I'm disappointed . . . . .

[MrFun]

with some of the political tactics by some of the Democratic candidates.


First off, the Democratic candidates that criticized the Bush administration in the past for not having caught Saddam Huissen, was a dumb move -- he was going to get caught eventually, we just did not know when.

So now, Dean and others who barked about this, have to do an about-face.



Sometimes I wonder if these Democratic candidates -- including the three I support the most, are deliberately setting themselves up to lose in 2004.

They need to lay off with their anti-war rhetoric. In fact, as long it would not hurt their own campaigns, they could have been good sports, and have briefly complimented the Bush administration on this job well done (Saddam's capture), then move onto other issues.



Maybe my faith in Dean, Lieberman, or Kerry will rejuvenate later on. We can't have Bush for president for ANOTHER four years.

[Agathon]

Why don't you just vote for Bush then.

He'll make you people illegal.

Come to Canada, you can download music off the internet, smoke pot and be gay and nobody cares.

YAY CANADA!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Sure, capturing Saddam is a good thing, but not significant. Attacks continue after that, which is a very strong indication.

[MrFun]

Urban -- the Democratic candidates are not doing themselves any favor by breathing fire with anti-war rhetoric when we are making significant progress in Iraq.

Even with future attacks that might even intensify, this was a significant success (Saddam's capture) -- I think the Democratic candidates should have given a brief, complimentary nod to the Bush administration to give themselves more respectability.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Mr. Fun, take it from someone twice your age and on your side of the political fence: you'll eventually learn that "I'm disappointed" and "I'm a Democrat" are synonymous phrases.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Urban -- the Democratic candidates are not doing themselves any favor by breathing fire with anti-war rhetoric when we are making significant progress in Iraq.

Significant progress? Not from where I am standing (rather, sitting). GWB has too many areas that can be open to attacks, e.g. handling of Enron and Microsoft, the Hilaburton scandal, the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, etc.

Don't forget, the US put Saddam where he was.

[MrFun]

True, Urban -- that was one of my points earlier -- there are other issues besides excessively barking about Bush's policies in Iraq. If they have criticisms, the Democrats better make damn sure they actually have VALID points to make.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Mr. Fun, take it from someone twice your age and on your side of the political fence: you'll eventually learn that "I'm disappointed" and "I'm a Democrat" are synonymous phrases.

[Urban Ranger]

Agreed @ Mr Fun.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Agreed @ Mr Fun.

McGovern. Carter. Mondale. Dukakis. The Jim Wright/Tony Coehlo scandals. Gore. The 1994 midterm elections. The 2002 midterm elections.

Clinton? The failure of Don't Ask/Don't Tell. The health care debacle. Welfare "reform." The aspirin-factory bombing. "I did not have sex with that woman." "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

? Damned straight. Luckily, in addition to being raised a Democrat, I was raised a Catholic -- so I understand that suffering is just my lot in life

[Imran Siddiqui]

And they may be screwing themselves again if they nominate Dean. I understand getting someone to somewhat energize the base, but with so many disappointed moderate Republicans, someone who acts closer to the center would be a FAR better choice.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And they may be screwing themselves again if they nominate Dean. I understand getting someone to somewhat energize the base, but with so many disappointed moderate Republicans, someone who acts closer to the center would be a FAR better choice.

Agreed, but you also need to energize the base; the results of the failure to do so in 2000 and 2002 is proof enough of that. Unfortunately, the current candidates who are closer to the center couldn't energize a 14-year-old boy if they had a copy of Hustler in one hand and a next-generation PlayStation in the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is 're-energizing' the base was a silly goal in 2000 and 2002. In 2000, you had 8 years of Democrat leadership which made the Dems fat and happy. No one would energize that, really. In 2002, you had the 9/11 fallout (brilliant political play by Rove), which you still couldn't do anything about.

All the candidates in the center (I'm looking at Kerry) would have to do is to explain the issues and show he knows them. Plenty of moderates who are disgusted with Bush would flock to him.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And they may be screwing themselves again if they nominate Dean. I understand getting someone to somewhat energize the base, but with so many disappointed moderate Republicans, someone who acts closer to the center would be a FAR better choice.

Actually, Dean has widespread grass-roots support so once he is nominated, I think he could make a strong candidate -- if he just plays his cards right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He'll get slaughtered, Mr Fun. He's a Dukakis for our times.