Following a minor dip, on news of Gephardt's opinion poll results in Iowa, Dean's stock resumes its ascent on the Iowa Electronic Market.
Posted on 12/12/2003 9:20:37 PM PST by Pokey78
AL GORE'S ENDORSEMENT of Howard Dean was anything but polite. A more diplomatic politician would have praised Dean's major rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination--Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Wesley Clark--as esteemed colleagues and said they were all capable of being president (including one selected by Gore himself as his 2000 running mate). Instead the former vice president dismissed the whole bunch as "great candidates."
"Only one" candidate for the 2004 nomination, said Gore, had stepped forward as he had and come out early, loudly, and extravagantly against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. "Our nation in its 200-year history has never made a worse foreign policy mistake," Gore said. And there was more. "We need to remake the Democratic party. We need to remake America."
Chances are, Gore's endorsement didn't sway many voters. But it did signify a pivotal moment for the Democratic party. The party has shifted. The antiwar, Bush-loathing, culturally liberal left now has the upper hand. Its dominance will likely culminate in Dean's nomination.
This is an event to be feared. Why? Because it will harm the Democratic party and lead to a general election campaign brimming with bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world. And all this will play out as the war on terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq, hang in the balance. Gore's lurch to the left and Dean's likely nomination mean trouble.
Can Dean be stopped? A stop-Dean movement may appear quixotic, but it's not. Dean has no lock on Iowa, and a lead even as large as Dean's in New Hampshire is always precarious. Many Democrats are terrified that a nominee who vehemently opposes the war, likens the Bush administration to the Taliban, and plans to raise taxes on the middle class can't be elected. But they've been scared into silence by Dean's tough talk and momentum.
The worst offenders on this score are Dean's Democratic opponents. Dean is vulnerable on at least two issues, taxes and the war. But his rivals have confronted him effectively on neither. At the Democratic debate in New Hampshire last week, Kerry was asked by ABC's Ted Koppel why he hadn't raised his hand to show he thinks Dean could defeat Bush. What an opening! Kerry was free to insist, before the largest New Hampshire audience he'll ever have, that Bush would crucify Dean on the tax issue. But he lamely explained the reason he didn't raise his hand was his belief "in my vision for the country." Only when interviewed after the debate did Kerry attack Dean's tax hike proposal, declaring taxes the chief difference between himself and Dean. It was too late. No one was watching.
Lieberman and Gephardt, both backers of the war, have been no more aggressive in criticizing Dean on Iraq. Sure, they're wary of provoking boos and hisses from the Democratic activists who attend debates. But a plurality of Democratic voters in New Hampshire support the invasion of Iraq. Why not remind everyone that Dean would have left Saddam Hussein in power, with his mass graves, torture chambers, $25,000 stipends for families of Palestinian suicide bombers, ties to al Qaeda, and all?
Dean's foes have let him get away with insinuating that Bush may have been told about the 9/11 attacks beforehand by the Saudis. Dean raised this loony-left conspiracy theory during a radio interview on December 1 and called it "interesting." Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and the others let it pass. On December 6 on "Fox News Sunday," Dean was asked about the theory. He said he didn't personally believe it, "but we don't know and it'd be nice to know" if it's true. Again, not a word from his rivals. And last week, after Koppel questioned Dean about it in the New Hampshire debate, Dean's opponents said nothing.
Two other Democrats are threatened by Dean and Gore: Bill and Hillary Clinton. Dean would undo Clinton's previous shift of the party to the center. Gore would make the prowar position unacceptable for a Democrat in 2008, when he challenges Hillary for the presidential nomination. Bill Clinton has warned Democrats against becoming "more liberal" and Hillary has backed the Iraq invasion. For themselves and their party, and because others haven't the moxie to step forward, it's time for the Clintons to take on Dean.
--Fred Barnes
And this is supposed to be bad, why....?
There is a major struggle underway for the purse strings of the DNC, On one side we have Terry McAuliffe, the DLC and the Clinton's who are behind the scenes making sure none of the 9 Nincumpoops end up in the White House in 2004 in order to set the stage for Hildabeast in 2008.
On the other side, we have the far left liberals who have managed to get lots of support from every wacko special interest group out there and Howard Dean is their angry lefty of choice. Meanwhile the far left has MoveOn.org raising money from George Soros and other assorted Socialist and now Al Gore has arrived to settle a score with the Clinton's.
Al Gore is motivated because by all rights he should have had control of the DNC after he won the nomination in 2000, but somehow a lame duck president was the one who nominated the Chairman of the DNC, Slick Willy did very little to help Gore during his Campaign and I can't help but think it was part of a plan for Hillary to run in '04, but 9/11 came along all plans for Hillary changed after witnessing the way GWB stood up to the challenge.
I predict a major effort by Hillary, Bill and Terry McAuliffe if Howard Dean maintains the lead he enjoys right now. You can best believe that McAuliffe is working behind the scenes to undermine Dean, with the other 8 losers up for the nomination. If after the South Carolina primary and Dean is winning big, I bet we will see attack ad's coming from a 527 group made up of and funded by the DLC. Probably even Harold Ickies newly founded 527 group.
These Democrats are going to carve themselves into pieces and if you think the left hates Bush now, wait until after the Democrat party splits :-)
Following a minor dip, on news of Gephardt's opinion poll results in Iowa, Dean's stock resumes its ascent on the Iowa Electronic Market.
Who the heck is ROF (the purple line that tanked in Sept)?
Gore endorsing Dean is the equivalent of Death endorsing Taxes.
FRegards...
ROF = Rest of Field. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest or send money.
GWB backed by common sense politic's.
|
|
||
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03 Mia T, THE ALIENS Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections." Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem. From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason. That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically. When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.) Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent. With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity. With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity. The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11. P.S. As for pathologic self-interest, check out Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview; the interview is contained in my latest virtual hillary movie (below), hillary talks:ON TERROR; it is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in breathtaking detail. Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion. Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy and essential stupidity, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that such inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger. |
---- only Hillary
Call it what it will be...Communist Party USA.
He balanced the budget? That was done by the Republican Gov. who died in office and left him as gov. In addition..his state has about the same population as our county. Not much of a resume'for someone who wants to be the "most powerful man in the world."
No Kidding
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
