Democratic Primaries

With Iowa caucuses less than a week away, I was wondering how people on this board would vote.

Braun (whose name I have misspelled) has withrawn from the race, so that is no longer an option.

Gephardt has also witrhdawn, leaving 7 candidates for New Hampshire.

I'm torn between Gephardt and Edwards. I don't like Dean very much but he will get the nomination and I will vote for him in the general election.

KUCINICH FOR PRES

I am going to vote for Kucinich, he is the only candidate to actually take a stand without watering it down in order to appeal to as many people as possible. Not only is he against this terrible war but he is the only candidate to want to reduce the defense budget, we have enough ways to kill each other we don't need more. He has stated that he wants to use some of the $ from the defense budget to fund decent health care for Vets - that's what won me over.
Seems to me that everyone wants to "support the troops" till they get home and need health care; then it is all red tape and attitude. I volunteer at a soup kitchen and shelter run by my church and at least 80% of our clients are Vets, most of whom are just too sick and too tired to deal with the VA red tape. Lets really "support the troops" and take decent care of them when they come home!
That's my rant for today

peace
moonpie

moonpie,

being a constituent of Kucinich, i obviously can't vote in the iowa affair. don't really know how i'd vote if i were. and i actually like dennis k.

david letterman had a skit about his favorite iraqi, baghdad bob. an "ad" for bob's new tv show, where he tells more lies, including a prediction that kucinich will be the next president of the united states.

i do give dennis credit for saying the things the others are not bold enough to say and sticking up for liberal values. it is so sad that caring about your fellow man and how we all treat each other is now so politically incorrect just where is all that compassion that george w promised in his campaign? can't tell it from where i'm sitting.

Moonpie...

I totally agree with you on the sad state of how we treat our vets. A friend of mine's father is in a VA hospital, and I went on a visit once. I was appalled by the depressing atmosphere. If the quality of care is anything like the quality of the environment, I don't know how these people stay alive.

I read something several months ago that struck a cord with me. Obviously all of this involves tragic circumstances, and the "best world" would be the world where none of these tragedies ever happen. But when 9/11 occured, there was a huge effort on the part of the government and also the population and celebreties to raise money to help the families of the people who tragically lost their lives. But the families of people who lose their lives in military service are living below the poverty line if they have nothing else to rely on but the pension and other minimal benefits that our soldiers are entitled to. There is something really sad to me about that.

I totally recognize the difference between someone who voluntarily joins the military knowing they could be sent into a war and could lose their life, and the innocent bystanders who were victims of 9/11. I think the point still remains that collectively as a country, we have a long way to go in "supporting our troops" in meaningful ways.

DG

pairsfan said:

I'm torn between Gephardt and Edwards. I don't like Dean very much but he will get the nomination and I will vote for him in the general election.

Click to expand...

If I had to choose between Gephardt and Edwards, I would certainly go with Edwards. I still think, actually, that he has a good shot at the nomination -- all we hear now is Iowa and New Hampshire, but once we get to the Southern states it should all change. I really don't like Gephardt, though. I presents some suggestions as plausible even though they are plain impossible (international minimum wage, for instance). Also, I don't like the fact that he used to be so socially conservative (against abortion, for school prayer), but then changed back in 1988.

MOONPIE48 said:

I am going to vote for Kucinich, he is the only candidate to actually take a stand without watering it down in order to appeal to as many people as possible.

Click to expand...

I appreciate Kusinich's role in the debate (reminds people we are actually talking about the DEMOCRATIC party), but I would not want him to be our president. In particular, I think denying globalization is like burrying your head in the sand. I want the president to acknowledge the problems it causes the US, but NOT retreat in pseudo-isolationist policies. Also, even though I am 100% against the Iraq war, I did think the Afghanistan campaign was justified. I wish we handled it somewhat differently, but I think it was something we HAD TO do. Then again, I did NOT think Clinton's Kosovo campaign was justified, and the only politician who agrees with me there is Colin Powell.

I hardly know anything about any of them. I just know I won't vote for Bush.

While I consider myself a demoncrat I think it will be difficult to
defeat Bush this coming year. The economy's growing, they
captured Sadam...

I like both Kerry and Edwards however and would like to see them on the same ticket.


Whoa... Dean's speech. " WE'RE GOING TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND
SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH DAKOTA AND ARIZONA ....MICHIGAN!"

jenny12 said:

While I consider myself a demoncrat I think it will be difficult to
defeat Bush this coming year.

Click to expand...

Yes, very difficult, but not impossible

The economy's growing,

Click to expand...

... yet unemployment is not dropping. We've been hearing for the past 6 months or so that economy is great, but where are those jobs?! Besides, what happened to balancing the budget?!!! Not to mention that the current tax policy does NOTHING to alleviate the pressure on the poor.

they captured Sadam...

Click to expand...

Happy as I am to see this tyrant where he belongs, I don't see what that does for US security. Now, if they captured Bin Laden -- that would have been another story. Just this week we have reached 500 Americans killed in Iraq. That's a terrifying number, with no end in sight. And that doesn't even take into account almost 3000 wounded. Though, just to fair, I have to say that I am not too confident that a Democratic president at this point could change much.

I like both Kerry and Edwards however and would like to see them on the same ticket.

Click to expand...

I think they are too much alike to be on the same ticket. I think once the primaries are over, Clark will join the winner as the vice president.

Whoa... Dean's speech. " WE'RE GOING TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH DAKOTA AND ARIZONA ....MICHIGAN!"

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a little over the top to say the least. He is still my choice though

Clark would make a fine Vice-President, but his public speaking skills need so much work. He seems genuine, but I find it difficult to take him seriously when he is stammering through generalized CNN interviews. As for Dean's speech, well, yeah, it was definitely over the top. I appreciate his passion and intensity, but he should save it for a more opportune moment.
As for Bush, my only serious gripe is the "No Child Left Behind" crap. It seems like a great idea...until you are the one responsible for the test scores of 30 children that are reading at 30 different levels. Forget teacher-student relationships, etc. You are too busy making sure the blade of the test score axe doesn't sever your head and position!

BronzeisGolden, I think it is VERY important for people with personal experience like yours to speak out. Even though I am very anti-Bush (don't like his tax policy, foreign policy, and social policy) I have generally been in favor of "No child left behind", provided of course that it received adequate funding, particularly because I believe Democrats have really failed on the education issue. Experiences like yours give it a different view point.

Might be OT...

....I was mortified by the news reports over the last couple days about some of the "pork" in the Federal budget recently passed. It appears that Democrats and Republicans are both guilty. I don't see why everyone's hard earned money from across the US should be used for things like:

* an indoor rain forest in Iowa
* a commuter train from somewhere to the Mall of America in MN
* catering and other expenses for a state event in Alaska

There are hundreds if not more of these types of projects within the Federal Budget. In my opinion these types of expenditures should be determined by the voters at the local / state level.

BronzeisGolden raises a very good example of how bad I think the Federal Government is at addressing problems with money. I don't think our Federal Government is very good at tightly managing financial and program resources to get the maximum positive result. There is not doubt in my mind that we have serious education issues in this country. But throwing more money at the problem at a Federal level doesn't seem to be working.

So...I will summarize my two big fiscal beefs:

* Federal money being used for projects that are clearly state / local based.

* Inept management of Federal resources (money, people, etc.) that winds up being wasteful spending because the intended results just don't happen.

So...Democrat or Rebublican, I'd sure like to see some changes. Don't know if this would turn out any better, but I'd like to see taxation shifted. Limit what the Federal Government takes responsibility for (i.e. National Defense, Infrastructure, etc.) and reduce the tax burden accordingly. Shift some of that taxation to the state / local level where all of us would be "closer to the action" in terms of how those dollars are used and accountability for project / program success.

I know, I'm dreaming.

DG