Presidential debate

For those who missed (like me) and wanted to watch (like me) the Democratic Presidential debate the other night, C-SPAN will air it Sunday evening at 6:30 EST. The debate, from all accounts, was not so dynamic as had been expected. The expectations that Kerry and others would attack Dean did not play out. However, Tuesday evening on the Fox New Channel, all nine candidates will debate again and I expect the attacks on Dean will come to fruition. If I weren't going to vote for President Bush I would vote for Lieberman.

 

I saw the debate on PBS last night (though my local affiliate didn't broadcast it until 10pm CDT). General impressions:

* Nobody flopped, but nobody rocked the house either.

* The only person to attack Dean was, oddly enough, Lieberman (who was sharp as a tack, but not at his most charismatic).

* Dean himself was much less assertive than usual.

* My vote for "Most Improved Since Last Debate" would be Dick Gephardt, who came across as the Cicero of the bunch this time around (though if there's ever a Democratic Primary Debate drinking game, do a shot every time he says "miserable failure"). Braun, Graham, and Kucinich were also much more solid than last time, though that's not saying a whole lot. And Edwards is getting pretty good.

My personal favorite of the bunch is still Lieberman, but Dean and Kerry are growing on me. It's still early, though--let's remember that Clinton didn't even enter the 1992 presidential race until October '91.


Cheers,

 

I never felt Lieberman was that exciting but I like him. I have stopped being mad at him for defeating Lowell Weicker. When I lived in Illinois, Braun was my Senator. I was disappointed in her but voted for her anyway because her opponent was too far to the right. As it turns out, the opponent, Peter Fitzgerald, has not been that far right. He is not seeking reelection. Kucinich was such a disaster as Mayor of Cleveland I don't see how he expects anyone to believe he can be effective. I think Hillary will eventually get in. What about Mississippi? I think Barbour will win.

 

I thought Lieberman was really exciting in 2000, but then I thought Gore was really exciting in 1996. It's hard to tell anything from the primaries about who might energize the voting base, but I'd say that Lieberman, Kerry, Dean, and Edwards all could, that Gephardt, Braun, and Graham potentially could, and that neither Kucinich nor Sharpton stand a chance. I personally find Kucinich downright obnoxious, and can't figure out why he's running (unless it's to energize the extreme left in preparation for endorsing the eventual Democratic nominee). Both Hillary and Wesley Clark strike me as viable late-entry nominees, but I dunno.

Mississippi is a toss-up from where I'm standing. Both Barbour (R) and Musgrove (D, i) are so far to the right of me on social issues that I'm lost as to who to support; just a few months ago I was absolutely certain that Barbour would clean Musgrove's clock with no problem at all, but Musgrove has beaten him in fundraising, so I guess anything can happen. Mississippi is a traditionally Republican state in presidential elections, but a traditionally Democratic state in gubernatorial elections (Kirk Fordice was the first Republican governor we'd had since 1911), and Musgrove beat the moderate Republican Mike Parker back in 1999. Whether Musgrove can pull it off again as an incumbent with a state deficit isn't clear to me, but I wouldn't bet against him at this point. It's gonna be close.


Cheers,

 

I really miss Mississippi politics. I remember getting up early on Saturday mornings and going to the different county courthouses to listen to the candidates' speeches. Fordice was a disaster. I remember working for Gil Carmichael when he ran for U.S. Senate. I lived in GA when he ran for governor and nearly beat Finch. I still, to this day, cannot figure out how Finch beat Winter in the runoff. Runoffs, that's something else I miss about Mississippi politics. Back to the Democratics. I think the Party will nominate Lieberman, Gephart or Kerry. I don't think they will go the McGovern route again. Nice talking to you.

 

Droopy Dog and Stick Man exciting? You must really love watching paint dry.

 

Thank you g.
J.

 

I usually vote Republican, but if I was to choose a Democrat, It would be Lieberman. He seems to be a respectable man with good ethics. No, he's not flamboyant, but most of us Republicans don't care for that anyway, remember ... we're mostly conservative!

 

Hi,

Where is Mt. Zion? How do you like SATS?

 

"Droopy Dog"; now, that's a new one. But my take on Lieberman in 2000 was that he was one of the more charismatic VP candidates we've had in recent years. He doesn't have the used-car-salesman timbre of the younger telegenics, but look back on Eisenhower; in times of uncertainty, Americans would usually rather elect Grandpa than Uncle Bob.

As far as Stick Man is concerned, guilty as charged. But I do think that if Gore had run apologetically as a stiff, he would have come away with the election; it was his decision to go all Animal House, Michael-Jackson-kisses-Lisa-Marie on us that handed Bush the electoral college (well, that and five Supreme Court justices). I still shake my head at this, though it reminds me that a good economy alone won't guarantee an incumbent reelection.


Cheers,

 

Amen to that; it still amazes me that he actually served two terms.

I look back on Winter as the only really good governor we've had in 50 years. Nobody else really seemed to care about the poor, or improving race relations.

Even the knee-jerk liberal Salon.com has made the Dean-McGovern comparison, but I don't think it holds water; they're different folks, and the culture has changed. If we're still where we are now in Iraq a year from now, Dean's antiwar views won't hurt him; the only other issue he really stands out as a liberal about is gay rights, and I can't see that costing him any votes he wouldn't already lose for being pro-choice. I agree that Lieberman or Kerry would be a safer bet, though--Lieberman because he comes across as a moderate, has a strong background in the intelligence community, and appeals to the "religious center," Kerry because of his military background and Heinz fortune. Gephardt might be a viable dark horse candidate, but I can't help but think that Bush will have decades of partisan Dick Gephardt speeches to put on television.


Cheers,

 

Maybe losing his home state had something to do with it. Who was the last candidate who lost his home state?

That should be an automatic DQ.

As for your Supreme Court reference, who do you think should have won the election, and why?

Greg

 

Ronald Reagan (1980).

With apologies to President Clinton, that depends on what you mean by "should have." The Democratic ballot inspecter should have objected to the Palm Beach butterfly ballot that gave thousands of Gore votes to Pat Buchanan; had that happened, Gore would have won. Voters in historically non-white, Democratic districts should have had voting assistance and equipment equal to that found in the rest of the state; had that happened, Gore would have most probably won then, too. And while we're wishing, Ralph Nader should have dropped out, which also would have given Gore the election.

But since this ridiculous political Rube Goldberg contraption did give him a slim majority in the electoral college, Bush won the election as far as I'm concerned. I do think he should have won it by insisting on a manual statewide recount, which would have been the honorable thing to do. He had no way of knowing that he would have won that recount at the time, of course, but it would have made the election seem more legitimate, and created the impression that Bush honestly cares whether or not he was democratically elected.


Cheers,

 

Even though it took him three times to finally make it. I think had John Bell Williams not been stripped of his seniority and Mississippi hadn't been "ga ga" for AuH2o, Winter would have won in 1967. It's funny how the Hodding Carter crowd "dissed" Winter and supported Waller, although I know why. The Delta Democrat Times thought Winter (in '67) was not a racial moderate. I am glad they proved them wrong. Two other pols I liked were Charles Sullivan and Evelyn Gandy.

 

Not only did Bush take Tennessee he took Clinton's Arkansas. Some blame Nader for Gore's defeat.

 

And, had democrats in St. Louis voted only once, Bush would have won MO.

And, had Buchanan dropped out, Bush would have won going away.

And, had the media not reported a Gore victory before the polls in the panhandle closed

And, why do non-white democrats need voting assistance?

And Bush is not the one who cherry picked counties for a recount, and re-recount, and re-re-recount.

Greg

 

Well, there I go again. Reagan actually won California in both 1980 and 1984; Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton also won their home states every time they ran. The last president elected despite losing his home state was Richard Nixon in '68:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/votes_1965_1969.html#1972


Cheers,

 

This is debatable; there was no evidence of mass voter fraud.

This is simply false; Buchanan won 0.45% of the popular vote to Nader's 2%, and (as far as I know) Buchanan's votes did not surpass the margin of victory in any state. In Nader's case, it would have given Florida to Gore.

This is arguably a good point.

Everyone needs assistance; those in historically non-white, Democratic districts were less likely to receive it--and, again, they also had to make do with substandard equipment.

I seem to recall Gore saying that he would agree to a statewide manual recount, but Bush refusing; under those circumstances, who can blame Gore for cherry-picking?


Cheers,

 

That's not true. Most people do not need voting assistance. Punch the hole next to the candidates name. How hard is that?

What evidence do you have of this?

Gore suggested that, only after he had lost recounts in the counties he chose. He also new that the country was tired of recounts and a statewide manual recount was impractical and would never happen.


This entire "butterfly ballot", "voter intimidation" issue is just a red herring that democrats used to try to dilute the fact that a sitting vice-president during the strongest economic period in history could not hold the White House.

I have to sign off now. Time to get some work done. See you tomorrow.

Thanks
Greg

 

Hmm

Droopy Dog!!! Now that is a good one!
I usually call him Kermit the Frog.

I have a feeling 04 will be a repeat of 00.
Hold your nose and pick the best of all evils.

My views are mainly Libertarian with the exception of immigration. I do not believe in open borders and legal drugs. I also consider myself right of center. All in all a Rockefeller Republican.

There will be individuals I will not vote for in 04.
Bush, Gephardt, Sharpton, Braun, Kerry, or Nader.
Wow! that narrows my field.
Outside the tax issue I tend to like what Dean is saying.

All in all I need more information and further research.

We have been going downhill since Bush I, God can you send a Truman or Reagan again!!!!