chrisishardcore.com

Good point.

I can't help but think that Kerry represents an 'over correction' on the part of ABB voters. Dean was too hot, Kerry is too cold. Dean was not careful enough, Kerry has two answers to every question. Dean would get killed on security, Kerry drones on about a divisive war that we lost and most people would rather forget. Dean made his campaign about ITself, Kerry makes his campaign about HIMself.

The instinct is right. Drop the unelectable guy and get realistic. I just hope there is time to do it twice.

The Legend of The Rent was way hardcore...
Drawing inspiration from School of Rock, I presume?

chris & jon: which candidate did you have in mind? they endorsed joementum; who was it that won "their own magazine primary"?

If I recall correctly, when TNR endorsed Lieberman they had writers for the magazine present the cases for the other top-tier members of the Democratic field, with the exception of Kerry.

You have to remember that TNR has staked its tent as the flagship publication of the DLC moderates. Edwards, however successful he was in the TNR primaries, is not a DLC moderate. Indeed, he sounds like a guy who's just read Michael Harrington's The Other America and thinks it describes current conditions in the rural US.

And who's the beneficiary if Dean savages Kerry?

What happened to TNR? What used to be a wonderful publication is now a joke.

Indeed, the "Joementum" didn't quite work out did it? I love how people claim to be moderates and then vote for Lieberman, who is pro-choice, supports raising taxes on the wealthy, is pro-gun control, etc.

Oh, I forgot, he has values. Give me a break. I don't see what gives him more integrity than many of the other candidates. Besides, I don't need lectures in values from anyone, especially a guy like Lieberman who ran a dirty campaign to get elected to the Senate in the first place.

What a waste of a formerly good publication. I'd like to see the opposing view of Kerry, especially now that he has won both Iowa AND New Hampshire. Quite pushing your own agenda and try and be objective for once.

Edwards is more likely to beat Bush. However, it looks like Kerry, and I can live with that. Kerry would be smart to get Gephardt as his VP candidate, to increase likelihood of winning Michigan, Ohio, Missouri--where there are some big numbers. Forget about the South; and, therefore, forget about Edwards as VP.

Edwards is more likely to beat Bush. However, it looks like Kerry, and I can live with that. Kerry would be smart to get Gephardt as his VP candidate, to increase likelihood of winning Michigan, Ohio, Missouri--where there are some big numbers. Forget about the South; and, therefore, forget about Edwards as VP.

Lieberman is the only Democrat in the field who is serious about national security. But I for one am sick and tired of hearing about his "integrity," his "decency," etc. etc. This nonsense began in 1998 when the press was eager to help Clinton convince voters that what he did was "bad, yes, but--everybody now--doesn't rise to the level of being an impeachable offense." Lieberman was the Democrat standard-bearer of the "rise to the level" refrain, and the media were only too happy to let him have his cake and eat it, too: to pretend to higher virtue without having to actually, you know, VOTE to remove Clinton. Lieberman's a fraud.

I really hate the forget the South meme. We don't need to win it but we do have to force the republicans to defend it. If Bush can ignore the South completely, then he will be able to cloak his agenda in moderate language without throwing any red meat to the base. That same red meat is what gets swing voters to decide to try someone new. Its the main challenge for the GOP right now and our best chance.

I also reject the notion that any of the candidates (other than Sharpton) are not serious about national security. I think that the question of whether we are safer with most of our military tied up in Iraq or letting a man like Hussein have his own country is an open question. I trust that all of them are sincere in their different positions. The one who is not serious about our security is Bush, who wants to bug out before the election at all costs.

"We don't need to win the South"

Oh, yes you do. All Al Gore needed was his own home state, Clinton's home state, or previously reliable West Virginia to put him in the White House and spare the rest of us the Florida unpleasantness.

The Red States are getting redder, and some of the Blues are starting to shade a little Purple, if you know what I mean.

From what I've read, Edwards wasn't likely to retain his Senate seat had he chosen to run (no-one has, since Sam Ervin retired), so he may not be that much help Down South, anyway. And Demo Senate stalwarts in Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida are retiring, so who'll rally the Demo troops down South? Except for Zell Miller, who'll campaign for W. Never mind.

Jeb's '02 landslide ("Where's the outrage?!") and Graham's retirement should make Florida reliably Red. Minnesota is trending Red (Pawlenty, Coleman), and Wisconsin (Cigs-for-votes, "Marquette Students Vote Early and Often!"), Oregon, and New Mexico ("We won't lose any ballot boxes this time...PROMISE!!) were statistical dead-heats in '00.

Running up the score in California and New York State STILL won't work, no matter how many times you try it.

Thanks to McCain-Feingold, Republicans are KILLING Democrats in hard-money fundraising, Howard Dean's baseball bats notwithstanding. Those DeanDongs are going to max out their VISA cards eventually.

Last but not least, Terry McAuliffe is still DNC Chairman. Ouch.

I rest my case.

Hey, gang.

Since 1964, 4 southern Democrats have gotten the party's nomination: Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Gore.

4 non-southerners have gotten the nomination: Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.

Now, guess which 4 nominees got a majority of the vote.

Nuf said.

No one, so far, is talking about running it up in NY or CA. Those states are givens, Arnold notwithstanding. The point is to win Ohio--which is hardly a given, yet still quite possible; Gephardt as VP will help tremendously. Remember, no Republican has won the WH without winning that state. There's lots of disaffected labor in Ohio. Forget about the South, except for Florida, which really isn't a Southern state except geographically.

Oops, and I forgot...thanks to the 2000 reapportionment the Red states picked up an additional EIGHT electoral votes at the expense of the Blue states.

Hey Tom:

Just curious, how much do you know of Ohio? I'm not sure that anyone in the state cares about Dick Gephardt, and the "disaffected labor" vote hasn't done much in recent years to put a Dem Gov in Columbus. Maybe I'm in the wrong part of the state.

Good point, though, that Ohio and our 21 Electoral Votes are crucial. From talking to others the only Dem with a chance to beat Bush in Ohio is Edwards.

Rick, only two of those nominees got "a majority" of the vote--Johnson in 1964 and Carter in 1976. Clinton did not get a majority in either of his election years.

I agree with your central point, however. Since 1964 Southern Democrats are 5-2 running for the White House, and Northern Democrats are 0-4.

Ooops, hit post too early. Make that 4-2 for the Southerners.

emn:

I know this about Ohio--that when the economy is going well enough, Ohio is going Republican. But the current "improvement" in the economy is an illusion, since there has been little positive effect on jobs. There are enough unemployed people and enough union people in Ohio to make the difference betwen the state going red or the state going blue.

I agree with you about Edwards. He is the most electable presidential candidate. But from the perspective of the electoral college, the VP choice for Kerry should be Gephardt, not Edwards, as much as I like Edwards.

Y'all are missing the point about the North vs South debate, and I hope Kerry doesn't follow suit. It's not geographic, it's cultural. Someone in this thread asked "How much do you know about Ohio?" Which is the exact right question. Because most of Ohio IS a southern state. Ditto Illinois, parts of Michigan, even parts of upstate New York. Certainly central PA, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and above all, West Virginia ... I could go on and on. If Kerry, a northeastern liberal, runs away from that values-on-your-sleeve, way too obvious for ironic northerners, goopy patriotism thing, which only HAPPENS to be popular in the South, he loses absolutely HUGE. No, he can't win much in the South anyway, it's true. But geography's not the point. He has to try.

All this persiflage is just more Butterfly Effect wind-making. The Democratic party will never elect another president until it sheds much of the 60s baggage it totes.

Not just Ohio, and Indiana, and most of Pennsylvania... the South is US. Americans today are wealthier than they were twenty years ago, and also--in defiance of most sociological theory--more, not less, religious. There is simply no way for any but a DLC Democrat to win over an increasingly red America in this century

AS nailed it.

The north/south debate IS cultural, not geographic. Voters from Rockford, IL are every bit as put off by the anti-American peacenik left as are voters from Jackson, MS, even though the two cities are on different sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

Not only that, but Rockford IL is next to (or was, I haven't been up there in a while) a Chrysler plant, is in the Moralistic political culture, and for years had a black mayor (Charles Box) who was quite popular and had a black pop of less than 15%. When places like this get culturally aligned with the South, somebody done better pay some 'tention.

Here's a question:

Suppose Kerry locks up the nomination sometime in February. Does Nader run again?

And if he does, how much of the Dean base goes over to Nader?

I live in Arizona currently. And have lived in the South. Anyone who says that Arizona is culturally similar to the South--he has no idea what he's talking about. That is one of the most simple-minded statements I have ever read.

Florida is not obviously red yet. Over the last four years, the population of non-cuban hispanic voters (who vote democratic) has exploded in southern Florida. A democratic candidate could easily take advantage of these new numbers, and all of a sudden, Florida looks winnable.

I agree with Tom. Arizona is not the least bit "southern". I have lived in VA, MD, TX, AZ, CO, and UT, and AZ is closest to CO, and next, UT.

The conservatism is different in the Mountain West, than in the South. I don't think of either Goldwater or McCain as ever really being that religiously conservative. Neither wore his religion on his sleeve, as do the "Southerners", as well as Southern Presidents Bush (43) and Carter. Rather, they are more libertarian and independant.

One big simularity though that is going to give the Democrats problems in the Mountain West, as well as the South, is patriotism, of the sort that those on the coasts find uncomfortable.

I disagree with putting a veep on the ticket to pick up this state or that state (unless it is a glaringly obvious state like Florida). As George Will said, how often do you vote for a president based on the vice president? Unless it is a guy from your state, you don't. If you want the veep to actually transform a ticket, you pick someone to send a message. Look at Clinton in 92 -- proving to voters that Southern moderates were the new face of the party -- or Bush in 00 -- putting Chaney on the ticket to reassure voters that he was going to surround himself with trusted graybeards. Kerry should pick someone who proves the Dems are tough on national security. I can't stand Wes Clark -- an empty suit if there ever was one -- but someone whose defense credentials are imppecable would be a good fit.

Edwards would be a disaster against Bush. Did you hear his defense to forming a professional corporation that shielded $10 million from Medicare taxes? Edwards defense: "I paid plenty of taxes."

Dream on that Edwards is a good candidate.

This article was in the Austin American Statesman, this needs to be looked at before election and the second one is about affirmative action.

Terry Garlock, Vietnam veteran

For some Vietnam veterans, Kerry's words ring hollow

Monday, February 2, 2004

Now that U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is claiming the veteran vote based on his war record, both sides of that story should be told.

To appreciate the dark side of Kerry's war record, you should know a few things about Vietnam veterans.

The public and the press make a mistake when they divide us into decorated veterans like Kerry and then all the others.

We like to think of ourselves as brothers -- those who fought the enemy directly in combat and those who provided vital support in protected areas that were in many cases exposed to attack.

Even today, when two Vietnam veterans meet for the first time, they might say, "Welcome home, brother!" because many were never welcomed home. They met the cold shoulder of an ungrateful nation on their return.

Those of us whose job was combat feel an even deeper sense of brotherhood. We learned to trust our brothers on the ground, on the water and in the air to do the right things to protect one another, a bond that cannot be fully explained in words.

We quietly feared dying in battle, but there was something we feared even more. We knew if we should panic under fire and fail to do our job, we might lose our brothers' trust or we might lose their lives, and this we feared more than anything.

Like Kerry, I have a couple of medals, but who has what medal among combat veterans doesn't make a dime's worth of difference between us. What matters is that we are, for the rest of our life, brothers who kept faith with one another in a miserable war.

A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."

The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American flag upside down.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our prisoners of war as bargaining chips in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.

Many good and decent people opposed the Vietnam war. Many of us who fought it hated it, too. I know I did.

But like Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi in 1972, Kerry's public actions encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons. Decades after the war was done, interviews with our former enemy's leaders confirmed that public protests in the United States, like Kerry's, played a significant role in their strategy.

Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.

Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told. Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously oppose Kerry's election to any office.

Garlock of Peachtree City, Ga., was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam. He received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.

Date: January 30, 2004

Dr. Mary Frances Berry Responds to Senator Kerry's Remarks On Affirmative Action

Today, in a conference call with reporters, Dr. Mary Frances Berry, Chair of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, made the following remarks:

Back in 1992, when I read what Senator Kerry was saying about affirmative action, I felt like someone had kicked me in the stomach. I was deeply disturbed, because Senator Kerry was saying exactly the same thing that opponents of affirmative action were saying - that it was reverse discrimination, that the policy was a failure, that all it did was perpetuate racism. And even worse, he made no suggestions about what legal steps should be taken to improve it.

Last night, at the debate, I was surprised when he invoked the name of Bill Clinton in discussing the "mend it, don't end it" approach to affirmative action. President Clinton was not yet in office when Senator Kerry made that 1992 speech. And once Clinton was in office, and we were engaged in the difficult debate about the future of affirmative action, Senator Kerry was nowhere in sight. While we were struggling to do all we could to make progress on these issues, he was simply missing in action.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: