[Vision2020] ANOTHER National Democrat on Iraq
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:04:48 -0700
Tim writes:
> "FINALLY! Now this is what I wanted out of what was
>becoming a tiresome discussion--some genuine political
>analysis. I was starting to think everyone on here was
>too defensive about their precious Democrat party to
>be able to discuss what in the heck they're doing."
Tim there is only three things I do very well.
1) Make people mad
2) Stand up for the rights of the disadvantaged
3) Political strategy--(I know this contradicts number one).
The third is my second favorite.
I have never been that off in my political predictions. Granted, I am not
perfect, but for the most part I have a good batting average on political
predictions.
Let us look at each one that you brought up Tim.
Let us start at the bottom and work up.
Mosley-Braun is the election only for one reason, she is planted to steal
votes from Al Sharpton
Sharpton is the election to build up his political base and standing in the
Black community. Yes he can pick up a few votes and delegates around the
South. However, he is doing this only so he can speak at the Democratic
convention and raise issues facing minorities. There is not any other
candidate that I like better on the issues than Sharpton. But he doesn't
stand a chance. Braun keeps him from picking up more delegates in the
convention and lessens his ability to choose a candidate that can't win the
general election. His ability to be effective may be cut short if he
continues to fail to generate enough funds to even make it to Southern
Primaries.
Kucinich has a hidden agenda. He can't win the nomination, and he certainly
can't win the general election. He probably could not even carry his state
at this point if he was a VP pick. But his high media attention does give
him good name recognition. He could be using that for another reason, such
as fighting for the Democratic nomination for US Senate to defeat Senator
Voinovich who is showing weakness. He may need that name recognition to
defeat Fingerhut and Jerry Springer for the nomination. Others think he is
considering a nomination by the Green Party and running in states where the
democratic nominee can't win anyway.
Graham, is not a serious contender. He is only looked at as a VP candidate
because he could help with carrying Florida. He is only barely placing over
Kucinich in the polls and money. Frankly, he is boring and not that
appealing.
Edwards, I don't think he is taken seriously. He can't win because people
that even like him know that he is not experienced enough to be President of
the United States. He is also a trial lawyer, not a popular occupation
nowadays. He could be picked as a VP by Lieberman to compliment the ticket
and bring in the 11 electoral votes needed in addition to the 260 electoral
votes the Democrats pretty much already have giving them 271 electoral
votes.
Gephardt, doesn't have a chance. He can sway who gets the nomination. He is
only doing well in Iowa because he has campaigned there since 1986 and they
owe him big time for all the legislation he pushed through for the farmers
and blue collar labor unions. He is from Missouri and is often called Iowa's
fifth Representative(there is not 5th district, but he does just as much for
them) If Gephardt places any lower than a strong first place he is done
right there. New Hampshire will kill him, he will place probably 4th or
fifth there. If he gets lots of attention, he might place fourth. He is
known as a great fundraiser for the Democratic party and is not doing that
well, a strong sign of weakness in support.
Kerry is where we start to see someone that can look and act like a
President. He is has a record that matches most past presidential candidates
and Presidents. His ability to be a serious contender ends or begins on in
the New Hampshire Primary. If he places first in the Primary over Howard
Dean he is in the race for a while and could clinch the nomination. He would
do much better than Dean in the General election. However, if he places a
distant second or third even in the NH primary people will stop supporting
him and his funds will dry up quick. He probably could get really nasty with
Dean, but this would most likely benefit other candidates besides him for
going negative even though it would prevent Dean the nomination.
Lieberman, has a good chance in the General election. Most national polls
show him ahead of Dean and Kerry. He is also favored by the DLC and DNC over
Dean and Kerry. He unfortunately is not ranking well in Iowa and New
Hampshire. His lack of media attention, and large number of potential voters
taking a "wait and see" attitude is hurting him. He has huge name
recognition nationally because he was Al Gore's running mate. His base
support is in "right of center" Democrats and independents. This is not good
for the Democratic nomination but is good if he should win. He is not an
exciting man, and may be weeded out with the pack as he fails to produce
results in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic Party leaders are trying
to prevent this because he is a viable option for a win in the General
election.
Dean represents a serious dilemma for those that know better. He has the
ability to get the nomination, he also has the ability to defeat Bush in the
electoral college in the general election. What he also has the ability to
destroy the Democratic Party and bury it deep so nobody can bring it back
for the next eight to twenty years. He appeals to the most Democrats but
none on the right of center. If Dean did win the nomination and even if he
won the election, he would cost US House and Senate Seats all across the
nation. This would put the Democratic party as a small minority in the two
houses. In addition, I think that Dean would lose the General election. Bush
and his people are not going to play nice with Dean. Dean has a huge closet
full of skeletons that will brought out and shown to the public. If things
get tuff for Bush he can do three things. Have his brother instruct the
state legislature in Florida to throw out the popular vote in Florida and
cast the electoral vote for him (unfair but legal)Second, he can drop Cheney
from the ticket, put him somewhere else in the administration, and choose
Tom Ridge, taking Pennsylvania. Impossible for Dean to overcome a 23
electoral vote lose. Third, Cheney can instruct the NEW CIA director to
fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraqi that showed a serious threat to the
security of the United States and produce *fake* documents that show that
Saddam was working with Bin Laudin to unleash chemical and biological
weapons on US cities. This would discredit Dean because his stance was that
we should not enter war with Iraqi because it was not a threat and show
weapons of mass destruction. You are correct that most the people that
support Dean would still do so even if he molested a child and it was on
video tape. However, this fabricated evidence will be enough to cost Dean
one state and cost him the election.
That is why I pick General Wesley Clark. He has more brains than the other
candidates. He is better looking, is an outsider, and can wipe Bush on
issues of National Security, foreign policy, and economics in a live debate.
He speaks well and is able to keep his cool. Bush will does not speak well
and relies on his advisors to keep him up to date on the security issues and
foreign policy issues. The economy is worse than 2000 and Clark use to work
in the White House under Ford on in the Office of Budget and Management. So
I think Bush will look very inferior to Clark on the national stage, and
Bush will mess up eventually. His tricks with the WMD, switching running
mates, or stealing Florida will not work because he opposed the war for
different sound reasons and can win without Florida or Pennsylvania. So Bush
would be toast. The problem is can Clark win the Democratic nomination? I
don't know, to many Republicans that back him anger Democrats which
threatens efforts to get him the nomination. Republicans for Clark want him
to tout his positions on the right, which will not win the Democratic
nomination. Democrats want him because of his stances on domestic issues
that fit their beliefs, Republicans want him because he is strong on
national security and foreign policy. So if the two can get along, I think
Clark can win the nomination. If they can't Clark will look wobbly on the
issues and the Democrats will bury him at the Nomination and choose someone
else like Dean, Kerry, or Lieberman.
Other candidates like Joe Biden, if they enter, will lose. My hope is that
if Clark doesn't enter the race that Hillary Clinton will and steal the
nomination from Dean, lose to Bush, pick up Senate and House Seats and put
us in a position to win in 2008. Even though I am a Democrat, I would not
vote for Dean or Bush. No way! I will write in Clark or cast a vote for a
third party candidate like Nader. Not that my vote counts anyway in Idaho.
Donovan J Arnold
>From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National Democrat on Iraq
>Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Donovan,
> FINALLY! Now this is what I wanted out of what was
>becoming a tiresome discussion--some genuine political
>analysis. I was starting to think everyone on here was
>too defensive about their precious Democrat party to
>be able to discuss what in the heck they're doing.
>
> I think you've made some darned good points. But
>what about Gephardt? You think he's not in the picture
>at all? The only reason I do is because he's
>apparently got a good start in Iowa for those
>ridiculous caucuses that the press always puts so much
>stock in. I think he might get off to a good start at
>least, and possibly after a victory in Iowa become a
>more moderate, labor-backed alternative to Kerry and
>Dean in their almost home turf of New Hampshire. So,
>if Dean and Kerry split the more liberal votes,
>Gephardt could do well there.
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with you or not about
>whether Dean fades if WMD's are found. You're right,
>of course, that he's appealing to the more liberal
>wing by criticizing Bush on foreign policy but I
>believe that his support is pretty deep. In other
>words, the people that DO support him are true
>believers who won't be swayed. Remember, we're talking
>Demo primary voters here, not the general election.
>I'm sure they'll be forgiving about criticism of Bush
>for any reason. Dean will of course be a weak
>candidate in the Gen. Election, but so will Bush, and
>somebody's got to win, right?
>
> AS for Lieberman, I don't think he's going anywhere
>because most people just can't visualize the guy as
>president. Edwards might just catch on yet. But I
>think he needs to do it pretty quick if he's going to
>start getting the money he's going to need from any
>sector of big contributors other than his fellow trial
>lawyers.
>
> Personally, I believe one of the under reported
>aspects of this primary race is the effect Al Sharpton
>will have. Of course it won't be much in Iowa or NH
>where there are fewer minority voters. But when the
>race moves to South Carolina and other Southern states
>where blacks make up a very large percentage of Demo
>primary voters, I think Ole Al will pick up quite a
>few delegates. Jesse Jackson sure did. Then it will
>be interesting to watch the Demo bigwigs trying to
>shut Sharpton up (let's face it the guy DOES come up
>with some interesting rants now and then) while at the
>same time keeping black voters on their side. That
>might be a tough one.
>
> TL
>
>--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I can't believe you don't see why Clinton said that.
> > The Democratic Party is
> > divided. The DLC and DNC want Lieberman and Edwards
> > to win. The left wing of
> > the party is fueled by anger and want Dean. A few
> > others want Kerry because
> > he is more moderate and served in the military. The
> > Uranium words were
> > giving Dean and Kerry the most traction. Clinton's
> > words just pulled the
> > traction and momentum right out from underneath Dean
> > and Kerry moving
> > Lieberman and Edwards into a better position. If WMD
> > are found, Dean falls
> > on his face and Kerry fades away. I have a hunch
> > that there will be some
> > weapons of mass destruction found, or planted, in
> > the next 6 months. Clinton
> > is saving the face of the Democratic Party in that
> > event. I think it is
> > smart. God help us if we have to choose between Bush
> > and Dean in 2004. We
> > might as well concede the 50 colonies back to the
> > British and say this
> > experiment is over in that event. Choosing between
> > a man who lies and is
> > incompetent and a man who does not tell the truth
> > and is not competent, is
> > not much of a choice if you ask most people.
> > I support General Wesley Clark for President, no
> > matter what! He has more
> > qualifications than anyone in the ring now. He is a
> > "to the slightly left"
> > Ronald Reagan.
> >
> > Donovan J Arnold
> >
> > Donovan J Arnold
> >
> >
> > >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> > >To: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> > >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National Democrat
> > on Iraq
> > >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Sunil,
> > > I CAN'T let go of the Democrats--at least the
> > >national ones. They're so-o-o arrogantly
> > condescending
> > >towards all sorts of behavior except when one of
> > their
> > >own does it. Then it's fine!
> > > Kerry is going around criticizing W for doing
> > >exactly what he himself has recommended. That's the
> > >sort of hypocrisy that needs to be exposed over and
> > >over.
> > > As for Bill Clinton's groin--even though he
> > has
> > >"opened the door" on that one(sorry, couldn't
> > >resist)--I only brought him(and not his groin) up
> > this
> > >last time to speculate on why he would defend GW at
> > >the exact moment when his partymates seem to be
> > making
> > >some hay over the W's uranium thingy. That seemed a
> > >little puzzling to most on here. They couldn't
> > answer
> > >why he'd do it, and neither can I.
> > >
> > > In any case, Clinton's comments are directly
> > >relevant to what you write that you consider
> > important
> > >below. Apparently ole Bill HAS looked at what W has
> > >and is doing and he doesn't see a whole lot wrong
> > with
> > >it.
> > >
> > > The politics of all this is interesting, but as
> > for
> > >my personal view on the buildup to the war. I don't
> > >believe it has made the country more secure against
> > >possible terrorist attacks. I'd much rather have
> > seen
> > >these resources and in some cases manpower devoted
> > to
> > >dramatically stepped up efforts at finding out just
> > >what and who is coming into our ports, across our
> > own
> > >borders, living in our cities etc.
> > > As for the W administration's honesty. I
> > believe
> > >his administration is run by the neocons, many of
> > whom
> > >have written for years about how much they wanted
> > to
> > >go to war with Iraq. The WMD idea was a way to
> > justify
> > >what they wanted to do already. But again, so
> > >apparently did many of the Demos. including many of
> > >the ones travelling around to advance themselves by
> > >criticizing W right now.
> > > TL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > > > Of course Kerry is trying to have it both ways.
> > But
> > > > it's silly to pretend the Democrats are some
> > sort of
> > > > monolithic, single-minded party. If they were,
> > > > they'd be in power right now.
> > > >
> > > > Tim, let go of the Democrats long enough to
> > answer
> > > > this question: Do you think the Bush
> > Administration
> > > > has been honest, either in its buildup towards
> > war,
> > > > or since that time, in presenting its rationales
> > for
> > > > the invasion of Iraq? Since they're in charge
> > now,
> > > > wouldn't you agree that it might be more
> > important
> > > > to look at what they're doing, rather than
> > focusing
> > > > on Bill Clinton's groin? I for one would rather
> > > > look elsewhere, and at items with more
> > significance.
> > > >
> > > > Sunil Ramalingam
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Tim Lohrmann
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:52 PM
> > > > To: thansen@moscow.com
> > > > Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National
> > Democrat
> > > > on Iraq
> > > >
> > > > Tom,
> > > > Do the politics of the messenger mean that
> > Kerry
> > > > didn't make the statement?
> > > > TL
> > > >
> > > > --- Tom Hansen <thansen@moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > Of course, one must realize that John McCaslin
> > > > > stands slightly to the right
> > > > > of Rush Limbaugh as relfected in the articles
> > > > > authored by him at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/archive.shtml
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Hansen
> > > > > Moscow, Idaho
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com
> > > > > [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Tim Lohrmann
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:09 PM
> > > > > > To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National
> > Democrat
> > > > on
> > > > > Iraq
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Visionaries,
> > > > > > The Democrats' Iraq stances are looking
> > > > > > increasingly schizophrenic, no?
> > > > > > TL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > INSIDE THE BELTWAY
> > > > > > > By John McCaslin
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > KERRY'S WAR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suffice it to say that Democratic
> > > > > presidential
> > > > > > > hopeful John Kerry has made "Iraqgate" the
> > > > theme
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > his campaign.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On virtually every stump he's stood
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > > > week, the Massachusetts Democrat has
> > > > complained
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > President Bush sidestepped the
> > congressionally
> > > > > > > approved path to war by bypassing the
> > United
> > > > > > > Nations, by not building an international
> > > > > coalition,
> > > > > > > and simply by not doing what it was that
> > he
> > > > had
> > > > > > > promised to do (actually, one could argue
> > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > senator is wrong on all three counts).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forget that Mr. Kerry voted in favor
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Iraq war resolution. He did so, he now
> > says,
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the understanding that Mr. Bush would
> > exhaust
> > > > > every
> > > > > > > remedy first. What was the big hurry, in
> > other
> > > > > > > words.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But let's revisit Nov. 17, 1997, when
> > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > else in Washington except the Inside the
> > > > Beltway
> > > > > > > column led with an item headlined, "Finish
> > the
> > > > > > > mission."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Debate on whether to take out Saddam
> > > > > Hussein,
> > > > > > > the Iraqi strongman, is over as far as one
> > > > > > > Democratic senator is concerned," or so we
> > had
> > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts is
> > > > > calling
> > > > > > > for a 'strong' military attack in response
> > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Iraqi leader's 'horrific objective of
> > amassing
> > > > a
> > > > > > > stockpile of weapons of mass
> > destruction.'B "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Weapons of mass destruction? That's
> > what
> > > > > Mr.
> > > > > > > Kerry called them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "As the senator points out, military
> > > > might
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the only language Saddam knows B and
> > fears.
> > > > > 'Saddam
> > > > > > > Hussein should pay a grave price, in a
> > > > currency
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > he understands and values, for his
> > > > unacceptable
> > > > > > > behavior,' says Mr. Kerry. 'This should
> > not be
> > > > a
> > > > > > > strike consisting only of a handful of
> > cruise
> > > > > > > missiles hitting isolated targets
> > primarily of
> > > > > > > presumed symbolic value. But how long this
> > > > > military
> > > > > > > action might continue and how it may
> > escalate
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > and how extensive it would reach are for
> > the
> > > > > [White
> > > > > > > House National] Security Council and our
> > > > allies
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > know and for Saddam Hussein to find out!'B
> > "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just as you wished, Senator.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web
> > site
> > > > > design software
> > > > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > > > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > > > Internet,
> > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse
> > since
> > > > > 1994.
> > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
> > > > design software
> > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step
> > Internet,
> > > >
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > 1994.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > >
> > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > >
> >
> >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////Get
> > > > more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> > > > http://explorer.msn.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > >http://search.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
> > > List services made available by First Step
> > Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> >
> >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months
> > FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963