Kerry looking good

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot · Jan 27, 2004

Remove all ads!
It appears that Kerry is going to go two-for-two. While it will be several hours before official results come in, the most recent polls (taken on Sunday and Monday) show Kerry has a significant lead over Dean, and the other Democratic canidates. According the MSNBC.com, the latest poll shows Kerry with a commanding 13 point lead in the polls. Assuming this comes to pass, the next question is how long it will take before we see others start to drop out? With a total of 9 additional primaries next week (7 next Tuesday and 2 more on Saturday) it is unrealistic to think that most of the canidates won't continue their campaigns until at least that time. However, with support for Kerry growing, I would be highly surprised if we're left with more than two canidates a week and a half from now. Leibermann and Clark will not continue their campaigns if things go poorly next week. Edwards will also bow out if he doesn't win in the southern states next week. One that I am uncertain of is Dean. Based on what I have seen of his personality in the past few months, he does not appear to be a person who accepts defeat very well. I would fully expect him to fight to the bitter end, and continue campaigning even if the fight appears to be over. Your thoughts?

Blackhawk · Jan 27, 2004

Go Kerry!

I would prefer Clark, but Kerry is a much better candidate than Dean.

Plus, Kerry is far less emotional. He has a better command of his senses.

Death Rabbit · Jan 28, 2004

One thing I like about Kerry is that he hasn't spent anywhere near as much as Dean on campaign adds - in fact, I don't think he spent a dime in Iowa - and yet he still comes out on top. He's really growing on me. I like his no BS approach. Edwards' stock is rising too. I just like his personality and his whole "I'm not here to take jabs at the other guys" approach to his campaign. I like that a lot.

I used to be a big fan of Clark, but something about him just bugs me. Maybe because all he seems to say is "I'm a general, I'm a general...did I mention I'm a general?" I haven't really heard him focus on his policies all that much. But it is early yet.

I was pulling for Dean, and I still like him, but he's gotten his teeth kicked in in the debates a little too often for my liking. I actually respect him more for the "scream heard round the world" and think people are making way to big a thing of it. If he went on TV or in a debate and started screaming, then yeah - he's a nutbar. But he was addressing his own supporters after a very surprising 3rd place showing. He wanted to show his troops he was still in it and keep them passionate, and I think he did a terrific job of that.

But as much as I hate to jump on the "electibility" bandwagon, my vote will go to the man who can beat Bush, period. I really feel like Kerry or Edwards would make excellent presidents. A Kerry/Edwards ticket would be da bomb, and is rumored to be a possibility. But Dean...I just don't know anymore.

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot · Jan 29, 2004

@DR

I agree with you completely. I too was a big fan of Clark, and I was hoping at first that he would win the nomination. However, in the debates he does nothing to impress me. Kerry is the canidate I knew the least about (with the exception of Kucinich - but he doesn't really count) when the campaigns started, and so I was naturally a little stand-offish at fist. But just like you, he has started to grow on me. I would also like a combined Kerry/Edwards ticket, but a combined Kerry/Clark ticket would suit me just fine as well.

Splunge · Jan 30, 2004

a combined Kerry/Clark ticket would suit me just fine
Click to expand...

Question for the Americans (or anyone else who cares to comment) - would there be too much "military" in the this ticket for your taste, or do you think it offers something that voters would like?

Blackhawk · Jan 30, 2004

would there be too much "military" in the this ticket for your taste
Click to expand...

Not really. You need a strong military ticket to defeat a president during wartime.

Pac man · Jan 30, 2004

Kerry looking good ? I hope you don't mean that literally, because frankly.... it's a pretty ugly fella.

Ragusa · Jan 30, 2004

Blackhawk mentioned the military ticket ... As that article is no longer available online I have to quote it in full:

Politicizing the Military Is Dangerous

Nicholas Berry | Foreign Policy Forum |January 15, 2004

No U.S. administration in the last hundred years has tried harder than the current one to bring America’s military forces into the partisan political process. It is an effort fraught with danger. Constitutional democracy and normal diplomacy are at risk.

What the Bush White House is doing goes well beyond honoring veterans, praising the troops, or maintaining preparedness. It wants votes.

Bush, following the strategy of White House political guru Karl Rove, has devised multiple ways of wooing the armed forces.

Money is one way. The current budget calls for a 4 percent military pay increase while it allows only half that for civilian employees (who are mostly unionized and Democrats). Overall, Bush’s military budget has grown over 30 percent since taking office. His $399.1 billion request for fiscal year 2004 is up $16.9 billion from the current year. As one Marine enlisted reservist just back from Iraq remarked, “Under Clinton we never had any money to do anything, no funds, no funds. Now training [funding] has really changed.” He also said that he speaks for all his buddies when asked his thoughts on Bush – “I like him.”

By rough count, Bush has visited far more military installations in three years than Clinton did in his two terms. He made major foreign policy addresses at the 2002 West Point graduation, at the Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune, on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and elsewhere. His highly dramatic visit to the troops in Baghdad on Thanksgiving continued his celebration and praise of U.S. military personnel. The message is always patriotic, of course, with flags flying everywhere. One Democrat activist lamented that the flag seemed to be a Republican symbol. Certainly compared to Clinton, U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen know that Bush adores them and values their roles. They may not, however, be fully aware of the courtship’s motivation.

Defense undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz used an expletive when reminded that the Bush administration inherited a strong military from Clinton. In fact, in very subtle ways Clinton and the Democrats are targets of propaganda. The White House extols American values in terms of “renewal,” “honor,” and “pride,” in messages to the military, obviously referring to Clinton’s lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The Marine quoted above made a point of saying that “Clinton had to rocket Iraq during Monica Lewinsky,” and followed with somewhat of a non sequitur, “He [Clinton] also said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” Of course, Clinton’s behavior makes it easy for the White House to court soldiers, most of whom were embarrassed when their previous commander in chief behaved in ways unbecoming his office. Duty and honor are major military values.

The White House has urged all state election commissions to facilitate absentee voting by service personnel stationed abroad. Roughly two-thirds of the absentee military vote went to Bush in 2000, and that vote was absolutely crucial for his margin in Florida’s disputed election. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s Too Close to Call [Random House, 2001] for the Bush campaign’s successful effort to get all overseas ballots counted despite numerous irregularities among them.) In preparing for the 2002 congressional elections, Karl Rove told the Republican National Committee in Los Angeles on January 19, 2000 that the war on terrorism, which was connected to Iraq, could be used in the campaign. Republicans could “go to the country on this issue.” The Republican Congress forced the vote authorizing war if diplomacy failed in October, just weeks before the election, thereby linking military action and the election. The troops could be going and votes would be a way to support them and their commander in chief.

Nothing is illegal in this effort. Servicemen serving their country abroad should be encouraged to vote. Voting is not only a citizen’s right but also an expression of civic virtue. But the point is this. Seeking the military vote and militarizing elections is part of a deliberate pattern of developing the military as a political base for the Republican Party. Therein lies the danger.

The American armed forces exist to serve the nation under the command of elected civilian leadership – regardless of party. It is therefore the constitutional obligation of both the Congress and presidency to preserve that function – regardless of party. The Republicans are violating these principles. As a result, a partisan military may be reluctant to fight when the Democrats are in power and more eager to fight under the Republicans. Cultivating the military vote by the Republicans may actually find the Republicans pandering to and employing military forces to preserve their partisan connection. Then, to resist this adverse electoral trend, the Democrats when in power will also fatten, celebrate, and woo the military. The result would inevitably be the militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

And worse. The military is not led by dummies. If politicized, various segments of the military complex will reciprocate and increasingly become active in elections, media campaigns, and lobbying to advance their interests even further. Military budgets would soar (as they have under Bush). The public would accept wars as normal. Military victories would become a mark of a successful president. Cries to “support our troops” would stifle dissent. Civil liberties – always restricted under military operations – would erode. The trend towards an imperial America would grow. The rest of the world would increasingly oppose American domination, thereby lessening their support for U.S. overseas operations, restricting access to their markets, attacking the dollar to constrain American aggression, and, not unthinkable, interfering in U.S. elections.

The Republicans are playing with fire.
Click to expand...

Not all that far fetched.

Log in or Sign up

Kerry looking good

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31
Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Death Rabbit Straight, no chaser Adored Veteran Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31
Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Pac man Gems: 25/31
Latest gem: Moonbar

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Log in or Sign up

Kerry looking good

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Death Rabbit Straight, no chaser Adored Veteran Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

Splunge Bhaal’s financial advisor Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Pac man Gems: 25/31Latest gem: Moonbar

Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31
Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Blackhawk Gems: 14/31
Latest gem: Chrysoberyl

Pac man Gems: 25/31
Latest gem: Moonbar