I would so love to see John Edwards dismantle bush in a free form debate, but I'm sure they will insist on special handicapped rules for BUsh with the questions in advance.
Kerry supported the war. Like many Americans who initially supported the war, he has criticized the way it was conducted. This is not a radical position -- it's a mainstream one. And Max has expressed concern too about many of the things Kerry has. Kerry's "tax hikes" consist of a rollback of Bush's unprecedented giveaways to the richest Americans. He wouldn't touch the middle class tax cut. Middle class and lower class America will agree with the rollback. Only the richest Americans will oppose it and they weren't voting Democrat anyway. The $2,000 contributions they give Bush are like the one percent Discover returns to its customers every year. They give the max donation and get it back in spades. American voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. Edwards especially makes the case that Bush runs a government for the rich. Any of the other Dems can make the same case. Try characterizing taking money back from rich people as a 'tax hike' at a time when we've lost 2.3 million jobs and have the biggest deficit in our nation's history and kiss Bush goodbye. The Democrats, led by Edwards, have finally figured out how to explain this ripoff to the American people in a way they can understand and the usual mantras of 'class warfare' and 'tax hikes' ain't gonna do it this time.
Did he vote 'yes' or 'no' on the money needed to rebuild Iraq? Please tell me. I'd love to hear your economic theory that supports the notion that taking money out of people's hands by raising taxes will create jobs and spur economic development. Please share!
Ok, I just witnessed the spectacle that was Dean's ‘concession’ speech. The man was seriously losing it up on that stage, if someone tried to stop him from humiliating himself further I think he would have thrown a punch. Letterman is going to have a field day with this one – it really was embarrassing to watch. On another note the more I hear from Edwards the more I like him; he is clear, concise, and above all even-tempered.
Tex, have you watched the debates? As I've mentioned before, I was preternaturally disposed toward Dean and Clark and to a lesser extent Kerry. I was very sketchy on Edwards as I am generally suspicious of pretty boy Southerners -- that seems to be the main thing they have going for them and that's not enough. Edwards and Clark have surprised the hell out of me. Edwards for being so sharp and Clark for being so banal. A debate between Clark and Bush would be the battle of the bumper sticker sound bites. Kerry or Edwards would kick his ass. Clark would be lucky to run even. mrpaige: Thanks for the analysis. I have to conclude you didn't see much of Kerry or Edwards in Iowa this last week. Your takes on them are dead on from before that but they've both been reborn. Take another look and let me know what you think. Your Dean take is consistent with the book on him, but there's much more to his agenda, much of it very positive. He's lost touch with it playing not to lose instead of playing to win (remind anyone of a certain Houston basketball team over the last several years?), but it's there. Whether he can find his way back to it is the big question of his campaign.
Jorge (why do I do this?): Kerry voted against the money for Iraq because he, like many Americans, was opposed to pouring money down a hole when the administration had no plan, especially at a time of historic deficits and unemployment. Many prominent Republicans have expressed the same concern. To say he opposed the war gives him too much credit. I wish he had. I'd be his biggest backer. But he didn't. Someone mentioned in the other thread that Iowa was proof that Americans weren't too concerned about the war or didn't oppose it that strongly. I think it was basso. Entrance polls showed that Iraq was one of the top issues in Iowa and that 75% opposed the war. Kerry won the anti-war vote even though he was for the war for one reason. Those voters believed he was best equipped to take it to Bush on that issue. But you won't find a single thinking person who would agree with you that he opposed the war. If you say he did, you're a liar. On the tax thing, let's turn it around. Wealthy Americans got the biggest tax cut in this nation's history and we lost millions of jobs and created a deficit that future generations will be paying off for years. Call it whatever you like, but trickle down is still voodoo economics and it doesn't work. Hence the jobless recovery. As Brecht once said, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." As Kerry noted last night, corporations are being paid to export jobs. And ordinary Americans are getting stuck with the bill. I'm not going to get into an economic debate with you. Any half smart person who spends most of their time on one issue can articulate a good argument for either side of that issue. Try selling your argument to those Americans who are not better off than they were four years ago though and you will lose and lose badly. There are more of them, in case you didn't know, than ones who are doing better. And according to recent polls, for the first time in two years, Americans trust the Democrats to do a better job on the economy and taxes than Bush. That's while the 'recovery' is in full swing and before most of them have heard from the major Democratic candidates.
Batman, 1) Thank you for conceding that Kerry didn't support the money needed to finish the job in Iraq 2) You are making an incorrect assumption with regard to economics. Jobs lag the general economy. That is to say, when the economy goes bad in day 1, jobs will go bad in day 3. The tax cuts were intended to provide fiscal stimulus to an already ailing economy. To say or imply that the tax cuts led to the deterioration of the job market is simply wrong. A terror attack, corporate malfeasance, weak earnings, bloated inventories, a bursting stock market bubble, and relatively high interest rates are what started the economic deterioration in 2000. Liberals lose a great deal of credibility when they try to tell people that tax cuts are responsible for 2 million jobs being lost. It's laughably absurd. Your attempt at linking the economic recovery to the Democrats polling numbers is also nothing short of absurd. The Democrats have zero power in America right now. Even in the odd-chance that they regain the Presidency, they would still be up against a Republican Congress. Their ideas simply do not move markets, as you imply. Low interest rates, loose monetary policy, low taxes, corporate earnings and consumer confidence move markets. The tax cuts have helped to address many of these determinants.
Exactly how I feel. Good thing Iowa means relatively little in the grand scheme of things. He can still win. Run Dean run!! Try it on Kazaa...
Well, we could pull a Reagan and make up some economic theory, call it demand side economics, and then go about finding economists that agree with this new theory.
Batman, Do you really think that GWB will debate the Democratic nominee? The only case I see would be against Clark since he is such a train wreck live.
The big winner in Iowa was Edwards. Gephardt and Denn (followed by Kerry) had the best "on the ground" organizations in Iowa. Those three also spent more money than Edwards. For Edwards to come out of the pack says a lot. We will see if he can build on his momentum in NH. The big loser of course is Dean. Gephardt spent his money hammering Dean in ads. It is too bad for Gephardt that the splintered Dean vote went to Kerry and Edwards. Both Kerry and Edwards have now earned the front runners right to attack ads, so Dean may have a chance to rebuild his campaign in NH on onward. Also Dean still has more money than the other candidates so he will be a force going forward.
I really don't see how he can avoid it, though I'm sure they'll try. Three hour and a half debates is the standard. I'd bet my teeth they'll do everything they can to get the questions in advance. p*****s.
Man, I just heard it for the first time and you ain't kidding! I might support Dean just for the comedic value alone. Can you imagine the SNL parodies?
I caught it on the radio this morning, honestly thought it was a joke, I had images of some Macho Man Randy Savage impersonator in my head.
The way I see it is that GWB will see political fallout either from skipping the debates or doing poorly in the debates. I think doing porly would be harder to recover from, especially since if the Democratic candidate "looks and sounds" more Presidential than GWB. GWB's 250 million may not be enough to recover from a debate disaster. I strongly suspect that GWB would again ask for the questions in advance. But even then the Democratic challenger may show a better understanding of the debate questions than GWB, despite GWB's four years in office. This would be disastrous for GWB. I can not see Rove letting GWB debate and subsequently embarassed.
1) Thank you for conceding that Kerry didn't support the money needed to finish the job in Iraq If the money was going to help finish the job in Iraq, that might have been one thing. The money wasn't specified for any real use, though. While you may not be capable of seeing it, some people think throwing money at nothing is really a waste of money. Of course, since you have no real concern for debt or fiscal responsibility, it's no surprise this would be well over your head. Jobs lag the general economy. blah blah blah... in this case, REALLY lag the general economy, given that we've been out of recession for 2 years. Contrary to the "whatever GWB does is correct and must be rationalized" approach that you take, real economists are seriously concerned that this far into a recovery, job growth has not been seen on any decent scale.
