Democratic Presidential Nominees: Who will it be?

We should get a thread going on this topic. All in all, I would have to say that they are so far quite unimpressive. One of my conservative Democratic friends says she will vote Libertarian if they nominate Dean. I put them in order of power.

1.Dean- By far the angriest of the nine. He is running on an “I hate Bush the most” strategy. He is a good public speaker, but he comes off cold and kind of heartless. He is raising money from the most liberal wing of his party. He is more attuned to local issues because he was a small time governor and a “Washington outsider.” His problem is that he was against the war in Iraq and most do not trust him to do the right thing if elected. Another problem Dean has is he is insultive and rude. He also has to escape the shadow of McGovern and Mondale, which he will not be able to do. Besides being hateful, he really does not have an interesting personality and he comes off as a “limo liberal.” How does he get the nomination without the South (thanks to his stupid comments)? New York, California, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Washington state are all probably favorable to him in the primary if others drop out after the first couple of primaries. Right now, I would say Dean gets the nod. His base is the activists, college students who have a vast amount of time on their hands, liberal organizations, limo liberals, and antiwar protesters.

2.Gephardt- I see him as the Democrats best at beating W. He is articulate and passionate and he was for the war, but does not seem to be for the peace. He ran before and lost in the primaries. He can be appealing to southern Democrats because he is not a northern liberal, but he is really old news. Big labor is basically behind him, but the AFL-CIO endorsement of Dean really hurt. He might win Iowa and he might pick off some southern delegates in the South and Midwest. I do not know if he can raise the big bucks because he is not “hateful” enough like Dean. He just does not energize the base very well. His base is labor and moderate to conservative Democrats. If he loses Iowa, then he is out.

3.Clark- His nickname is definitely “flip-flop.” This guy is really lost in space. He looks like he has no clue when he sites sources for his foolish remarks. His remark about the 16 soldiers that died in the helicopter crash because of a failed Iraq policy was ridiculous. His voting record will also hurt him since he voted for Nixon and Reagan, which are hated in the liberal underworld. His military record is the only reason why he is in this race and the only reason why he is 3 on my list. I was in Europe during Kosovo and many of us did not care for Clark or Shinseki. His base is those who feel he can beat Bush, which he cannot do. Personally, I think Bush will beat him down in a debate. He might get some delegates in the South to go for him and maybe the Midwest. He has to win South Carolina.

4.Edwards- Sounds southern, but lives in the best houses in NC. What can I say? He is a trial lawyer and a very rich one. He hasn’t passed any bills he has written and he is a national Democrat from a fairly conservative state. He might do will in the South, but he has to win South Carolina to stay in. Clark really hurt him in the South when he jumped in. Edwards sealed his death when he voted against the money for Iraq and Afghanistan. He called it a “blank check,” but the check read 85 billion dollars. How is that a blank check? The only thing he has got going for him is his accent and his looks. But he resembles Clinton too much and America is not ready for another sweet talker. This is the age of straight talk, which he cannot do. His base is the trial lawyers and the endless amount of cash they possess.

5.Kerry- I think Kerry is done. Dean has beaten him. He is a Dukakis all over again. He was Lt. Governor during Dukakis’ term. Kerry is getting pounded in NH and is well behind in Iowa. By the way, no one will remember who came in second or third because it is irrelevant. You usually have to win one of the first three. Kerry shook up his campaign this week, but really to no avail. He is another limo liberal and he comes off kind of boring. His base is the people who do not want Dean to be the nominee, but have the same politics.

I predict Lieberman will be out pretty quickly along with the rest. He is just not resonating with the liberal base and he is running out of money. Let me also say that this is not 1992 all over again. Clinton got the nominee by chance and money is big in this primary. Right now I think Dean will get it. Things could change, but there is only 2 months until the primaries.

I was very gratified to get two replies to my query about why conservatives support Pres. Bush. I use this opportunity to answer the gentlemen who responded. But first a comment about my aims in this dialog. I am _not_ writing to persuade conservatives that they should not be conservative! I am writing to engage in dialog about why/whether conservatives should support the present President. This means that I'm not going to do abortion or gun control or any variety of religion in my reply. I would like to talk about the issues I've raised. Nevertheless, if potential responders believe that I'm ignoring an issue please let me know! Now on to my reply. > Sure. I'll tell you why. He keeps our taxes low, We should perhaps discuss taxes and fiscal policy, a big subject. I'll say here only that the US is now amassing immense deficits, when big bills, to Social Security, Medicare etc, are coming due. Many economists warn of the perils of the Bush tax cuts. Should we not pay taxes now, and let our children pay them later? > he speaks plainly and calls a spade a spade, That's the way he _talks_. But his actions, as I pointed out, are quite different. We used to think that Mr Clinton set the standard for presidential lying; but Mr Bush is _much_ worse. If I can get some conservatives, who I believe honor truth, to see that, I will feel very gratified. > he is trying to get us off the dependence of foreign oil. This I don't see. He has refused to implement new efficiency standards for cars. He has, admittedly, given some money to hydrogen initiatives. But as far as raising fuel standards for cars over the next few years, he, and Cheney, have done nothing. (shall I post URLs to studies about this?) > he believes in free markets, He _says_ he believes in free markets. But he puts in lots of subsidies for the rich. Why were the contracts to "rebuild Iraq" not put out to competitive bidding? Why are cattle ranchers given incredible subsidies for grazing on public lands?(just in today's news). I could fill this space with the breaks he has given to big business. His motto: "Free market capitalism for the peasants, socialism for the rich." Robert Taft, whom I as an Oldster remember as "Mr Republican", is spinning in his grave at the present deficit and subsidy policies. > he keeps us safe, Not really. He has tripled the threat of terrorism, he has made Afghanistan again a country that produces poppies in huge quantities, and Al Qaeda is evidently back in Iraq. He has started a huge quarrel with the Arab world, which was I claim avoidable. See below. He hasn't captured ObL, he hasnt' captured Saddam. > his support for terrorism, he has signed a bill that has given more money > to education than any president in history, Interesting. Have you been following the story about the Houston schools? Do you have children in school? Do you think that we should have national standards for education? (many conservatives don't) > he is principled, he is not wrapped in Jimmy Carter idealism, I don't know what this means. What is wrong with Jimmy Carter's principles? > only president since Reagan to make terrorists pay for killing Americans, They are certainly killing Americans, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. How much they are paying is a question. > You need more? perhaps later. But for now let's deal with my comments above. > Questions for you: > Why if he is so bad are people leaving liberal states like Massachusetts, > California, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York leaving > in droves to come to conservative states like GA, TX, NC, Fl, and Nevada? I didn't know about this. But I don't see the relevance to the present discussion. > Why didn't the Clinton/Gore administration do anything about terrorism? They did a lot. If Ms Rice and the President had paid more attention to the warnings about a possible terrorist attack on the US, and Mr Bush had paid more attention to his daily briefings, we might have been able to avoid the 9/11 disaster. Are you for having Mr Bush disclose the content of the briefings he received in July and August 2001? > What is the Democratic policy on Iraq? Is there one? More troops? Withdraw? I don't think they have a policy. I have my own opinions, but they are again irrelevant to the discussion. > What's wrong with choice in Medicare and social security? Lots. We can open another thread about this. But for now, I concede that this issue is one that many(not all) conservatives believe in, and Mr Bush does too. So that is definitely a reason for you to support Mr Bush. *************************************** I now turn to the second response. > Ok, there..obviously, you are ill-informed about the state of the world, in > general, or the US, in particular. I don't know if you have noticed or not, > but we are living in a very dangerous time in history To the extent that this is true, the present President Bush has made it so. You claim that WW III started on 9-11-01. I must completely disagree. On that date, an infamous terrorist criminal gang perpetrated an outrage against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was a criminal attack, unfortunately highly successful, as we all know too well. But it came to light almost immediately that it was not an act of war -- no nation had committed this act or even condoned it -- but was committed by renegade Saudis, led by one Egyptian. But our president, in perhaps as basic a misjudgment as any US president has ever made, turned it into an act of war; we still, liberals and conservatives, talk about the "War on Terrorism", as if any hateful act was an act of war! Did we go to war against Egypt or Saudi Arabia? No, we attacked Afghanistan, on the pretext that they wouldn't deliver ObL to us; I claim they would have done so, given a little time and international pressure. And the present administration is still working out why we fought a war in Iraq and why we are still there. The late Timothy McVeigh was as much a criminal as Mohammed Atta and his thugs. But we didn't immediately declare war against Irish veterans. (Thank goodness! I'm Irish, and a veteran.) > those objectives, which does not happen overnight...I can see that you > will persist in your belief regardless of what is said here, so perhaps > you can post somewhere with like minds Let's try to have a good discussion. One of the problems with the US today is that we split into our own groups and talk only to each other. I am hoping that there are conservatives out there who will undertake to examine the question of whether our present (unelected) president deserves a true conservative's confidence. I am conservative in many, but not all, ways, and I don't think that Mr Bush deserves _anyone's_ confidence. Apologies for the long post! Alan17b

In your reply to us, you did not make any good arguments. First let's discuss Clinton and what he did for terrorism: USS Cole? First attack on the Twin Towers? Embassy bombings in August 1998? Bosnia? Kosovo? Somalia? Palestine? OBL? I was in Bosnia at the time of the embassy bombings and we did not hear as whisper from Clinton. You can have Taft by the way, he did not know how to fight the Cold War or run the US Senate. Another issue you seem to cherish environment: Hydrogen and electric cars are out there and no one is buying them. SUVs are the craze and are at least 25 percent of the cars on the road. Lets discuss logging. What do you know about forestry? Well, here in the South we trim our woodlands and clean out the underbrush and we do not have the forest fires of CA. It works. And don't give me this it is dry in CA crap. Come down to South GA in August. Can you make the Auto Industry make sellable cars have high gas mileage? Our economy is a consumer economy. The consumer right now wants SUVs. Taxes: How much is enough, Alan? You did not answer that part. Some "rich" people went from 41 to 40 percent. Wow! How gracious! Reagan cut taxes and our economy kept moving, Kennedy cut taxes and our economy kept moving. I used my tax cut for paying bills. Did you not cash yours in? Abortion: You avoided. You have to consider this issue when voting. The other guy, Dean, Gore, are in favor of abortion on demand. I cannot tolerate that. Fiscal Conservatism: Bingo! You got one right. Congress needs to cut spending. Try looking into welfare, crack down on students in schools who are taking federal money and withdrawing from classes, over paid administrators, etc. Most "hands on" monetary issues are handled by local authorities. So states are much to blame. But I guess democrats in Congress did not try to pass spending bills that would blow the fiscal mind? Clinton would have done it if it had not been for the Republican controlled US Congress. Terrorism and the Middle East: Clinton warned him? You said “Al Queda back in Iraq. So you admit they were there and are there. You know what? I wish things had not happened the way they did in Iraq, but in the end, Bush is right. We were going to have to go in Iraq sooner than later. We were ran out of there in 1998 and never looked back. Again, on Clinton’s watch. Terrorism did not just show up in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter idealism is the thought that the world needs our help and wants it. It is the humanistic approach. No, the world (most of it) hates you and does not want your help. The UN is nothing but a social club of nations that are looking out for their self-interest. So had do you “make” France, Germany, Iran, Egypt, and others fight terrorism? Jimmy Carter had the worse economy since Hoover, he failed in Iran and watched Americans suffer with out fighting, long gas lines, inflation, but then Reagan came in and introduced tax cuts and boom the economy took off. Yes, I recall those days. How, Alan, do you negotiate with terrorism? Like the Taliban? We gave them two weeks to give up OBL. What did the UN do? They lit some candles and held vigils. Where’s the action? War can be declared on groups like the IRA and Islamic Jihad, Hezbelloh, Al Queda. Nations that allow them to roam free are accomplices. Education: Houston schools are governed by people that live in Houston. Local control, federal money. Talk to your Board of Education, but this still does not have anything to do with the money Bush had Congress give these schools. Where is the oil in Iraq going after it is pumped? To Cheney’s basement? Iraq belongs to OPEC. About your comment about records being released. In no time in our nation’s history has the public been able to access records of these kinds until decades later: WW2, Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Airlift, etc. But it comes down to a basic question for me, Alan. Vote for Bush or Dean. Choose one. And if there are so many people like yourself, how come the Democrats got waxed in 2002 and 2003? Americans like this president and you are in the loud minority.

Don't be fooled by the benjy17b moniker.  This is Alan17b, who
recently posted inquiring about conservative support for
George W. Bush.

I received several replies, some more cogent than others. One person
taunted me:
   alan17b, we know you are already gone from here and don't have the
   courage, conviction, or the facts to dispute or debate us. You are
   just like a pigeon who flies over a beautiful park, poops once from
   far away, and keeps on flying.

How smart he was!  For on attempting today, Sunday 7 Dec, to post a
polite, and this time well-formatted reply, to some of those who
answered me, I discovered that my previous posts had been deleted
and that my ability to post had been removed by the Authorities who
manage FreeRepublic.

I don't know how often this occurs, but once is surely enough.  I
hope that all true conservatives -- those who believe, at a minimum,
in free speech -- will take note of this censorship on FreeRepublic.

"FreeRepublic" . . .  ha. If the Authorities who run this forum should
ever succeed in taking over this country -- heaven forfend -- I hope that
I have the agility to have previously made it safely to Canada.

I advise any true conservative who reads this to copy it quickly to
her/his hard disk; for I bet that it won't stay on this forum for more
tnan a couple of hours.

I know that the ability of of benjy17b to post will be summarily
withdrawn, so I'll say goodbye to you all now.  A parting word:
Mr Jim Robinson can be reached at jimrob@psnw.com.

Best wishes,

Alan17b(aka temporarily as benjy17b)

Hi Melissa,

I understand your post in general terms and agree with all that in general terms as well. But don't be fooled by the "icing on the cake", so to speak...look a little deeper at the "ingredients" used by alan17b:

"I am hoping that there are conservatives out there who will undertake to examine the question of whether our present (unelected) president deserves a true conservative's confidence."

"We used to think that Mr Clinton set the standard for presidential lying; but Mr Bush is _much_ worse."

"He has tripled the threat of terrorism"

"He "defends the environment", but he lets us drink arsenic and breath mercury"

These are alanb17's "ingredients".

A couple of things; first, although this is obviously not my website, FR is not set up to be a debating forum between liberal ideas and conservative ideas. It is a gathering place for conservatives, as it plainly states on the Home page:

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.

Having said all that, there is nothing to prevent liberals from showing up here and trying to engage conservatives in debate over these issues. However, if they do show up as univited guests into a private forum that chooses to be exactly what it states for all to see on the Home Page, with every right to do exactly that, then the liberal guests should at least show up with facts; not incredible, unsubstantiated, out-and-out fabrications or ridiculous accusations...especially without any data or facts or even an attempt to back them up.

In this case with this latest liberal disruptor alan17b, he is merely a semi-sophisticated "wolf in sheep's clothing"...apparently old/mature enough to mask his anger, but still porous enough to allow those "ingredients" (refer to the examples above which were quotes from his posts) to be the cornerstone of his disruption. And make NO mistake...he is not interested in debate, just disruption.

I don't pretend to speak for JimRob, but I'm certain that he views alan17b in the same way, although his term might be TROLL.

Hope that helps...

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.