CSPAN

The issue of gun control is brought up.  You might want to check it out.

These guys dont stand a chance. I think it will either be Kerry or Leiberman that gets the nomination.

I hope its dean.  On a plus not only Al Sharpton and one other who i couldnt catch supported the registration scheme.

I hope it isn't Dean who recieves the nomination, just enough "pro-gun" in him to allow pro-gun fencesitters to be wooed that way. In fact, I hope it is Sharpton who recieves the nomination. He stands a snowballs chance in hell....

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0505/p09s01-codc.html[/url]

The Democrats debated, and Bush won

By Dante Chinni

WASHINGTON – You may not have noticed, what with the new X-Men movie and all, but last week the 2004 presidential campaign unofficially kicked off with two very different events.

On Thursday, President Bush nabbed a premium prime-time slot to stage a half-hour photo opportunity aboard an aircraft carrier, where he stood before throngs of servicemen and -women to announce what everyone already knew. The large-scale battle is over in Iraq. The US had done well. And the majority of American troops will be headed home. It was nice television - even before the speech.

Earlier in the afternoon, the president had landed on the carrier, emerging from the cockpit of his aircraft with his helmet under his arm and his flight suit well-tailored. He had smiled and met the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln - and you can bet the cameras of the Bush reelection committee were snapping shots we'll see ad nauseum come 2004.

Two days later the nine Democrats who desperately want to defeat the president met in Columbia, S.C. for the earliest-ever presidential debate, a full 19 months before the election. The event took place at 9 p.m. Saturday, though it wasn't broadcast until 11:30 - if it was aired at all (for example, in Washington, a city obsessed with politics, the ABC affiliate decided it was a better bet to air a rerun of "The Practice" after the late news.)

And in the end, the word debate should be used lightly as a descriptor. Dressed in suits and lined up across the stage sitting behind a long table, the eight men and one woman presented a scene that looked less like a debate than a K Street community theater production of "A Chorus Line." In 90 minutes, each of the nine had to try to give a brief history of his or her life and then dance around questions. A couple of early trends became clear in the discussion, however.

Al Sharpton may not win the nomination, but his campaign is probably going to be the most fun to cover - he got all the good laugh lines. Howard Dean and John Kerry simply don't like one another very much - after an early joust between the two that lasted about 10 minutes, every time Mr. Kerry spoke, Mr. Dean had a forced half-smile on his face that looked as if it could easily develop into a nervous twitch. And Joe Lieberman campaign's raison d'être is that he can win.

Of course, with the president at 70 percent or so in approval, all the candidates have rationales for how they will win, but only Mr. Lieberman quickly outlined why people will vote for him with a nifty little syllogism. Americans want someone strong on defense. He's strong on defense. He can win because he will "make the American people feel safe."

Maybe, but then again maybe not.

There are, in essence, two issues that define the Bush presidency right now. One, the big one that overshadows all else, is the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, and the consequent military campaigns that followed it. The second is the tax cuts the president pushed for (and continues to push for) and the economy.

Thursday night made the president's strategy clear. In short: Appear in flight suits whenever possible. Over the next few months Bush may talk about tax cuts or the economy, but you can bet there will be military hardware nearby. Right now, the administration is probably planning a series of campaign stops at army/navy surplus stores. This is why the Republicans chose New York City for their convention in 2004 along with a September date. As long as the campaign focuses on "the continuing war on terror" the president's people are happy.

Taxes and the economy are not winners for Bush. Unemployment is up, and people are edgy. It's still possible for the economy to turn around for 2004, but time is short.

Oddly however, the Democrats' discussion on taxes and economy was a muddled mess. Some said they wanted to junk all of the president's tax cuts. Some wanted to junk a few of them. But there were few specifics. The only one with a real, specific plan was Dick Gephardt, whose proposal for universal healthcare does little to solve the deficit problem and is politically DOA even in the discussion phase.

The "debate's" most interesting talk was saved for Iraq, where all candidates seemed to have a thoughtful position that they were happy to discuss. All of which means the real winner from Saturday's debate was ... the president.

It's early of course, very early. But President Bush has to be happy right now. In one week he got to pretend to be Top Gun, became must-see TV, and won the Democratic debate. And the best news - there are still seven carriers available to visit. That's a lot of flight suits.

Well now that its over, it looks like health care and the economy will be the major topics for the 2004 campaign.  This is where Bush lacks considerably.  If i had a choice i would vote for Carol Mosely-Braun.  She seemed to me to be the best representation of my views.  Too bad she is a black woman.  Dean gets an A rating from the NRA and he is against the Patriot Act.  He wants to stimulate the economy and have health care for all kids under 18.  The health care plan he has worked in his state.  He would be my second choice.

I did like Edwards comment on Bush.  "just cause you live on a big ranch in Texas and wear a big belt buckle, doesnt mean you represent the working class americans."

I watched a few mins of it after the news came on....then I fell asleep.  What did they say about gun control?  

Leiberman said he doesnt support gun registration for law abiding citizens.

[BS2]
We all know his true intentions.  He will never get elected either way!

I guess that would depend on Lieberman's definition of " Law Abiding Citizen " ! [wink]

Ha. I grieve for anyone who finds meaning in that. Especially as it comes from a trial lawyer.

No, Bush "represents" working-class Americans ("represents" meaning [i]has sympathies for[/i]) because he is the only candidate who has even the slightest grasp of economics. And therefore, the only reasonable plan to get the economy back on track.

Put simply: [i]Get the government off peoples' backs.[/i] Don't tax them to death, and the economy will cycle out of this slump a lot quicker.

Erm, dont hold your breath.  The economy runs in cycles and the business community is very near (may actually have already happened) to deciding that the recession is over.  And that is when it will be over.

His (bush's) economic plan is better than the Dims [b]LACK[/b] of ANY type of plan.

I think by mid spring to summer of '04 if the Dems concentrate on the 'economy stupid' they will lose on the economy.  Of course they have NOTHING else to go on, because they have no chance on 'national security' and most people fear the Dims abuses of people rights more than they fear a Pukes being the one to do it.



That is some scary shit coming from a gun owner.



That matters why?



Yet he is FOR the assualt weapons ban, and for registration, his 'let the states decide' smoke screen is fooling ALOT of people, too bad it is jsut that a smokescreen hiding the true motives of a politician.

Of course most people still trust that the NRA is actually fighting for our gun rights.  I harbor no illusions in that area.  I am sure the NRA will pull out for Shrubbite over a Dean.



How the fuck does he plan to do it? Raising taxes?



Pie in the sky 'feel good' legistlation made to break the budget. WHOOPTY same old shit from a dim.

If anything this is a bad thing because it will create 'entitlements' where the people that can already afford health care for their kids will get it, and those poor that really need such a program will never see it.



Hey, vermont is not DC, or LA, or Chicago.  His plan is SHIT for anything other than a small fairly prosperous area.  That is the problem with most 'social' programs, they work GREAT in areas of affluence, but really SUCK in areas where they are truly needed.



He is unelectable, he is about the least electable of all the dims.  



WHOOOO and a fucking trial lawyer does?  Edwards is a shill for the DLC.  He is a pretty face with NO substance, sorta like Clinton.  I figure he will end up with the nomination, or at least the VP slot.

You are kidding right?  Take a look at how she defrauded and did not represent the Illinois people who elected her.  She is very corrupt and completely untrustable.

Youre cracking me up.  Yep Bush has an excellent grasp of economics.  Dont tax them to death, triple the debt.  I mean hell its not like we have to pay it off any time soon, let our grandkids worry about it.  And who said anything about it having meaning?  Hell, i thought it was funny.  Cheap labor, bring in more minimum wage workers.  All this high wage shit is killing big business' like ATT&T and Wal Mart.  Send jobs overseas, they will make us a nice pair of NIKE shoes for 2 cents on the dollar.

That matters why?  

Was that a joke or were you serious?

I should have clarified that.  She hates the Patriot Act as much as I do.  I know nothing of here history or voting record.  I just hate the patriot act.

DU is pretty underwhelmed with the Democrats they've fielded. To me, it looks like Kerry or Lieberman are probably going to end up being the nominee.  They're both pretty beige establishment types near the center.  Gephardt's views on labor and trade are dinosaurish in today's world, and the leftists hate him for supporting Bush enthusiastically on Iraq.  Dean is too obscure, Edwards is too young and inexperienced, Kuchinch and Sharpton are schmucks.

So, between Liberman and Kerry, my guess is that the Democrats will go for Kerry because he's a war vet/hero (Democrats are perceived as weak on national security and they're dumb enough to think that being a war vet somehow makes your views on defense more substantial than a civilian's), and Kerry isn't explicitly pro-Israel and socially conservative like Lieberman is. Plus he's got tons of money ready to spend.

To what are you referring?

if you are referring to my question 'that matters why?', yes I was serious.

You are the one that brought up the sex/race of 'the candidate that best represented your views', like it mattered.  Are you saying you could not support a Black woman, simply because she is a black woman?

OR where you referring to one, or all, of my other comments?

If so, yes I was very serious.  I foresee the Dims getting trounced in 2004, unless something really really dire happens to the country.  The economy is on the upswing and should start improving very noticeably in the next 6 months or so, and within a year it will be back in full tilt mode, and unless something very bad happens in the 'war on terror', no Dim can touch shrubbie on it, the best they can do is say 'Yes, we went along with the president on that'.

My response:  
I am a conservative Dem.  I am not impressed with the candidates.    For the first time in my voting life, I believe I am going to cross over, and vote for Bush.

I absolutely luuuuuv Bush...and he loves loves you too Gypsy and even union2k2. I think I speak for most of us here that we all luv Bush. Even the guys that voted for Gore luv Bush[:D]

Stop dissembling. I implied he has the "best" grasp of economics of the field, not an "excellent" one. Not nearly optimal, by my admittedly radical [i]laissez-faire[/i] standards. But as modern democrats are essentially socialists, Bush is by far the least of all evils.



If you think short-term [i]deficit[/i], especially war spending, is the worst financial state of our [i]government[/i], there's a lot you don't understand. More than I have time to explain.

And if you are a strong supporter of our New Deal, war-on-poverty style of entitlement programs, you're actually [i]causing[/i] the debt. "Progressive" tax schemes, coupled with rigid entitlement transfer payments and ever-expanding social programs (which often waste up to seventy cents on the dollar) are doomed to create these budget situations whenever those who actually [i]pay[/i] taxes suddenly find their incomes dropping during a downturn.

Would you approve of, say, funding the federal government for [i]only[/i] the explicit duties demanded of it by the Constitution? I doubt it, somehow. But that would cure your debt problem. And fast.



Why? Did Edwards have his fly undone? Was he wearing a fake mustache?




I wish that actually meant something.