I generally concur with your last post. I was never all that enamored with Dean, given what I knew of his record when he essentially governed Vermont as a Rockefeller Republican. I can't for the life of me figure out why liberals flocked to him as some kind of savior of the left--silly misguided fools.

The media loves a long shot, until they can successfully cut the legs out from under him. The media is far more comfortable with elites from brahmin backgrounds though, hence the "compelling drama" of a horserace between the storied Skull n' Bones twins.

The persistent portrayal of Kerry's position as "moving right" on the Iraq issue is not exactly accurate. I think it is more accurate and honest to note that Mr. Kerry has merely acknowledged that if he wins the election, the Iraq conflict will still be raging. I think we all pretty much agree. Then, Mr. Kerry has acknowledged that leaving Iraq "in the lurch" would be about as harmful to them as attacking them to remove Saddam to begin with. So he acknowledges an "instant pullout" is not in Iraq's, or the rest of the world's best interest. His solution is to get the rest of the world to help financially and militarily. So Bush eats some crow doled out by the UN, and adopts Kerry's initiative. I think that is the correct course of action but have not tried to portray it as somehow "moving to the left" to irritate the Bushies.

To "move to the right" and adopt the Bush philosophy would require Mr. Kerry to agree the trip to Iraq was justified in some way or another, without a proven threat to the United States, before we went in there. I do not think he has done that. To acknowledge the world is not flat, and that the beginning of his administration will pick up from where George Bush left off, and then develop a rational approach to making the best of a bad situation is not all wrong. Or a sign of moving to the right.

If Kerry is licking Bush in the race, it is probably more due to Bush's policies than anything Kerry is actually doing, saying or "nuancing" at this point in time. I think many of us would like to know more about Kerry, but if this keeps up he is likely to remain more remote and inert than engaged, open and direct about his views. His recent experience has taught him to be less open. You cannot have your statements sliced and diced to your disadvantage if you don't make statements, I guess. Like lurching to the right and adopting the Bush point of view when you say something rational. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

I think what we're discussing here is the fact that Kerry voted to endorse Bush's 'blank check' to go to war, and now that he sees the taint and folly of his vote, he's scrambling to find a tenable middle ground between the pro-war and anti-war electorate--principles be damned. Rubber stamping a 'steady as she goes' imperialism-lite approach is lurching to the right in my book, whether it's articulated by the originator or inheritor of the policy.

To clarify, no one that I know of, even the aforementioned Kucinich or Nader are calling for the US to immediately "cut n' run", so Kerry has positioned himself against a convenient strawman policy in order to shield the inherent wishy-washiness of his actual post-Bush strategy. This has in effect, dampened enthusiasm amongst the anti-war Democrat faithful for their candidate, and could lead to voter fatigue and depressed electoral turnout if he doesn't start communicating a clear, principled and coherent set of foreign policies that sharply diverge from those of the current administration. Otherwise, he's toast.

I worked on Dean's campaign for a while, and became disenchanted with them quickly. He took off because he was the only one with an anti-war message among the major candidates, and his Internet-savvy campaign made him seem futuristic to a lot of demos who wanted a new weapon against Bush. He had every ingredient for a successful campaign, dedicated paid staff, fanatical volunteers, lots of contributors. The only problem was Dean. The first function I attended where he was actually there consisted of a rally followed by a hotel cocktail reception for contributors who were willing to pay a few bucks to get to shake his hand. The guy gave the exact same speech as he gave at the rally at the fat-cat cocktail thing, with the rants in all the same places, then hustled out. If you've ever seen Clinton in action, Dean was the polar opposite. Clinton would have hugged all the women personally, got up and told a homey story, and milked a few more thou from the crowd. I decided then there wasn't as they say, a lot of there, there when it came to Dean. Beyond the anti-war thing, he seemed like he just hadn't thought his candidacy out real well. His message became more erratic as time went on, and I think the guy just plain wasn't cut out for the prez job. I was in NH during the New Hampshire Primary, and got to meet most of the candidates. Of course, the best one out of the ones I got meet did not get nominated - John Edwards had the most relaxed, folksy crowd winning manner on the stump, and gave clear and reasoned speeches, and just did not come across as some bull**** politician, which unfortunately is how Kerry comes across. I think Edwards would have kicked Bush's ass.

I cant really vote on this poll. There isn't an appropriate answer.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

Aside from the Iraq thing, I had no beef with Dean. I like his fiscal conservatism. I also like his relationship with his wife. That kind of relationship wouldn't work for us (wife and me, not you and me), but both of them seem very happy with it and happy with each other. Its got to be especially difficult to have a stable relationship between two doctors. Throw politician in and that seems almost impossible.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

B

To bump it.

We'll miss you.

Posted by Botnst: Well now Joe, I guess since you're not the aggrieved party and nobody has requested your apparent talents for unbiased mediation, that just about renders almost anything you have to say about my perception of somebody else's comment directed at me, irrelevant.

Bot

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just violated our little agreement. I was commenting on Jim Smith's post; you commented on mine, which you had promised not to do--just as I had promised not to comment on yours. Now, apparently, all bets are off.

Joe B.

Posted by Botnst: Well now Joe, I guess since you're not the aggrieved party and nobody has requested your apparent talents for unbiased mediation, that just about renders almost anything you have to say about my perception of somebody else's comment directed at me, irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's irrelevant to you, that means it must have relevance in the real world.

Joe B.

All hat, no cattle:


Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said Monday that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

"He was a patron of terrorism," Cheney said of Hussein during a speech before The James Madison Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Florida. "He had long established ties with al Qaida."

In making the case for war in Iraq (news - web sites), Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

Cheney listed what he described as the accomplishments of the Bush administration in the war on terror, including fledgling democracies in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq; and the decision by Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., countered that the Bush administration had "a sorry record in the war on terror." Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke Sunday in a conference call arranged by John Kerry (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign in anticipation of Cheney's speech.

The State Department said last week it was wrong in stating that terrorism declined worldwide last year in a report that the Bush administration initially cited as evidence it was succeeding against terrorism, Graham noted. Both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department acknowledged

Sharp reposte.

Posted by Botnst: If it's irrelevant to you, that means it must have relevance in the real world.

Joe B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sharp reposte.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you.

Joe B.

You violated my interpretation of our agreement first! Nyah-nyah! Bbbbrbbrbrbrbrbmmrmmrbrbr!

B

However one characterizes Kerry's position, I believe that it is in a somewhat fluid state. Its my impression that he was working to atract the energized supporters following Dean by adopting some of Dean's perspective. This is what all politicians do to varying degrees.

Now that M. Kerry has locked-up the nominations, he knows that he has to appeal to the 10-20% of people who are moderate and uncommitted. A portion of them will be atracted by a more moderate tone on some issues that are red hot-buttons for the activists.

Bush is doing the same thing from the other side. He projects a moderate tone when he speaks. He says kind thinks about Democrats because it costs him nothing and may gain a few votes.

But I find M. Kerry's moderation greatly reassuring. If these two guys continue to temporize on their more radical supporters wacky ideas, their differences with disappear except for silly things like speaking style, food preferences, and shoe size.

B