Do You Like Any of the Democratic Candidates Yet??
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Do You Like Any of the Democratic Candidates Yet??
I saw them on TV the other day, minus Wesley Clarke, and I have to say that the only one who impresses me is John Edward, from North Carolina. I do NOT like Howard Dean. I think that he is VERY ARROGANT. Yet, he seems to be the front runner. Probably because he has more money than anyone else. JMHO.
I take it you are a democrat Hol?
I am an independant and I do not like any of the canidates.
I guess I am a recovering democrat LOL close to being a republican these days, given the makeup of the whole democratic party. Very hard to defend them. I don't like any of the candidates, really, although I think Lieberman would be a pretty good Republican candidate LOL
Hol, Re: Howard Dean, you are correct, he comes off as very arrogant. I shook my head at his absurd reference to the Book of Job, as if to infer that he was oppressed as Job was. LOL He really revealed a lot about his personality and mentality.
oops - I mean candidates! Havent had my coffee yet!
Not only that, Christy, he thought that the Book of Job was in the NEW Testament!
No, Marg, I have been a Republican all my life, as were my parents. The Republican platform much more closely represents MY values. However, I think that the Democrats are more sympathetic to social justice causes, and do more to protect the worker, with their support of unions.
My DH is a STAUCH Republican, being retired military, and VERY patriotic!! However, he is not too happy with President Bush.
DH's parents were "Roosevelt, New Deal" Democrats, having gotten married in the Great Depression in the 30's. He was just 'below the angels', in their opinion. LOL!
I have always voted for the PERSON. In the last presidential election, I voted for Ralph Nader. I didn't care for George W, and I DETEST Al Gore!
Ralph Nader is a level-headed, humble, simple living man, with no "obligations" to any special interest groups.
We are so BLESSED to be able to openly discuss and criticize our leaders. May it ever be....
Ok, so after the caucus last night, any new opinions? If it comes down to Kerry vs Bush, I'll vote for Kerry, but if it's Dean vs Bush I may not vote at all.
I want to see how hottie Wesley Clark does...
I think Dean's about done. Do you think he'll ever do the Shouting of the States again?
I don't think he will EVER live that down. He sounded like he just snapped.
Looks like Kerry is winning NH, but that's not really a big surprise up here.
I just thought I would bump this back up to the top since it has been over five weeks since it was started and there has been a lot going on since then as far as the Democratic candidates are concerned. It is looking more and more as if Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, but I prefer Edwards.
I also prefer Edwards, but I think folks are now looking at who they truly think can defeat Bush. To me Kerry just is another rich Bostonian. I intend to continue watching and listening to both Edwards and Kerry, and pray that this country is ready to elect someone who will lead us out of the mess we're in today.
Hmmm am i the only onw that actually likes Bush to stay right where he is? I don't want to offend anyone or everyone to be mad since i like this site, but i don't want to replace bush at all.
I voted for Bush in the last election. I'm a Texan and I thought he did okay as Governor (although he beat Ann Richards who I loved). I just didn't think Gore was up to it. Had the Democrats put up a better candidate, I'm not sure who, I would have not voted for Bush. If Hillary Clinton ever runs, I'm right there with her!
Texas is heavily Republican. But there's no rhyme or reason to how I vote. I don't think Bush is doing a very good job. I much preferred Bill Clinton actually. I think Bush is out of touch with regular folks and I think going to war was political and he underestimated the whole thing. I liked Clinton's compassion for everyone. I liked the way Clinton could think on his feet. I think I would respect Bush more if he and his handlers just admitted he's dyslexic instead of always covering up for it. I am not too fond of religious fundamentalists and their harsh and hateful views of the world and they seem to all be Republican.
I have heard Kerry is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and anti-dealth penalty. I agree with him on all those issues. I have also heard Kerry votes just like Bush. I'll have to look into that before the Texas primary.
I just made my first contribution to the Kerry campaign. Actually, I would vote for any democrat who looked like he has the chance to beat Bush. And I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket could be a real winner. (The reason the democratic candidates have spent much of their debates on Bush instead of each other is because all good democrats know that Bush is the issue and the goal is to Beat Bush.)
Kerry has not stated an official position on gay marriage and (as the parent of a gay son and believing same-sex couples should enjoy all of the legal privileges of marriage) I hope he doesn't. I believe at this point his campaign is saying something like civil unions - yes, marriage - probably not.
I note that the lead article in the last issue of TIME was on Bush's credibility, which is a major issue for him. I don't care much when the President says something "dyslexic". I do care when he is not truthful, or when, as happened in last Sunday's interview, he doesn't answer the question but comes out with a canned answer that does not answer the question.
I also note that while I pay less income tax, both my state and local taxes have gone up significantly - so that my state and local governments can make up for the shortfalls in their budgets because of reduced income from federal sources. Most of us (moderate income people) are going to pay the price for those tax cuts in local and state taxes or cuts in services, but the top 1/2% of income people won't feel a thing as they spend their holidays in Monaco or whereever. And only a few are in any public way "paying back". As much as I hate Microsoft, I give credit to Bill Gates and his wife for their huge charitable gifts, but where are the rest of them? And I am terrified by what the deficit may mean to me and all of us. I get my first Social Security check next month, but as the deficit keeps growing and the administration pushes to make the tax cuts permanent (which I think they should be for moderate/middle income people, but not for the top income people), I wonder where Social Security and Medicare, and student aid, and highway repair/improvement money, and education money, and money for inspections of meat and water, and money for keeping tabs on pharmaceutical companies and their products, and money for tracking down corporate criminals like the Enron folk, and money for the salaries, benefits and medical care for our military, will come from.
I also note that Supreme Court Justice Scalia doesn't think he has to recuse himself from ruling on the major case involving Cheney, even though Cheney is a good enough friend that he and Scalia recently spent a private hunting weekend together (which Cheney paid for). And Halliburton keeps on spending taxpayers money in ridiculous ways as they profit from "rebuilding" Iraq, with lists of "preferred contractors" who charge outrageously high prices, and trying to have as many no-bid purchase orders as possible for amounts under the figure that requires bidding. These people have no shame.
As for Kerry voting just like Bush, I don't think so. He, like most members of Congress, supporting the war in Iraq based on the President's and other policy-makers' reports on the intelligence about WMD (by the way, where are they?), but in general I think Kerry is a middle-of-the-roader, which should keep him out of trouble. Certainly at this point no one has come up with anything negative about his personal life, and his war record is unchallengeable. He is someone who knows first-hand the pain of sending young men to die, not having done his military service state-side in the National Guard. (I have no beef with the National Guard, and feel much support and sympathy for those Guard members who find themselves stationed in Iraq - and for their families, not only for the absence of their loved one but also the major financial distress they must be experiencing.)
Wow, Ginny, you are way more up on all this stuff than I will ever be. So Kerry is middle of the road? That's cool with me. I'm in the "electability" camp. Anyone but Bush. I read in Business Week that Kerry was pro-gay marriage. Don't know their source though. I like the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. I think Clark is a bit too desperate for me (as a VP nominee), though I still think he's a hottie. Still don't like Dean. He's still in, isn't he?
I think they have to feed Bush canned answers bec he can't ad lib, but I also don't think he fully has his head around the issues enough to be able to talk on his own. (Besides the dyslexia causing issues.) It's almost a Reagan thing.
Dean thinks he's in, but I doubt it very much. I wasn't too thrilled with Dean, but thought he might be "electable". However, his loosing his temper and his cool the way he did has, I suspect, turned a whole lot of people off. I am not "in love" with Kerry, but am definitely in the ABB (anyone but Bush) camp, and think Kerry can win - especially if he picks the right VP, who may well be Edwards. At this point, if Kerry and Edwards continue pretty much taking the high road vis a vis the other democratic candidates, I think they could make a good team. Clark - I like him, but clearly he is not going to get the votes in the primaries, and I think he showed good sense and behaved like a gentleman in dropping out. I wish Dean would show the same sense and same concern for the November elections. Each time a Democratic candidate throws mud at another Democratic candidate we can be sure the same mud will be thrown in the summer and fall by the Republicans, and I think it is really stupid to give ammunition to the people you want to beat. I also think by and large the U.S. electorate is fed up with mud slinging and dirty campaigns, and the new laws where a candidate has to announce in a political ad that s/he approved the is already making a difference in the tone of the ads.
I have to say, I don't think it's a Regan thing. I think our President is (a) an ideologue with rather simple ideas of how the world runs and believes that there are simple solutions to complex problems and, (b) he's just not very bright. He can be charming, that's for sure, and I will say that he did present a good image of leadership that was needed after 9-11. I cannot fault him for that. I do, however, fault him for supporting Ashcroft's attempts to trash the Bill of Rights, and for the huge deficit we and our children will have to pay for. This whole "trickle down" thing - the idea that cutting taxes will produce jobs - was disproved in Reagan's administration and the first George Bush's administration. But George, Sr., was and is, I believe, a whole lot smarter than either George the younger or Jeb. I suppose it is difficult growing up with a famous and powerful father.
I don't, by the way, believe Dubya (as Molly Ivins calls him) took us into war in Iraq out of a mistaken notion of revenge for the plans to assassinate his father. I think he truly believes that a true democracy can be created in Iraq in a year or two and that doing so will change the face of the entire Mideast, and I think he really believed his advisors and the Iraqi exiles who were feeding false "intelligence" to his advisors. I think the CIA probably has some guilt to bear in this whole WMD mess, but I think they were probably doing the CYA thing of giving warnings about the reliability of "intelligence" about WMD and the advisors who filtered this stuff for the President left out the CYA stuff.
As for being informed, thanks to the internet it is easy. Just find some of the nationally known newspapers like the NY Times and the Washington Post, bookmark their pages, and read the lead articles and editorials. That's what I do, plus the Sacramento Bee (because they publish Molly Ivins and I love Molly, plus she always, always backs up her statements with citations as to her sources), and the Chicago Tribune (because I grew up in Chicago and still like to read about it). I read the Philadelphia Inquirer from front to back every day, and we get the Wall Street Journal at the office, so I often glance through the lead articles at lunch, plus the NY Times, which we also get at work. I also get TIME magazine and tend to read the serious stuff in it pretty thoroughly. But, I'm a reading freak - I love to read, I don't have young children, and I am one of those people who read rapidly and retain what they read - sort of speed reading but I didn't have to learn it, I've always been that way. If you want just one source that hits the high points and does an in depth article on something fairly important each week, I'd suggest TIME or Newsweek. I tend to prefer TIME, but that's at least partly because I started reading it in elementary school with a classroom subscription.
If you are not much of a reader or can't spend time reading, it's helpful to watch the Sunday morning news shows - the hour long shows on PBS or other stations where they do lengthy interviews or a couple of reporters rehash the week and the stuff that was big news. They will be covering more and more political stuff as the campaigns heat up. I did watch the interview with the President last Sunday, which is why I say he doesn't answer the question(s) asked but comes out with canned answers. He repeated essentially the same thing at least six times, about Hussein being dangerous and he thought action should be taken based on the information available at the time. Even when that "answer" wasn't responsive to the question.
I tend not to read the political stuff I get in the mail, even from the candidates I support, because it is hardly balanced reporting. And I don't get my news from the evening news on TV, because it is almost always just sound bites and it is hard to get anything meaningful from 60-90 seconds. The only time I pay attention to the evening TV news is if there is some breaking story, like the huge gas main fire in front of two of Philadelphia's major high schools and at a major public transportation terminal and on one of Philadelphia's major streets during rush hour yesterday evening. (It was after school hours, no one was injured, very little property damage was done, the gas main was finally shut off, but it was surely dramatic with flames going 200 feet in the air.)
Hol, I agree with you. One of the truly major blessings of this great nation is the right and freedom to express one's ideas and opinions and feelings freely. That's the wonderful First Amendment, which I think is a truly marvelous piece of legislation.
As for Ralph Nader, I think Mr. Nader has done a lot of very good things in his life, but running in the last Presidential election and saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore was not one of them. And, while Nader has many good points, humble is not a word I would use in describing him. However, he can know that he has his place in history by making it possible for Bush to become President of the United States (him and the darned hanging chads, and the Supreme Court). However, that is over, Bush is President, and that's that until the next time. I, for one, don't intend to spend time arguing over whether or not he was elected the last time - I just want to make sure he isn't elected the next time.
Oh, I would love to stay up on all things. I have a journalism degree and have earned a living as a journalist (in San Diego) and I am an avid reader. I know how to stay up on things, but for me, it's a time issue. I'm a working single mother of a child with disabilities. I work at a law firm and can get on the Internet every now and then, but if there's a deadline, trial or something I can't take the time to check the news. I also contribute advice and experiences on some learning disabilities websites if I get a chance which takes away from the reading the news.
I do read the Vent in the metro section of the Atlanta Journal Constitution every day if possible. It's perfect since I only get sometimes just 30 seconds to get on the Internet at a time before my phone rings or someone walks into my office. it's pretty funny. I lived in Atlanta briefly.
I do read the Dallas Morning News most days, catch a bit of Larry King some days and I listen to news radio in the car. So I get just enough info to be dangerous!
Ginny, I was one of those who helped the spoiler, Nader last election. If the Democrats had run someone I could believe, I would have been thrilled to vote for him, but to me Gore was as big a liar as Bush. Nader might not be great, but at least he didn't change his position after every poll. As far as I'm concerned, Gore made it possible for Bush to become president. Gore and the entire Democratic party dropped the ball.
Bea, I was not thrilled with Gore either. What it came down to, for me, was that if I was going to vote for an arrogant white man, I was going to vote for the one who had a fairly good chance of being elected and who was less likely to do things that would (a) upset me and (b) have drastic long-term effects.
One can debate the ills or merits of a two-party system until the cows come home. But, like it or not we have a two-party system. If there is really little difference between the candidates of either of the two parties (which I don't think was the case last time around), then I might well vote for a third party candidate because yes, it does send a message. But when in my perception there are significant differences between the candidates of the two major parties, I won't vote for the third party candidate.
In the last election I also factored in that both houses of Congress already had Republican majorities and Nader's candidacy would only take votes away from the Democratic candidate, not the Republican candidate. I did not want a Republican President, especially that Republican, with enough of a majority in Congress that he would be able to put through the kinds of legislation he was promising and the kinds of legislation that Republicans usually want (i.e., taxes, reducing budgets for regulatory agencies, privatizing everything in sight). I think it is not unreasonable to lay the tax legislation and the war in Iraq (not to mention all the other things I'm angry about, not the least of which is the Medicare bill) on Ralph Nader's doorstep, given the spoiler role he played.
I do agree that the Democratic party dropped the ball. They had some serious problems, not the least of which was Bill Clinton, but they should have looked much longer and harder for a viable candidate when it became clear that Clinton's behavior was going to be a major if not openly spoken about burden. There had to be better candidates than Gore out there.
I am electing not to get into this debate. I'm not very politically savvy, but I do research candidates from impartial sources--not propaganda spin sources-- before I vote. I just don't live, breathe, or enjoy politics AT ALL. My question is in regard to Mommmie's comments about Bush being "dyslexic" and Ginny's comments on intelligence. Surely Bush is no Aristotle, Isaac Newton, or even Bill Gates intellectually, but a "C" (and remember that is considered "average") at an Ivy-league school is nothing that any of us can claim. As far as dyslexia, I take offense to that since I work with kids with dyslexia. Have you ever heard from a reliable source that Bush does indeed have dyslexia or are you just making some assumptions on the way he mispronounces words. They are indeed NOT the same thing. A lot of Bush's speech errors are spoonerism-type errors.
(These are "Spoonerisms," letter or sound transpositions by the Reverend W.A. Spooner, Anglican priest and scholar of the early 20th century. When Spooner grew agitated by someone "missing a history lecture" and "wasting two terms," he inadvertently fired off the two classics. Presiding at a wedding with a reluctant bridegroom: "Son, it is now kisstomary to cuss the bride." These are not believed to be Freudian but to originate in the deeper processes of language itself, says Harvard's Steven Pinker, author of "The Language Instinct." Most slips are simply boring, the brain planning out a sentence and setting up a framework for the sounds--a series of slots for the nouns and verbs and vowels and consonants--that then get inserted wrong. Occasionally when two sounds end up in each other's slots, the result is a surprising "tip of the slung," or Spoonerism).
Spooner was a highly respected scholar at Oxford at his time and he made these type of errors so much that a whole term was named after him. As for his other word gaffes, such as "new-cue-lar" for "nuclear" that is highly dialectal in nature and is no different that a Kennedy dropping an "r" (can I pahk the cah?) I agree with whoever said that public speaking is not one of Bush's strengths, but I hardly think we can call him dyslexic.
Pamt, you are right - mostly they are Spoonerisms. I apologize to you and all who work with or parent children with dyslexia or who suffer it themselves. It can be a severe handicap in today's intellectually driven world, where so much critical communication is in the written word and most people don't take time to make sure the other person has taken in and understood what is said or written.
As for new-cue-lar - every time I hear it, no matter from whom, I cringe, and I don't fault the President for it. I too have laughed at pahking the cah in Hahvahd Yahd. I'm a Philadelphian now, and I cringe at a lot of what I hear - Bu'etin, insteetution, or, what I heard my first day in Philadelphia, "hoi" for "hi". And all the people who spend their vacations "down the shore".
Pam, do you think I am using the term dyslexia as a put down?? Why do you assume that when someone refers to someone else as dyslexic that it's an insult? My 9-year-old is severly dyslexic and dysgraphic among other things, including gifted. He attends a school for intelligent LD kids. Don't you think having PRESIDENT Bush come out of the closet as a dyslexic would do WONDERS for kids like mine?? Show them that it's possible to still achieve despite their struggles? Bush's dyslexic brother came to visit the school last year, too. His dyslexia is public knowledge (sorry, drawing a blank on his first name).
It is common knowledge in these parts (the LD community in Texas) that Bush is dsylexic (although I have never heard about him being formally evaluated and dx). He attended school in a different era, as you realize. When the family moved to Houston he was rejected from the first private school he applied to and struggled a lot in the prep school he eventually went to. Kids with dsylexia and other academic issues were pushed on through school and learned compensatory skills. Rich prominent families had their kids pushed on through the best private schools. Private schools love weathly parents. As you know these kids are often highly intelligent, creative and have great memories. I am not at all surprised he graduated from Yale. He comes from a prominent family and he has other strengths going for him. I certainly don't think he's stupid by any means. But you and I both know dsylexia doesn't mean stupid and has nothing to do with intelligence.
Notice that his mother's big philanthropic issue is literacy. She has seen her children struggle and literacy is a less scary word than dyslexia.
I think a lot of the general public feels like Bush is not very smart. If they knew he was dyslexic they wouldn't be laughing at his speaking struggles and misstatements. I don't laugh at my son. But is the country ready for a dyslexic president? Many people think it means mentally retarded. Just think what he would do for dyslexia! Educate the public!
My mom graduated from college with un'dx learning disabilies. Before all this accountablity stuff (and before the legislature invented the term learning disability) it wasn't that difficult a thing to do. Academics are getting progressively harder as we all know. Her business degree from a big university was mostly shorthand and typing and office machines. She made C's. She had to repeat a few courses. She still has a degree. Bush still has his degree. That same business degree my mom got is now full of courses like microeconomics.
I am so glad for schools like the one my son attends. Now the rich prominent families send their kids to schools like this. (I, personally, represent the poor people of the school!) The regular ed schools can't just push them through anymore and now they, well the private schools anyway, can tell the parents the child needs to attend an LD school for awhile (or for the remainder of the prep schooling). This LD school is so good that regular ed students try to sneak in! (But with all the evals they don't get far!)
One of the best national articles I have ever read about Bush and his reading struggles was in Vanity Fair magazine several years ago. I save these and I'll look to see what issue the story appeared. I think it ran when Bush was running for office. I wonder if their website has it archived?
Well, I did a test at this site, and matched with Kerry 100% (Dean was second at 92%, but I had already decided against him). I also put in to match with only the Democratic candidates, as I've also already decided not to vote for Bush.
Sunny, the test was very interesting. Boy, did it ever show why I'm a Democrat and not a Republican! There were five Democrats with whom I matched at least 86%. I only matched 41% with Bush.
That was a great test! Thanks for posting. No surprise to me though. I matched 100% with Bush and the next closest was 86% with Edwards. I am very conservative and gay rights and abortion are big issues to me and because of my job Medicaid, medicare, and insurance are also key issues for me.
Mommmie, yes I do know that your son has several learning difficulties. That's why I was so surprised that you referred to Bush as dyslexic when there is no definitive report or info to that affect. I did do a web search on the topic and found many articles and editorials (inc. the Vanity Fair article you mentioned) speculating that Bush may be dyslexic, but nothing that blatantly stated or proved it. Even Barbara mentioned that her husband and son, Neil, are dyslexic and that's why adult literacy is an issue so near and dear to her heart. If she states her hubby and one son, why would she not mention the other? I can't believe that it would be a presidential motive since George Sr. was president. At any rate, you can fault Bush for the policies and values of his you don't like, critique his poor public-speaking abilities, but let's not diagnose from the sidelines. As you well know, verbal gaffes (while possibly indicating some type of language disorder) do not a dyslexic make and I don't think any of us have been able to administer a comprehensive battery of reading, writing, and language tests. Who knows? He may very well be dyslexic and if he indeed is then I would be saddened and disappointed that he did not use his high position, influence, and exposure to enlighten the world about LDs in general and dyslexia in particular, as Charles Schwab has done such a remarkable job of doing. However, we don't know that he is dyslexic for sure and I am loathe to label someone (even a Democrat...even Dean  ) without absolute evidence and documentation.
Wow... at least Bush can count on my vote.
Bush has mine too with 100%
I checked out this web-site and it appears to me that the scoring is biased in some way. My score yields 100% Kerry and 75% Bush, yet when I read the issue-by-issue comparison I agree (or nearly so) with Bush and Kerry at about the same rate and similarly, I oppose (or nearly so) with Kerry and Bush at about the same rate. In both cases I completely disagree with both candidates on a number of issues. So what does 100% (or 75%) mean in this context? It would be nice if Time/AOL revealed how the scoring was done.
Bush can count on me trying to get out every vote against him that I can manage.
Hi there -- I am new to the board! I am mom to Brooke, almost 2 (how time flies!) We liive in Dallas, but I am originally from LA. My husband and I met in DC in grad school, he is from Texas and we moved here in 2002.
I am a John Kerry supporter because I believe he is the best leader for our children -- from the environment to education, health care, defense, foreign policy and women's rights, I believe he will lead us forward and offer a legacy of hope and opportunity to our kids. As a mom, I believe it is my responsibility to take action and get involved, especially this election cycle. There are some who will tell you Bush is just as good for our kids, but I challenge anyone to a comparison on the issues -- we, and especially our children, are NOT better off today than we were four years ago, and 9/11 is not the reason why -- Bush had failed to lead from the get-go early days of his administration. While 9/11 was tragic, it is not and cannot be the defining issue in the campaign -- in many ways, this disengaged administration did nothing to address the middle east issues and has gotten us in a war many Americans do not support -- that was based on lies and mistruths...
Anyway, Just wanted to share with you a site www.momsforkerry.com. It has a lot of information about the candidate, issues, ways to get involved as well as some daily news scoops and mom links.
We're looking for moms to help us organize regionally - it is a small time commitment right now -- less than an hour a week as we begin organizing, but ultimately we're hoping to have house parties, precinct walks, rallies and a couple large events.
If you're interested, please check out the site, and please sign up for our email and to be a regional coordinator if you would like to join us!
I look forward to getting to know y'all over the coming months!
Heidi
www.momsforkerry.com
Dallas is Kerry Country!!
|
Members
