

    Because as I've just shown christian right or no Bush made an inroad into Massachusetts despite often using it as an epitaph with liberal.

    How can you explain that without acknowledgeing Bush's voter base is larger and more inclusive then Kerrys?

  7. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    Undomiel:
    LiberalMaverick,

    What do you make of this?

    FactCheck.org
    http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=144


    Well after reading that I admit that I was misinformed. I think it all goes back to the whole age-old semantics war of "cuts" vs. "not a big enough increase". I try to make a distinction between the two by using the word "underfund" where appropriate.

    shinjo_jedi:
    On a lighter note, did anyone else catch that Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa may be considering running for president in 2008? I saw it on CNN today, he said that he would most likely run if the Iowa Caucuses was kept (or something to that effect, didn't catch all of it). For all of those who wants a Moderate Democratic Governor from a 'red' state to run, I think you just got your wish. Sadly, I don't know much about his issues or his record other than from reading this website.

    I went to that website too, and I have to say I was frustrated by some of the vague "no duh" statements. I mean, everyone "supports our children"! (Not that those words were actually there; I'm just giving an example of what I mean.) But from what I did see, it seems like Gov. Vilsack is, IMO, disgustingly moderate. Maybe it comes from being a Governor (I saw a lot of pro-states' rights positions) or from being from Iowa (which needs to be convered to full blue, IMO) but I sure hope, based on his apparently moderate profile, he doesn't get either the presidential nomination in 2008 or the DNC chairmanship.

    There is also an article on CNN which talks about what Republicans may be running for the Presidency in 2008. They list Gov. George Pataki (NY), Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (NY), Sen. John McCain (AZ), Sen. Bill Frist (TN), Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), and Sen. George Allen (VA).

    Yeah. Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) is also mentioned frequently (and longingly, by Republicans) but he has declared that he won't be a candidate in 2008. Of course, he might change his mind, but for practical purposes I'd put him off the list.

    Couple notes:

    - Sen. Hagel has already declared his candidacy. I don't know why his spokesperson was so coy about it.

    - Gov. Romney is from Massachusetts, and after Bush demonized Massachusetts this year I can hardly see why any child of the Bay State would even remain a Republican, let alone seek the GOP's nomination to the Presidency. I'm not sure how Bush will reconcile his attacks on Massachusetts this year with an embrace of its Governor in 2008. (He'll probably shrug it off along with all his other flip-flops.) In all likelihood, the Republicans will never nominate someone from Massachusetts.

    - Fmr. Mayor Giuliani will probably need to seek a higher post before considering the White House; Sen. Clinton's seat is a very likely possibility. He would also be a long-shot for the GOP nomination, being a social moderate-to-liberal.

    - Sen. McCain may be too old by 2008 (he'll be 72, I believe) but I never thought it was a big deal if the candidate still has good health and stamina, which McCain at least appears to have. However, seeing as he failed to get the nomination in 2000 I don't see how he would secure it in 2008, unless Karl Rove agrees to have a "hands-off" policy for the primaries.

    - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) may also consider a run.

    farraday:
    But how do you explain away the fact Bush made such large gains in those solidly democratic states? Are all your neighbors racist throwbacks trying to halt the march of progress too?

    I wouldn't put it that way, but... at the risk of sounding like a condescending elitist liberal, I think a lot of voters were misled into voting for Bush (strong on homeland security, tax cuts, straight-shooter, "know where I stand", etc).

    I also think that some voters were misled into voting for Kerry as well (draft rumors). Obviously, there weren't enough of them to win the election.
  8. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    - Gov. Romney is from Massachusetts, and after Bush demonized Massachusetts this year I can hardly see why any child of the Bay State would even remain a Republican, let alone seek the GOP's nomination to the Presidency. I'm not sure how Bush will reconcile his attacks on Massachusetts this year with an embrace of its Governor in 2008. (He'll probably shrug it off along with all his other flip-flops.) In all likelihood, the Republicans will never nominate someone from Massachusetts.

    Actually, there's an even bigger reason why Romney would probably not be nominated.

    There is a significant chance that the Religious Right would never accept him. Despite his strong stand against gay marriage, opposing the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he's also a Mormon, and many of the Evangelical Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Some even think that we're devil worshippers (I kid you not).

    A lot depends on what happens over the next 4 years.

    Kimball Kinnison
  9. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Nice to know the people you are in bed with politcally think you worship the devil huh.
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Nice to know the people you are in bed with politcally think you worship the devil huh.

    I only said that some of them think that.

    In almost every case, it has been the result of misinformation that people have been spreading for generations (remember that the LDS Church faced a lot of persecutions in its early years). The number of people who view us that way has been decreasing for quite a while now.

    Tell me, do you agree with and understand all of the religious teachings of everyone whith whom you agree politically?

    Kimball Kinnison
  11. darth_paul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2000
    star 5
    I certainly don't think anyone I agree with politically is worshipping the devil. I won't pretend to understand all the religions of people I agree with, but I do respect them. I figure when it comes to religion everyone is looking for the same thing -- the path to truth. Everyone's doing the best I can. Some people don't seem to be looking or finding it in the same place I do, and that's okay. That's the way things work. But I would not be so presumptuous as to associate anyone, or any religion, with the Master of Evil.

    -Paul
  12. CitizenKane Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2004
    star 3
    Despite his strong stand against gay marriage, opposing the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he's also a Mormon, and many of the Evangelical Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Some even think that we're devil worshippers (I kid you not).

    I would say that 90% of the problems we Evangelicals have with Mormonism is intense doctrinal differences. Sure, there are probably some with just boneheaded animosity to give to humanity; thats the 10%.
  13. ophelia Cards Against Humanity Host. Ex-Mod

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2002
    star 6
    What's really disturbing me right now is that no galvanizing names have come up for the 2008 Democratic nominations. The only one who seems to make a blip on anyone's radar is Hillary Clinton, and I hope to God they don't run her.

    The first female presidential candidate from a major party is going to have enough cultural baggage to deal with, even without being married to Bill Clinton. The Clinton connection turned some socially conservative people in swing states against Gore, and Gore just worked with the guy, he wasn't married to him. Also, Hillary's a senator, and we haven't elected a senator since 1960. And she has comparatively little political experience. And some people just hate her, for a lot of different reasons.

    IT'S JUST A BAD IDEA TO RUN HILLARY and I hope the press stops harping on it.

    If the U.S. is dying for a female Democratic candidate, I'd recommend Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm. Her political experience is comparatively limited too, but she's moderate, well-spoken, connects well with people and has managed to gain some grass-roots support for her ideas, and has managed not to wildly alienate moderate Republicans, who might vote Democrat in 2008 if we still have massive deficit problems, and the economy is still sluggish. (The former looks virtually certain at this point, and that will influence the latter.)

    The X-factor with her is what she's had to do to keep Michigan's economy from going down in flames: social services have been sliced to the absolute bone, and sometimes deeper than that. Open the door of a Community Mental Health office now and all you hear is the huge sucking sound of the money vacuum inside. To be fair, the same thing is happening all over the country because of the recession, but part of the reason Granholm was elected was that people were sick of our last governor treating social services like the state government's ugly stepchild. Some Republicans will love Granholm for being willing to do what she did; some Democrats will be appalled. She's also a "strong" governor who ticks the state legislature off by demanding more power than they consider her fair share--but again, that's either obnoxiousness or a leadership quality. YMMV.

    There were some mentions of Granholm's name as a possible presidential candidate back in '02 when she was elected governor, but I haven't heard anything since. Personally, I hope the DNC considers her for '08.

    Edit: I have a bad feeling that America would consider any woman candidate too "weak" to be a wartime president. Democrats tend to get tarred as too wimpy for war, too, so a female Democrat might not be a great choice if we're still fighting in Iraq (or somewhere else) in 4 years. Of course, if the majority of the country wants to get the hell out of a war by then, women's perceived "peacemaking" skills might be an image-enhancer. All stereotypes, of course, but unfortunately that's a lot of what campaigns run on.

  14. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    Actually it's a great idea for Hillary to run. Why is she hated? Can anyone come up with a legitimate reason? She really hasn't done anything to make so many people dislike her, and it appears to me to be just another case of the good ole american backlash against strong independent woman. But that perception can be turned around rather easily for those that have jumped on the Hillary hating bandwagon.

    So although she's a polarizing figure RIGHT NOW, it's not for the typical reasons one might be polarizing, like their stances on certain issues, it's for reasons of perception, so it's really not a big deal. I think she's probably the Democrats best chance.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Why?

    1)She attempted to ram-rod her specific version of the Clintonian health care plan through congress. Without compromise or comment, it failed miserably of course.

    Now, to be fair, both Bill and Hill learned a lot from that escapade, but it still left many people with egg on their face.

    2)Her credibility took another hit with the whole Monicagate affair.. In the beginning, when she still believed Bill, she indicated that her husband would never do such a thing, and she wouldn't stand for it if he did.

    Of course, not only did Bill have the affair, but Hillary didn't do a thing publically against him. It made it seem like she compromised her principles for political gain.

    3)While regional, she still does have that "carpet bagger" label hanging on her in New York.

    4)Her voting record in the Senate has been uneven at best.

    5)She already has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee, not a good thing for a freshman senator.
  16. somethingfamiliar Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 5
    I think it's a good idea to get a politician who has name recognition on the ballot. Mrs. Clinton certainly has that. This year it was like, "Kerry? Who's this Kerry? Never 'eard of 'im." I don't know whom the Reps are going to run, but that person certainly won't have the name recognition Hil has.
  17. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    1)She attempted to ram-rod her specific version of the Clintonian health care plan through congress. Without compromise or comment, it failed miserably of course.

    And? Bills always get shot down, it was a far reaching healthcare plan. I'm confused as to how that is a negative thing towards Hillary.

    2)Her credibility took another hit with the whole Monicagate affair.. In the beginning, when she still believed Bill, she indicated that her husband would never do such a thing, and she wouldn't stand for it if he did.

    And that was probably the time when people were most sympathetic to her. She didn't take a hit AT ALL during that whole process, she became bigger than she ever was and appeared more human than she ever did.

    Of course, not only did Bill have the affair, but Hillary didn't do a thing publically against him. It made it seem like she compromised her principles for political gain.

    To you maybe, not the rest of america. Remember at the time her political asperations were just speculation.

    While regional, she still does have that "carpet bagger" label hanging on her in New York.

    Yep, and when she first entered office her approval rating in New York was a dismal 38%, since then it's risen to as high as 62% and right now it's at 55%. Now, 4 years into it, I don't think anyone cares.

    4)Her voting record in the Senate has been uneven at best.

    And how many americans do you think know ANYTHING about her voting record?

    5)She already has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee, not a good thing for a freshman senator.

    Again, how many people do you think know that?
  18. ophelia Cards Against Humanity Host. Ex-Mod

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2002
    star 6
    Yeah, but there's name recognition and then there's name recognition. She might well get the Democratic nomination if she chose to run for it, but I think she'd lose the U.S. election by a landslide. There's just too much of a paper trail on Hillary to let her survive a national election process, especially if she ran against a governor with no voting record to spin, skew, misrepresent, or take out of context. We'd end up hearing about the whole Whitewater saga again, and the "moral values" thing would rear its ugly head, because apparently anything that gets even remotely close to Bill Clinton is tainted by association. According to CNN's 2000 exit poll, 44% of voters said that the Clinton scandals were "very important" or "somewhat important" in their vote for president--and Clinton wasn't even running. Gore didn't even hang out with the guy--he just had the mixed blessing of having his name next to Clinton's on Democratic bumper stickers 2 elections in a row. Apparently, that was enough. Maybe the country will have forgotten the automatic association of the name "Clinton" with "scandal" by 2008, but I doubt it. (Never mind that it's grossly unfair to blame a woman for her husband cheating on her--this is politics we're talking here.)
  19. Cyprusg Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    thing would rear its ugly head, because apparently anything that gets even remotely close to Bill Clinton is tainted by association.

    Where were you this election? Bill Clinton is as popular as ever, and his retrospective job approval rating is at 62%. In fact I've heard countless times from Republicans and Democrats alike that thought Clinton would have helped Kerry immensely if he could have campaigned more. The "Clinton factor" many called it. It's amazing what 4 years with a crappy president can do to your image.

    If Hillary Clinton were to run for president I'd put a thousand bucks on it that she'd win. That's how confident I am about it, I just don't see any Republican candidate that could defeat her. Mccain or Gulianni COULD defeat her maybe, especially Mccain because he's always done a good job of keeping his distance from Bush and I have a feeling after the next 4 years Bush will be even more disliked than ever and he'll bring a lot of other Republicans down with him.
  20. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    If Hillary Clinton were to run for president I'd put a thousand bucks on it that she'd win.


    I'll take that bet.

    [face_mischief]
  21. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    I noticed that too - but maybe he could change by then (or he isn't as conservative as the website says). They don't have a lot of the issues filled out - so you never know.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he is a good contender for the 2008 Nomination - he is from Iowa, so, chances are, that he'll win his home state in the primaries and gain the momentum from the first win.

    I was shocked to read Sen. McCain will be 72 in 2008 - he doesn't look at it all (and appears to be in very good health).

    That mans an idiot - I'm hoping that he doesn't even try to run. He faces re-election in 2007, so we'll have to see how that goes. As I live in PA, I'll do as much as I can to see that he isn't re-elected (after his comments in 2001).

    The House Minority Leader, Harry Reid, is also a mormon - which should be interesting in the upcoming years. I would consider him a possible candidate - as his name will most likely be used a lot in the future.

    Not much - a little less than what they knew about Sen. Kerry's. However, once Karl Rove is done with them - they'll have it crammed into their head a thousand times over.
  22. liberalmaverick Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2004
    star 3
    ophelia: Governor Granholm would not be able to serve as President because she was born in Canada. And many liberal Democrats (myself included) would be loathe to support her if they learned of her record of spending cuts (which I had not known before your post).

    Then again, Howard Dean had a similar record and that didn't seem to hurt him (though it cost him my support).

    What we need in 2008 is the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich: a visionary who can radically shift the political spectrum by standing up for big government and instilling optimism, confidence, and public support in the federal government once again. I will gladly support whichever candidate can and would do that. Hillary definitely has the record to run on that theme but she'll have to figure out a way to cut loose the personal baggage and sidestep Karl Rove's Republican Attack Machine if she hopes to win.

    shinjo_jedi:
    I noticed that too - but maybe he could change by then (or he isn't as conservative as the website says). They don't have a lot of the issues filled out - so you never know.

    That's true, but what I did see is discomfiting enough. And I can't speak for other Democrats, but for me the entire record is important. In the 2004 primaries I used to support Dean but then I changed my mind when I learned of all the spending cuts he had pushed through as Vermont Governor. Even though he seemed to be a reformed liberal by 2002, I still couldn't forgive him for those cuts, so I didn't support him through the rest of the primaries and I probably won't embrace him with much enthusiasm in any future bids. (I do support him for DNC Chair, though, especially if the alternative is... Tom Vilsack. Bleh.)

    I wouldn't be surprised if he is a good contender for the 2008 Nomination - he is from Iowa, so, chances are, that he'll win his home state in the primaries and gain the momentum from the first win.

    True, but if the Iowa caucuses are a given then the momentum will come with whoever wins the first primary that is actually competitive. For example, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa won big in the Iowa caucuses in 1992 (no one else even bothered to go to Iowa) but lost the nomination to Gov. Bill Clinton.

    Geez, if Tom Vilsack is our nominee I may just vote for a third-party candidate.

    I was shocked to read Sen. McCain will be 72 in 2008 - he doesn't look at it all (and appears to be in very good health).

    Indeed, which is remarkable considering all the hell he went through in Vietnam. However, since I'm not McCain I can't comment with any authority on how healthy he is, and it'll be up to him to decide if he's physically capable of another run for the WH.

    That mans an idiot - I'm hoping that he doesn't even try to run. He faces re-election in 2007, so we'll have to see how that goes. As I live in PA, I'll do as much as I can to see that he isn't re-elected (after his comments in 2001).

    I am definitely with you on this one. There is NO one in the U.S. Senate I'd like to see lose his job more than Rick Santorum. I sincerely, sincerely hope the people of Pa. will wake up and kick him out in 2006. If they fail to do so, he may become Senate Republican Leader (since the current Leader Bill Frist is retiring in 2006) and that would propel him to make a shot for the WH in 2008. <shudders>

    A Santorum presidency would be like the Bush presidency hijacked by Stephen Moore and Pat Robertson.

    The House Minority Leader, Harry Reid, is also a mormon - which should be interesting in the upcoming years. I would consider him a possible candidate - as his name will most likely be used a lot in the future.

    Perhaps. I wouldn't vote for Reid; he's too moderate for my tastes.

    If we're talking Senators, a good choice would be my junior Senator, Barbara Boxer of California (though my fellow Californian SLR doesn't seem to have too high an opinion of her). Another Senator that I would immediately back would be Russell Feingold of Wisconsin.

    N
  23. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    On the Democratic side, no one has declared officially but prominent names include Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), former Vt. Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Gov. Tom Vilsack (Iowa), former VP Al Gore and, of course, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.).


    I would like to see Sen. John Kerry run again - but he couldn't win. I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Sen. Zen Miller, but he put it perfectly on Fox News the other day - if John Kerry can't beat a man who has been blamed for a huge deficit, has created an unpopular war, ect. - he can't win against the likes of Sen. John McCain.

    As for the others - I'm not to happy with any of them, can't we do better? I want some new blood - not old and re-used blood. Howard Dean is alright - but he's another New England liberal who has made some bad choices (as you mentioned). John Edwards is a possiblity - but I still question his experience, as only having six years in the Senate (and he'd be retired for four years). Tom Vilsack is a little too conservative for my taste - although, he seems as the best bet right now (being moderate, a governor, and from a 'red' state). Al Gore is also a person I would love to see run again - but by that time, he'd be out of the spotlight for a little too long. I would also love to see Sen. Hillary Clinton be our president - but I think her being a woman could lose her those last few votes needed to win the election, which could hurt.
  24. ophelia Cards Against Humanity Host. Ex-Mod

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2002
    star 6
    liberalmaverick: Oooh, you're right! I forgot about that. Duh. She moved to the U.S. at like 6 months old or something, but she's Canadian as far as the presidency is concerned.

    I personally don't blame her for the spending cuts, for a few reasons. One--every governor in the U.S. was left in the same position by the double-whammy of the recession and the federal tax cuts, as well as Bush's sort-of-funded NCLB law, which leaves the lion's share of the implementation costs to the states. Second, our economy was left in a very precarious state by Michigan's prior governor (who we kept for *twelve years,* partly because the local Dems ran Geoffry Fieger against him in . . . '92, I believe, and Fieger was *so* annoying that he couldn't have won against a can of Spam. He got something like 20% of the vote, which was basically the OMIGOD I HATE ENGLER SOOO MUCH I'D VOTE FOR A CAN OF SPAM vote). Engler was one of those people who was convinced that the free market would cure everything from recessions to toenail fungus, and so he made sure that businesses in Michigan paid practically no taxes, while encouraging municipalities to invest "rainy day" funds and any surpluses they generated. Then guess what? The stock market dropped through the floor. Goodbye, rainy day funds! Goodbye, government surpluses! Hello, state in a recession with no economic safety net at all, and with new underfunded federal regulations to comply with. Some people accuse Engler of doing some things to make the economy even worse before Granholm took office, just to force her to make cuts which would alienate her from her voting base, which might or might not be true. I could also see him doing crazy, unpopular economic things on his way out because he'd always wanted to, but had to wait until he was a lame duck. (I can't remember exactly what it was he did that annoyed everyone so much . . . probably more corporate welfare type stuff.)

    Any governor who took office in '02 would have been stuck with a horrible mess. I think Granholm has done a pretty good job, seeing as she really had no choice but to decide which foot she wanted to shoot state services in. She and the local NEA worked out a way to keep poorer schools from going under--wealthier schools that had *not* done moronic things with their rainy day funds agreed to take less in tax money so that the poorer schools could have more. The whole thing is still ugly as hell, but at least she recognizes that we have a problem and is trying to help, instead of saying, as Engler did to a friend of mine who complained about the lack of services for the disabled, "Move to Indiana." :rolleyes:
  25. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Hey, here's a new question.

    I love how the Dems were pissed off because we were doubting their patrotism.

    "How dare you say I'm not patriotic! I'm just as patriotic as any Republican! You have no right to say that I'm not!!! In fact...who won? Screw it, I'm moving to Canada!

    [face_laugh]

    The Republicans would not move to Canada. Arguement settled. LOL
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.