|
Election 2004: Dean, Clark or Bush
Enough with the pundits, its time for the voice of the people!
|
Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 August
2007 July
2006 May
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
Courage Campaign
Ethnic Press
Right Wing Watch
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Election 2004: Dean, Clark or Bush |
| 02.09.04 (3:11 pm) [edit] |
Issue I
Dean, Clark or Bush
1. If you support Howard Dean for President, jump on a new bandwagon as quickly as possible. There is no need to stay aboard a sinking ship. Wisconsin democratic voters will not save him. The former governor may appear to be some great liberal that will take back the American flag from Rush Limbaugh, but voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, have clearly spoken. Besides, Dean is not the type of special liberal like the late Sens. Paul Wellstone or the assassinated Robert F. Kennedy that could win over votes from those who did not agree philosophically.
And just how do you spend $40 million that fast and produce no wins?
On the upside, Dean did provide some excitement to an otherwise boring bunch of democratic hopefuls. Even Al Sharpton and his James Brown hairdo did not entertain us the way we figured he would. And Dean has managed to do what we’ve only seen from Rev. Jesse Jackson and saxophonist Bill Clinton in the last twenty years. Excite young people about the upcoming election.
Republicans beware: the 3500 students who went to Iowa to help Dean should serve as a sign of things to come.
2. Retired General Wesley Clark will not be in this election long after Dean leaves. Besides becoming a Democrat less than a year ago, Clark was never ready for primetime. His Iraq war resolution flip-flop was an early example of his lack of political principles. In just days, Clark stated he would have supported the Iraq war resolution in Congress, he would not have and then he would have.
Perhaps his lack of experience makes him less slick than John Kerry who voted to support the use of force in Iraq.
But Clark’s biggest problem is that he is critical of a war that he supported. In the year before the war Clark made countless speeches in support of Pres. Bush and his administration.
As Kerry rolls, the flow of money to Clark will dry up and he’ll be all but done. Clark’s campaign will be a sad note in history when you consider the grassroots momentum that brought him into the race. At this point, it’s tough to see him as a potential choice for the Vice President nomination.
3. This election is still the President’s to lose. Lately, he’s been trying to do just that. While chief weapons inspector David Kay was preparing to reveal to the world that we might have been wrong about WMDs in Iraq, Bush was proposing federal spending no conservative approved of. Mission to Mars, Low-Income Marriage Counseling, increased support for the Arts and the third rail issue of Amnesty for illegal immigrants.
After months of pounding from the democratic hopefuls, Bush has now begun to swing back. In his State of the Union speech, he vowed the U.S. would never seek a permission slip to defend itself and touted his tax cuts. The speech was a total campaign speech, why else would you hear a POTUS talk about ephedrine?
This weekend Dubya met the press. Tim Russert gave him a generally tough interview, although that’s debated by some. Already, Bush supporters are unhappy with the interview. Its still to early to tell if Bush served himself well. One thing is clear, he put himself in a position, in which he had to defend his actions. That’s generally not a good idea for the self-proclaimed ‘War President.’
Yes Democrats, I know, polls are showing Kerry beating Bush in a November head to head match up, but let me forewarn you, incumbent President Ronald Reagan trailed Walter Mondale by double digit percentage points in many polls a year before the election. We all know the results, Reagan pulled off one of the largest blowouts in electoral history.
Off to Blog Another Day,
Proletariat
© E. D. Petty
|
|
|
| |
posted by: SamAdams (reply)
post date: 02.09.04 (3:20 pm)
I didn't consider that Tim Russert gave Bush a "tough interview" ... I concede that he asked some pointed questions-- but when Bush evaded answering truthfully or addressing the point, Russert did not follow-up. Normally Russert is strong on grilling Democrats and follows-up if they try to weasel out of answering-- Russert let Bush get away without cornering him on his many lies, deceptions and falsehoods.
Othewrise, I think it's a SUPERB blog-- and we who want to oust Bush have an uphill struggle-- given Bush has over $200 million and a track-record for rigging elections.
|
|
