• on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    The guy who barely won in 1992 with a right-leaning third party candidate pulling twenty percent of the vote, a severely, severely embattled opponent with communication issues. Or the Clinton who won again in 1996 against the weakest republican candidate since Barry Goldwater?  That Clinton?  Yeah, I remember him.  I also remember the way he pissed away a large mandate in 1993 and proceeded to allow an insane Republican Congressional majority to move the country farther and farther to the right for eight years.  

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    Daschle being a moderate dem from a very conservative state is fine by me.  I'm not pissy with Ben Nelson right now.

    My issue is and was with him being the majority leader and selling out the entire delegation on the Iraq war resolution and the Patriot act.  If he's perpetually in an unsafe seat, and can't vote with mainline dems on most issues, then he has no business being the leader of the party in the Senate.

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    and I should also point out that the dems have done nothing but lose while running with this 'moderate' image.  They've done nothing but win when they've advocated a progressive message in plain language.  

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    I hate, hate, hate, HATE this argument.

    If gore had run a consistently progressive campaign, he would have had a large enough margin in the popular vote to carry a couple more states and make Jeb's machinations irrelevant.  The Dems have done nothing but lose when they have compromised their values.  The Republicans learned long ago that they can win with mainline conservatives.  Can't we just try someone who's not trying to run toward the 'mushy middle'?  Just once?  If we do and it doesn't work, then maybe then this condescending bullshit might be tolerable.  

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    the idea that Bush chould have been trusted to execute the war was pretty much fundamentally flawed.  It was well known that he had no pre-war plan, that he was waaaay overselling the war, and that Iraq would dissolve into three warring factions.  Anyone who voted for the Iraq war resolution was either very calculating and cynical or delusional.  

    I have yet to see any "solution" to Iraq that addresses any of the fundamental problems in the ground.  All of the 'implementation' suggestions seem to just involve throwing troops at the problem and hoping that it will go away.  The reality is that the Iraqi government is controlled by the Shi'ites and will continue to be in the future.  Unless a strongly federal Constitution is imposed on the country, this will always be the case, and the Sunnis will always feel oppressed.  I have not seen anyone suggest something that deals with any of this, except for those arguing for withdrawal.  So why should I take the other camp seriously?

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    This is inane.  Why do 'centrists' always spend more time complaining about the tone of progressives versus the actual content of their claims?  

  • on a comment on On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    Yes.  If the dem majority leader isn't where the buck stops on checking the president, I don't know where it is.  God, he had Bob Graham basically begging to be set loose and talk about the intelligence flaws, and Daschle shut him up, and lost the senate, the presidency, and his seat.  

  • comment on a post On Cutting Slack over 7 years ago

    This might be the best post that I've read on MyDD in a very long time.  Thank you Matt, and don't let some overly defensive commenters to scare you away.

  • That would require that Bush announce a goal that the war would supposedly accomplish.  Then, we could devise metrics to measure progress toward this goal.  

  • Same thing when they're named hero of the day.  It's strange.

  • once again, he was the former governor of Vermont.  

    Being against the war was the sine qua non of his candidacy.  That is my whole point.  Opposing the war was not courageous for him.  It was shrewd, intelligent, correct, just, and a ton of other things, but it was not courageous.  It was an obvious opening that he saw, took, and rode a long way.

  • Then how was Dean's position courageous?  The act that made him relevant was a precondition of him going anywhere.  That's what I mean by saying that he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by opposing the war.  Because he might lose either way, but there was only one way that he could possibly win.

  • Come on.  If Dean ran the exact same campaign, but took Kerry's position on the war, how much support do you think he would have garnered?  He would not have been on the map.  His position on the war was the reason that people began to look at him.  He would not have been relevant without opposing the war.  The other candidates were already establishment candidates with extensive press attention.

  • And who would support the former governor of Vermont without something major to get peoples' attention?  

  • In 2002, people were already talking about Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards like they were mainstream, legitimate candidates.  They voted for the war knowing that it was politically risky to oppose it.  They were already on the map for the Presidency.  Dean was not.  Dean was not a credible presidential candidate until he opposed the war.  

    Graham was indirect and wordy about why he opposed the war.  He was not communicative about his opposition, and paid the price.

    Kucinich was rabidly pro-life until the minute he decided to run for President, and is not telegenic, and spent more time complaining about the attention Dean was getting than he did actually making the case for why people should be voting for him.


Advertise Blogads