That's my big fear on Dean, that he may have peaked too soon. BUT, with the primaries being as frontloaded as they are, that may not be a bad thing. Man, I had no idea how soon all this is. A frontrunner should be established by Feb 4th, maybe a nominee by March 3rd. Dean really doesn't have to hold on too long. (Edwards really needs to get cooking, if he wants a chance). JANUARY 19, 2004: Iowa - Presidential Caucuses JANUARY 27, 2004 New Hampshire - Presidential Primary FEBRUARY 3, 2004 Arizona - Presidential Primary Delaware - Presidential Primary Missouri - Presidential Primary New Mexico - Presidential Caucuses North Dakota - Presidential Caucuses Oklahoma - Presidential Primary South Carolina - Presidential Primary FEBRUARY 7, 2004 Michigan - Presidential Caucuses Washington State - Democratic Presidential Caucuses FEBRUARY 8, 2004 Maine - Presidential Caucuses FEBRUARY 10, 2004 District of Columbia - Democratic Presidential Caucuses Tennessee - Presidential Primary Virginia - Democratic Presidential Primary FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Wisconsin - Presidential Primary FEBRUARY 24, 2004 Idaho - Presidential Caucuses FEBRUARY 27, 2004 Utah - Presidential Primary MARCH 2, 2004 California - Presidential & State Primary Connecitcut - Presidential Primary Georgia - Presidential Primary Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses Maryland - Presidential & State Primary Massachusetts - Presidential Primary Minnesota - Presidential Caucuses New York - Presidential Primary Ohio - Presidential Primary Rhode Island - Presidential Primary Vermont - Presidential Primary Washington State - Presidential Primary MARCH 9, 2004 Florida - Presidential Primary Louisiana - Presidential Primary Mississippi - Presidential Primary Texas - Presidential & State Primaries MARCH 16, 2004 Illinois - Presidential & State Primaries APRIL 27, 2004 Pennsylvania - Presidential & State Primaries MAY 4, 2004 Indiana - Presidential & State Primary North Carolina - Presidential & State Primaries MAY 11, 2004 West Virginia - Presidential & State Primary MAY 18, 2004 Arkansas - Presidential & State Primary Kentucky - Presidential & State Primaries Oregon - Presidential & State Primary MAY 25, 2004 Idaho - Presidential & State Primary JUNE 1, 2004 Alabama - Presidential & State Primaries New Mexico - Presidential & State Primary South Dakota - Presidential & State Primary JUNE 8, 2004 Montana - Presidential & State Primaries New Jersey - Presidential & State Primaries Week of JULY 26, 2004: Democratic National Convention (Boston, MA)
There are two ways to look at the 2000 election controversy. You can take the most popular approach and say that Bush stole the election from Al Gore (some would even say rigged). It's funny to me how this point of view has gone from speculation to fact in the short three years since the election among many of our constitents. If it's true, then obviously Bush has no business serving as our president. The other point of view is that Gore was trying to connive his way to the presidency by trying to cook up a "conspiracy theory" where there wasn't one. If that's true, I think that's equally if not more terrible than Bush rigging the election because in that case (1) Gore made of mockery of the American political system for the whole world to see and (2) Gore divided the America public right down the middle at that point. The election was very close, there seemed to be two sides close to equal in number, and now these two sides had a reason to defend their candidate and party to the grave. I'm willing to bet that many people's opinions on the Iraq war were based solely on their party affiliation regardless of the facts. The 2000 election fiasco was ugly and it created two equal sides of the American public and put them in a war against one another. Think about how passionate office discussions on the subject were at the time and for how long they lasted. I think they're still going on, only manifested into points of view on the war in Iraq. So be fair when analyzing the 2000 election. NONE of you have the facts on the situation to be as sure about things as some of you express on these message boards. Also realize that one of these two men is the bad guy making one of them extremely terrible for this country's well being.
Deuce Rings, you are as partisan as anyone on this board. I think it's hilarious when you try to play the objective observer. Usually you lean entirely on your time in the ME to try and fake around your affiliation (much as TJ tries to use his job as ultimate, unquestionable credentials). This post though is sillier than most since the main premise is so plainly wrong. The number of people who think Bush 'stole' the election has done nothing but shrink, by any poll or other source you can find. I defy you to prove your entirely invented premise that the trend is toward thinking Bush is an illegitimate president. To address this one more time (pointless as it is since it's played out and has ZERO to do with relative support or non-support of Bush at this point), both sides had good justification for fighting to the finish. Bush appeared by the latest counts to have won the electoral vote (remember, by the way, that there is no controversy whatsoever about the popular vote. It is a fact that Gore received more votes.), so of course he was going to fight. The irregularities in Florida were vast and many, and included both very bad behavior by election judges (in poor, black neighborhoods) and also a clear situation in which elderly Jewish voters apparently voted for Pat Buchanan, which we all know they didn't. By most counts, the butterfly ballot fiasco alone, if corrected, would have given Gore Florida. It doesn't jibe with election laws, and it probably shouldn't, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that more Floridians intended to vote for Bush than Gore. Any of the various problems in Florida would have been justification for Gore to fight on, but there wasn't just one, there were many. Whoever would have lost this fight would have looked like a sore loser. Trying to say that one of them is a very bad man in the face of all that is just stupid as hell. And, again, it's also entirely irrelevant to your point about partisanship. Trying to say that the numbers have changed to reflect more people thinking Gore stole the election though is either the most ignorant thing you've said on this board or a willful lie. Bush started his presidency with about a 53% approval rating. Considering more people voted for Gore than for Bush, he was obviously given the benefit of the doubt. 9/11 united the country (and the world) behind Bush in an unprecedented fashion. Anything that's happened to his numbers or support since then is the fault of his radical policies. I'd half understand it if you used the simpleminded spin that the White House does as to why his numbers are dropping, but even they aren't cynical enough to blame it on Gore, his supporters or the 2000 election. And since the Supreme Court made their decision, Gore has never once complained or insinuated he was treated unfairly. I've never been a great fan of Gore and I didn't vote for him, but this speech is right ****ing on and expresses the frustration a great many Americans feel with Bush's radical, dangerous agenda. For you to insinuate it's bad behavior or that Americans who opposed and oppose the Iraq thing or any of Bush's other outrageous policies strictly due to opinions formed during the election fiasco is stupid and wrong. The only source for that theory is your incredibly partisan imagination. Project much?
I simply think you labeling me a partisan helps you make the partisan post that you made above. Plain and simple. When you have to resort to labels to make your arguments, you never had much of an argument in the first place. My posts on this board have not been partisan. The reason I seem so angry in my posts is I'm sitting here with firsthand information on the way the middle east exists today and I'm listening to a bunch of people like yourself who are simply confused because they lack the firsthand knowledge to objectively analyze the middle east. Their leaders and their media are NOT giving them the information and that pisses me off. I think Americans need to know the truth about what the middle east thinks about us and why and it's not because of the U.S.-Israel issue. It's about their religion preaching intolerance and that minority population of their society that would allow that tolerance to manifest itself into terrorist protest. I certainly have my own point of view, but that does not make me a partisan. I challenge you to prove your ridicuous allegations. At what point in my post did I say that the MAJORITY thinks Bush stole the election. I didn't say that at all. The way you twist the facts to help your own argument would make you a perfect fit on one of the cable news networks.
DR: I don't know why you even bother talking to us plebes (here in America or anywhere else in the world) given your incredibly arrogant position that having lived in the Middle East means you have all the answers and the rest of us are naive and wrong. How you know more than others who've lived there and oppose the war (rezdawg, though we disagree on so much else, comes to mind), is another matter entirely, but I know your superior knowledge of this dark black and bright white situation doesn't attend to logic. Here are some of the stupid quotes from your first post and my direct response to them.
I'm not claiming to know everything jackass, you are. I have simply given this message board my personal views on the middle east for discussion. You are saying there is your way and te highway. So stop playing the pot that called the kettle black. You can make up whatever you want from a set of words. Are you at all interested in discussion or just smashing posters and talking trash. Judging by the majority of your posts I think it's the ladder.
Yes, it's the ladder. Climb it to a higher debate. I see you've learned well from Trader_Jorge and his like: Ignore any and all substantive arguments and focus on style instead. When you can't win on the merits, tell the guy he's yelling too loud and hurting your poor ears. You made a series of outrageous claims in your first post in this thread, I refuted all of them (it wasn't hard) and you started crying. You've yet to answer any of my actual points, but I don't expect that from you. Regarding claiming to know everything, my arguments in this thread are not opinions elevated by inexplicable arrogance to the level of fact. Your weird assertions are. You're not very much fun to argue with, since I obviously can't expect any response to my actual points. So, bye.
