The moderate center had to choose from one end of the spectrum or the other. Most of us didn't like either choice -- we just voted for the lesser of two evils. Since both were extraordinarily negative, my "positive" thesis went untested for that election. BTW, I've got nothing against McCain. Being a realist, I have to look at his age and health in general. Serious Black: I originally had Ronald Reagan in the vision example, changed to Richard Nixon to pull SamFisher's chain, recanted and returned to the Reagan example. I wanted a Republican with vision for balance. However, the real visionaries in this century have been Democrats (FDR, JFK, LBJ and Woodrow Wilson).
I like Feingold, although I see him more as a VP than at the top of the ticket. \Difference between Gore and Kerry is that Kerry held onto money for a second run. And pretty much has already announced. Gore after 2000, got fat and bearded. Kerry wont do that. He still wants it too much. I don't think he gets it, but as the last nominee, it's sort of his to lose (which I think he would). Yeah, I like Vilsack a lot. If its not Obama, Vilsack is my man at this early stage. Horse race reasons- He is a governor, not a senator which is an obvious plus, of a swing state. Other reasons- he's liberal and tough at least from what I hear from my Iowa friends. Not a DLCer like I hear Warner is. He's adopted, which goes in line with my thing about liking candidates that have struggled. (Every winning candidate from FDR on, with exceptions of JFK and the Bushes, have a lot of struggle in their bios). I think this sells well with the voters and it means they can fight to win. I don't think the experience thing ended up hurting Edwards as much as people thought it would have. Certainly not the way it hurt Quayle. Obama is one of a kind. I don't see lack of experience hurting him either.
Was Kerry/the Dem platform truly left??? What policy changes would you suggest to make it more 'moderate?'
No, it wasn't. And that's what I mean about moving the middle. Kerry went right on every single issue and he's still called too liberal. It had nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with the fact that people just don't like him. It'll happen again where he's concerned, early money or not. And remember, serious, Lieberman was the one to beat last time on virtually the same grounds. Kerry won't get fat or bearded (would be funny if he did though), but he also won't find passion like Gore did. I don't know much about Vilsack. I'll take your word. Sounds interesting. Not Obama-interesting, but interesting. serious: If you haven't yet, check my darts thread in the Hangout. Rest of y'all too.
Perception! Actually, platforms are written for the party faithful. The voters never even think about them. They look at the wood that makes the pecker and not the planks that make the platform.
thumbs: I don't want to out you. Would you be willing to tell everyone who got your vote and why? Assuming, of course, it didn't change since you emailed me. I think it would shed light on the discussion.
See...perception...and voting for the pecker you like...that makes sense to me. The whole Dems-must-be-more-moderate talk frightens me, as, when I read their platform I find it scary-right! Maybe the public connected the views of some of the Democratic supporters with the stated policies of the Democrats, and voted against Moore/Media perception/ Hollywood, rather than against the Dems. I don't know. I'll never fully understand the 2004 election results. Sadly, when I read commentary, I find that many of the eggheads are not particulary insightful either!
Of course you do! Yes, sports fans, I voted for Kerry even though it hurt my soul to vote for someone I don't respect. Actually, I didn't like either candidate, so domestic policy (economics in particular) was the deciding factor. Does that help?
Michael Moore did more to help elect George W. Bush than any of the Republican Party faithful. He absolutely enraged -- and galvanized -- the center right. That's why they became the "red" states.
Thanks, thumbs. Still trying to square that with the idea that the moderate center had to choose from one extreme or another, since Kerry ran like a DLC, centrist, Clinton-style New Democrat. You're a self-identified moderate and you chose Kerry based on domestic issues because he was a moderate on domestic issues, but he was even more of a moderate on foreign policy. In fact, he was a moderate all around. I say again, if moderates held the keys Kerry would be president. As it turns out, true believers hold the keys and that's why it was Bush.
McCain just earned back a bit of my admiration, after causing me to lose some, with his support for Bush. Check this out: Dec. 14, 2004, 10:14AM McCain criticizes Rumsfeld Senator says more troops are needed in Iraq By BETH DEFALCO Associated Press PHOENIX -- U.S. Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops. McCain, speaking to the Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him." Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. "I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said. He estimated an additional 80,000 Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed. "I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue." When asked if Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me." McCain, a decorated Navy veteran and former Vietnam prisoner of war, is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of military operations. Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said McCain "has frequently expressed his views regarding troop levels in Iraq, and he is an important member" of the committee. Rumsfeld has "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders to determine what force levels are appropriate for the situation at hand," Di Rita said. McCain believes military morale remains high, but he acknowledged that involuntary extensions of tours of duty were frustrating to soldiers. He said Iraq must have a functioning independent government before U.S. troops leave. "I believe we'll be in Iraq militarily for many years, which would not be a problem to the American people," he said. "I think what is not acceptable to the American people is an increasing flow of dead and wounded." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2945364 KeepD&D Civil!!
Perception again. Kerry scared the stuffing out of me on foreign policy issues. For example, his debate statements (and later retractions and "clarifications") regarding the United Nations and U.S. foreign policy definitely pushed him out of the moderate category IMO. But the election is over now and I'm glad. Looking to 2008 is much more fun, especially since 2006 Congressional races are gearing up even as we speak. Also, there weren't as many "true believers" as you might think. As I said in another post, IMO people like Michael Moore and Dan Rather of Rathergate fame actually pushed many of the "undecideds" into the Bush camp.
Understanding history requires time. Good historians must approach events like a complex who-done-it, laying out all the facts and clues and then putting them back together so they all fit and reveal the heroes and villains. Revisit the 2004 election in 2014 or thereabouts.
thumbs: If I hear this global test nonsense one more time my head is going to explode. It wasn't a statement later retracted -- it was qualified in the original statement that no one would ever have authority over a US decision to go to war. "Global," in this case could more accurately be defined as broad than having to with the globe. The point of the statement was that when we go to war we ought to be so sure of that decision that it is easy to defend, at home and abroad. Again, it wasn't that we would be required to defend it but that our foreign policy would be more effective if other countries, particularly our allies, could reasonably be expected to back our decision or at least to understand it or at least not to openly oppose it. Because the Iraq invasion did not meet even the most basic "global" test, it was opposed and we were not able to defend it. The broad mistake is now blamed on "bad" intelligence, but no one has been held responsible -- least of all the ones in charge. As it turns out we were wrong and we were wrong most especially because we did not do our due dilligence -- because we did not apply Kerry's stricter standard of a global test. Nowhere in Kerry's various statements did he ever recommend ceding any authority to the UN. The arguments that he did -- the willful misinterpretation of the "global test" -- was a lie and a damned obvious one at that. Unless you're talking about Kerry's statement to his college newspaper (when he was in college!). Undecideds were pushed into both camps. And there were at least as many off-putting radicals on the right (difference was they were actually in the administration). Undecideds, independents and other moderates were not the story. Rove won this. He won it by playing to the base. The strategies were polar opposites and one side won. That's the best evidence I can cite and I don't know how anyone could disagree with it. The R's played to their base (obviously, blatantly, steadily) and the D's played to the middle. Even in the swing states, the D's generally stayed away from heavily D counties while the R's focused heavily on heavy R ones. One side won. Do the math.
Batman Jones : Jim Smits the Democratic candidate? How are they going to work this election angle out? WHen does Martin Sheen leave office?
Yes, Smits as one of the D's I would think. The other two so far are the current VP and the former one. Bartlett's out in a year I think, due to term limits. But... S P O I L E R S He's probably out sooner since his MS has him in a wheelchair now and in the last episode, for a time, he was completely paralyzed. The idiot VP from the South seems poised to take the chair.
I do not want your head to explode so we will wait for historians to sort this one out. You must forgive my less than sophisticated assumptions, but I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Moderates were pushed and pulled by both sides, and Rove did play a decisive role. But again, I caution, I am trying to give you insight from the great unwashed.
