Anti-Deanites: will you vote for Dean against Bush?

[The Omega Concern]

i can't vote for either of these dweebs...i doubt i'll vote for Bush, the amesty thing for illegals is the reason.

[Pudge]

Originally posted by BlueStar
I will be writing in Edwards or voting for a 3rd party candidate. I would never vote for Dean.

hopefully you live ina state that goes democratic but if not don't ever complain about bush again.

[scouse_dave]

Dean must be an absolute twat if this is even worth discussing

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by machinaddict

but you aren't any safer without Saddam.

I personally may not be at the moment, but if he were allowed to continue unchecked he would've continued to help fund terrorism, seek weapons and would've remained a source of inspiration to his Baathist hold outs who are blowing up our troops.

The point is it was a stupid remark to make. How many million did Saddam have on him when they caught him? You think he's not going to relocate and use that to harm the U.S. in any way he can if he escapes?

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Is this going to be another "OMG he's a racist!" argument?

No. It's going to be a "Wow, you actually think along the same lines as Pat Buchanan, so I never have to argue with you again, you insane fringe rightist" argument.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


No. It's going to be a "Wow, you actually think along the same lines as Pat Buchanan, so I never have to argue with you again, you insane fringe rightist" argument.

my problem with Buchanan is he's a religious nut.

- Strongly pro-life
- Against godless China

pfft.

RU-486 is a human pesticide; ban it. (Oct 2000)
RU-486 is an abomination before God. (Sep 2000)
The unborn have rights; defund the abortion industry. (Dec 1999)
Presidency supports traditional values, not gays & abortion. (Jul 1999)
Appoint pro-life judges; fight “Culture of Death”. (May 1999)
Abortion is greatest evil since slavery. (May 1999)
Strictly pro-life Supreme Court & Vice Pres. nominees. (Mar 1999)

Take country back from ACLU; allow school prayer & gay bans. (Oct 2000)
Admired civil rights movement, but MLK was “divisive”. (May 2000)
Abolish quotas; all learn English. (Oct 1999)
Legal gambling is a “destructive vice”. (Jul 1999)
End racial busing, quotas, & contract set-asides. (Jul 1999)
Close NEA to stop desecration of Christian images. (Jun 1999)
Racial & gender entitlements are Govt-sponsored prejudice. (Jun 1999)
Color-blind laws: end trendy bigotry of diversity. (May 1999)
Tear out diversity programs, root and branch. (Aug 1995)

Vermont civil unions are ‘absurd’. (Oct 2000)
Homosexuality is “the love that will not shut up.”. (Sep 2000)
Gay pride equated with moral decline and cultural decadence. (Aug 2000)
Condemns gays, women in combat, and abortion. (Aug 2000)
Opposes gay rights agenda in its entirety. (May 2000)
First to demand government deal with AIDS epidemic. (May 2000)
All lifestyles are not equal; some ideas are wrong. (May 2000)
No gay VP; no gays in Cabinet; it’s “a disorder”. (May 2000)
Would oppose a gay president “with everything I had”. (Dec 1999)
AIDS is retribution; women can’t compete. (Oct 1999)

Stop gun rampages by requiring press silence. (Nov 1999)
Prompt death penalty would stop mass murderers. (Nov 1999)
Clemency for Puerto Rican terrorists is “shameful”. (Sep 1999)
Reno should have resigned over Waco debacle. (Sep 1999)
Tort reform: limit damages; loser pays legal fees. (Jun 1999)

Drug usage is not a victimless crime; so keep marijuana ban. (Jan 2000)
Open Mexican border invites drug trafficking. (Sep 1999)

Bring God and prayer back to public schools. (Sep 2000)
Schools went wrong when judges & feds got involved. (Nov 1999)
Block grants to states with all federal education funds. (Nov 1999)
Federal role in science & scholarships; not grade schools. (Nov 1999)
Ed Dept should test the marketplace instead of testing kids. (Oct 1999)
Replace Dept. of Education with states & parents. (Jul 1999)
For school prayer; against multiculturalism. (Jun 1999)
End bilingualism; end “hyphenated-Americans”. (May 1999)

the guy is a nut, dude. you believe in all that shit, Nimrod?

the only thing Buchanan is any good at is foreign policy.

[machinaddict]

Originally posted by tweedyburd


I personally may not be at the moment, but if he were allowed to continue unchecked he would've continued to help fund terrorism, seek weapons and would've remained a source of inspiration to his Baathist hold outs who are blowing up our troops.

The point is it was a stupid remark to make. How many million did Saddam have on him when they caught him? You think he's not going to relocate and use that to harm the U.S. in any way he can if he escapes?

Where exactly is the proof that shows he funded terrorism? Specifically 9-11. None. Also I don't recall him buying any weapons in the last 10 years. Or trying to. Uranium my ass. The guerilla rebellion in Iraq now was the best thing he had accomplished against the US. And even his involvement in that is shaky.
And I don't seem to recall Saddam having suitcases full of gold and unmarked bills when they found his dirty smelly ass in a hole in the ground. If he had all that money, wouldn't he have fled long ago?
Man, I sound like a fucking hippie here. Christ.

[sppunk]

I am a Howard Dean supporter, so of course. However, if he does not get the nomination, I will vote for the other candidate, unless it is Al Sharpton or Mosley-Braun. Of course, I'm sure that will come off as racist, but Sharpton is an absolute disgrace and Braun's just not strong enough.

I believe strongly Dean will get the nomination, but Wesley Clark is really getting close. I believe Kerry, Gephardt, Leiberman and Edwards and sliding downhill, with Gephardt staying closer to the lead than the rest.

But, I will vote against Bush unless 1) I die, or 2) a complete douchebag gets the candidacy, which isn't happening.

But, alas, Bush will likely win by 58 percent and we'll all begin to get primed for the great Clinton/Bradley campaign of '08.

[machinaddict]

Can one of the Americans explain why Dean is so bad?

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by sppunk
I believe strongly Dean will get the nomination, but Wesley Clark is really getting close. I believe Kerry, Gephardt, Leiberman and Edwards and sliding downhill, with Gephardt staying closer to the lead than the rest.

Dean has not picked up any new supporters. The Edwards momentum here in IA is all the talk. We, literally, cannot keep up with all the phone calls and random people stopping by our offices...all wanting to get involved in the campaign. It is insane. But, that is the way primaries (especially caucuses) go. At this point in time in '92, Clinton was polling at just 4%, but then came from out of nowhere and took 2nd in NH. Hart's poll numbers in '84 went up 44 points between the IA caucuses and the NH primary. When looking at polls for primaries, you don't look at the numbers, you look at the trends...and then trend is this: Dean has peaked, Edwards and Kerry are picking up steam, and Edwards' favorability numbers are through the roof. This is still anybody's race to win.

“Hitting His Stride, Edwards Is on Heels of Front-Runners” Randal Archibald and Adam Nagourney, New York Times, 1/14/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/po...ns/14EDWA.html

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina walked into a senior citizen center here on Tuesday and took in yet another packed house: every chair was filled, and an overflow crowd upstairs peered over the balcony at the presidential candidate dressed in a suit and sneakers.

After six months in which he visited all 99 Iowa counties, as he reminded his audience again on Tuesday, and spent nearly $2 million on television advertisements, Mr. Edwards is roaring toward the end of his battle here.

He is packing halls across Iowa. He is finding what many Democrats say is the stride that eluded him for much of the year. And he was attacked by name in a new television advertisement released Tuesday by Howard Dean, a development that Mr. Edwards's advisers celebrated as a sign that he had arrived.

In the process, Mr. Edwards is forcing opponents who had once paid little mind to his candidacy to factor him into their calculations. He is threatening to siphon away support from candidates like Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, who appears to be in a fight for first place with Dr. Dean. Mr. Edwards is drawing attention as he contrasts his sunny campaign appeal with what he describes as the sniping of his rivals.

…Democratic leaders say Mr. Edwards could come in third or even second. That could put him in a strong position going into New Hampshire, where Democrats say he is struggling, and down to South Carolina, which he has said he must win to stay in the race.

And perhaps more significant to Mr. Edwards's own political career, he may have polished his profile in these final weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses in a way that could help him should he wish to run for president in 2008, or to be considered for vice president later this year.

“Edwards Is Gaining In Iowa Poll” John Wagner, Raleigh News & Observer, 1/14/04
http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/...-2886279c.html

Sen. John Edwards drew an enthusiastic crowd -- and several dozen reporters -- to a morning campaign stop Tuesday after rising a couple of points in a new tracking poll. More than 100 potential caucusgoers turned out for an event designed to highlight the White House aspirant's health-care plans but turned into a larger pep rally for his campaign, which has been energized in recent days by The Des Moines Register's endorsement and an uptick in the polls.

Edwards then headed to New Hampshire for a half-day campaign swing in the nation's first primary state. The North Carolina Democrat's itinerary was pared back so that he could return late Tuesday night to Iowa, where he will remain until the Monday caucuses.

Edwards' dash back and forth came as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, started airing a new television ad in Iowa that criticized three rivals, including Edwards, for their support of the Iraq war.

Asked by reporters about the ad, Edwards said he found it ironic that as his "positive, uplifting" message is catching on, other candidates are resorting to attacks.

"Unfortunately, it's just typical of what people have come to expect," Edwards said.

“In Iowa, Suddenly It's A Race Of Four” Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0114/p01s01-uspo.html

Five days before the Iowa caucuses, the race here is suddenly transforming from a two-man contest into a round-robin scramble among four Democratic candidates.

Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt remain locked in close competition for first place. But in an unusual twist, the third and fourth place contenders - John Kerry and John Edwards - are showing new signs of momentum, dramatically shrinking the gap between all four men.

While the growing competitiveness reflects an inevitable last-minute tightening, other dynamics are at work as well that show how unusually fluid the race has become - and how vulnerable front-runner Dean remains.

"Howard Dean's shooting himself in the foot every day," says Leanne Kennard, a retired teacher from West Des Moines, attending a Gephardt rally.

But while Ms. Kennard was until recently planning on supporting Gephardt, she's also become unhappy with Gephardt's attacks on Dean. She shakes her head over a mailing she received from the Gephardt campaign, with "huge pictures" of an angry-looking Dean. "I'm thinking strongly about John Edwards," she concludes.

Indeed, as more and more voters complain about the negativity of the race, Edwards may stand to benefit. He has for the most part sought to remain above the fray, refraining from attacking his rivals in favor of what he tells voters is an "optimistic" campaign.

Watching Edwards address a crowd of more than 100 people at Baker's Court restaurant in rural Storm Lake, Beverlee Bell says she likes his "energy and his positiveness." She was already leaning toward supporting the North Carolina senator, but now says she'll definitely caucus for him.
Ms. Bell, like other voters here, expresses a discomfort with Dean, saying he reminds her of "a liberal George Bush."

But in describing what they like about Edwards, many also use phrases similar to those Dean supporters use to describe their candidate - "honest," "plain-spoken," and "hasn't been in Washington for a million years." It's a reaction that suggests Edwards could emerge as a strong Dean alternative. Likewise, Edwards has also adopted certain catchphrases from Dean - referring to his campaign as a "movement" and stressing his outsider appeal.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by machinaddict
Can one of the Americans explain why Dean is so bad?

He is very shady (he won't make public his records as governor, etc.), he has an anger problem, he talks out of both sides of his mouth and flip-flops on every issues (ex. he initially publicly supported the war with Iraq and he supported unilateral military action in Bosnia), he is constantly putting his foot in his mouth, and he will get his ass handed to him by Bush if he wins the nomination.

Agriculture
„« Dean opposed ethanol requirements
„« Dean supported phasing out farm subsidies
„« Dean did not control agri-business that ruined the environment
„« Dean did not support strong funding for agriculture marketing

Guns
„« Dean opposes further federal gun restrictions
„« Dean received an A rating from the NRA
„« Dean favors allowing states to impose further gun restrictions

Trade
„« Dean flip-flopped on NAFTA, having formerly been a ¡§strong supporter¡¨
„« Dean favored most-favored nation status for China
„« Dean flip-flopped on labor and environmental standards
„« Dean flip-flopped on the trade embargo with Cuba

Seniors
„« Dean favored raising the retirement age
„« Dean supported cutting Social Security
„« Dean cut funding prescription drugs for the elderly
„« Vermont¡¦s Veterans Home was mismanaged
„« Dean favored cutting the growth of Medicare

[sppunk]

Originally posted by BlueStar


Dean has not picked up any new supporters. The Edwards momentum here in IA is all the talk. We, literally, cannot keep up with all the phone calls and random people stopping by our offices...all wanting to get involved in the campaign. It is insane. But, that is the way primaries (especially caucuses) go. At this point in time in '92, Clinton was polling at just 4%, but then came from out of nowhere and took 2nd in NH. Hart's poll numbers in '84 went up 44 points between the IA caucuses and the NH primary. When looking at polls for primaries, you don't look at the numbers, you look at the trends...and then trend is this: Dean has peaked, Edwards and Kerry are picking up steam, and Edwards' favorability numbers are through the roof. This is still anybody's race to win.

Iowa isn't the only caucus, or even the most important caucus for that matter. The winner of course is a favorite, but NH and NM are going to huge players in this field this year. Dean, I know, has picked up a hell of a lot of NH lately as well as NM, who everyone is ignoring for some stupid reason. And to not mention Clark isn't "picking up steam" is such an obviously bias holdout. Clark has gained more support by not even being in Iowa than anyone else in the past week.

I think the debate Sunday hurt everyone. It showed the candidates mostly just want to attack each other. The talk of foreign policy was lacking, as well as any substantial plans in the U.S. Sure, you have to win the party nomination, but by bashing each other is not the way to go. Edwards, who has primarily stayed away from those tactics led by Kerry and the like, got suckered into them and everyone just came out looking ignorant.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by sppunk


Iowa isn't the only caucus, or even the most important caucus for that matter. The winner of course is a favorite, but NH and NM are going to huge players in this field this year. Dean, I know, has picked up a hell of a lot of NH lately as well as NM, who everyone is ignoring for some stupid reason. And to not mention Clark isn't "picking up steam" is such an obviously bias holdout. Clark has gained more support by not even being in Iowa than anyone else in the past week.

If Kerry or Edwards pulls out a surprise in Iowa, Clark's numbers in NH will plummet. The rule is: don't even think about who will win or lose in NH until IA is over. The results in IA will change everything that is currently going on in NH. And the most important primary this year is SC. NM is Edwards territory...Edwards spent a lot of time there this summer and fall and already has major operations underway there...as well as AZ and OK. Edwards will be 1st or 2nd in all three of those states (assuming, of course, that we do well in IA and NH). The purposes of IA and NH is to built momentum, beat expectations, and get media attention. Fun fact: no Dem candidate who has won IA has ever won the presidency (Carter was actually 2nd in IA, undecided was 1st).

[sppunk]

Originally posted by BlueStar


If Kerry or Edwards pulls out a surprise in Iowa, Clark's numbers in NH will plummet. The rule is: don't even think about who will win or lose in NH until IA is over. The results in IA will change everything that is currently going on in NH. And the most important primary this year is SC. NM is Edwards territory...Edwards spent a lot of time there this summer and fall and already has major operations underway there...as well as AZ and OK. Edwards will be 1st or 2nd in all three of those states (assuming, of course, that we do well in IA and NH). The purposes of IA and NH is to built momentum, beat expectations, and get media attention. Fun fact: no Dem candidate who has won IA has ever won the presidency (Carter was actually 2nd in IA, undecided was 1st).

Your last statement backs up my point. Outside states don't give a fuck about Iowa this year. They want themselves and their own needs addressed, not the farmers in the midwest who make $25,000 a year and can live well on that.

And, SC is of course important, but Edwards in one of the latest polls was third in his own state. NM is a southern state with a liberal majority that can/will swing a lot of momentum, in the general election moreso than the primaries.

[jczeroman]

If it were just Dean and bush then I would vote Dean.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by sppunk


Your last statement backs up my point. Outside states don't give a fuck about Iowa this year. They want themselves and their own needs addressed, not the farmers in the midwest who make $25,000 a year and can live well on that.

No, it backs up my point that winning IA is not important...it is all about building momentum and riding that wave into the other primaries. What matters in regards to other states when it comes to IA is having a good showing in IA.

[I_was_aborted]

I would vote Dean. There is no way I would vote for Bush. I would vote for Al Sharpton before I would vote for Bush and he is a fucking reverend.

[jczeroman]

When Deal loses in Iowa, he'll lose the primary.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by BlueStar

„« Dean supported phasing out farm subsidies
„« Dean opposes further federal gun restrictions
„« Dean received an A rating from the NRA
„« Dean supported cutting Social Security
„« Dean favored cutting the growth of Medicare

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by jczeroman
If it were just Dean and bush then I would vote Dean.

IS SURPRISED!

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


IS SURPRISED!

I'll explain this in my blog on the Oregonian when it gets put up soon.

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

I'm really not certain who I'm going to vote for. It's certainly going to be third party, but with Nader probably running, and if so, as an independent, there's the decision to choose the best person on the ballot (which will probably be Nader, given the list of the four potential Green Party presidential candidates) or give the Greens a party-building vote.

[Homerpalooza]

Dean. I've been following him since March of last year. So there!

For anyone wavering on the guy, here are a couple of recent good articles and resources about him:

The Moral Case For Howard Dean: TNR Online

The Media vs. Howard Dean: Salon.com

Originally posted by BlueStar

No, it backs up my point that winning IA is not important...it is all about building momentum and riding that wave into the other primaries. What matters in regards to other states when it comes to IA is having a good showing in IA.

So Iowa matters but it doesn't matter? But your guy Edwards is doing a great job in Iowa and (finally!) moving in the polls. So keep up the good work down there.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by Homerpalooza



So Iowa matters but it doesn't matter? But your guy Edwards is doing a great job in Iowa and (finally!) moving in the polls. So keep up the good work down there.

Coming in 1st doesn't matter. But, having a good showing so you can gain momentum and do well in other state primaries does matter. In IA and NH, coming in 1st isn't important...you can come in 2nd or 3rd and declare victory...it is all about beating expectations.

What is going on here in IA is amazing. I can barely keep up with the number of suppoters jumping onboard. We are so unbelievably energized right now.

[meow]

OTHER/CANADIAN

[sppunk]

Originally posted by BlueStar


Coming in 1st doesn't matter. But, having a good showing so you can gain momentum and do well in other state primaries does matter. In IA and NH, coming in 1st isn't important...you can come in 2nd or 3rd and declare victory...it is all about beating expectations.

What is going on here in IA is amazing. I can barely keep up with the number of suppoters jumping onboard. We are so unbelievably energized right now.

Less than a week before the caucus, I am sure every campaign is gaining a lot of supporters. The 4.8 million "not yet decide" voters are finally choosing. And, I doubt somehow Edwards has gained 4.8 million voters in the past four days.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by meow
OTHER/CANADIAN

Don't waste your vote!

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by sppunk


Less than a week before the caucus, I am sure every campaign is gaining a lot of supporters. The 4.8 million "not yet decide" voters are finally choosing. And, I doubt somehow Edwards has gained 4.8 million voters in the past four days.

Well, Dean isn't getting them. The undecided people are not undecided about Dean (they are undecided between Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards). Looking at the trends, Dean has not gained in new supporters and is lacking any sort of momentum going into this. The Sen. Harkin endorsement just completely fell flat and did nothing for him.

[Tchocky]

Fuck Blair's best mate up the arse for me.

[BeautifulLoser]

Originally posted by Tchocky
Fuck Blair's best mate up the arse for me.

Can't read your font color, buddy.