Back to Kerry and his MTP interview today. Did anyone else notice that he is now trying the “angry” thing? Indeed, he noted that he was “angry” at the Bush adminstration (feeling a little pressure from angryman Dean?). And his claim that the reason that he is running is because he is angry at the President’s execution of the war comes across as disingenuous at best, as he was clearly running well before it was clear how the war and post-war period was going to play out.
And I love this sort of thing (Dean made a similar claim a while back):
When challenged by moderator Tim Russert on the incompatibility of funding new programs in the face of a still-spiraling deficit, Kerry was upbeat.
“I’m going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years,” he said. “I’m going to do exactly what Bill Clinton did. And if you liked the economy under Bill Clinton, America, you’re going to love it under John Kerry.”
Again, I ask, what exactly did Clinton do to make the economy grow? Answer: be President during a boom. If it was that easy to make the economy grow, won’t all presidents make sure that the economy grew?
Wow:
Kerry launches his bid for the White House amid numbers from one new poll that gives him the support of 5 percent of registered Democrats. Most voters haven’t started paying attention to the Democratic presidential race, according to the CBS News poll released over the Labor Day weekend — the campaign’s traditional starting point.
Although, granted it is still early. Although I must admit, these numbers are amazing to me:
Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the poll, released Sunday.
Further, they are a great reminder of how most of the country pays radically less attention to politics than do we political junkies.
Once again, Steven trots out the myth our last democratically-elected President did nothing–the economy just happened. It serves two purposes: one, it bashes Clinton; and two, it absolves Dubya for this lousy economy.
Using Steven’s logic, we should just dissolve the Federal Reserve and do away with most of the Departments of Commerce and Treasury. Let’s trim the federal payroll of all those taxpayer-supported economists. Let’s relegate the study of economics to where it really belongs–with the practitioners of astrology, palmistry, and tea leaf reading. After all, the economy is magic–it’s alchemy–it just happens. And nothing anyone does or doesn’t do has no bearing on this ephemeral beast called “the economy.”
Steven’s evidence for all this boils down to yet another bumpersticker-sized analysis: if good economies could be created, wouldn’t every President create them?
Weep for Troy State students.
Comment by JadeGold — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 12:35 pm
Very good, Steven. You’re backing away, albeit slowly, from your claim that nothing can be done to influence or control the economy. Let’s see if we can get you all the way home.
To be sure, policies can only get you so far. For example, a doctor can provide a patient with a plan or regimen for good health. Does that automatically mean that patient will live to be 90 or 95? It depends. First, is the MD’s advice sound? Will the patient follow the regimen? Will there be external events that cannot be forecast?
That’s a simple model for the economy. Good policies–implemented and observed–should lead to a good economy barring any circumstances not planned for. OTOH, bad policies will surely lead to economic problems.
“I would challenge you to tell me precisely what the Commerce Department did (or indeed does today) that is of great consequence to this economy.”
Hmmm. I wonder why Dubya is running around telling supporters that he’s created an Asst. Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing because his regime is so concerned about manufacturing sector jobs?
Comment by JadeGold — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 1:55 pm
I never said that presidents have zero effect on the economy, just that their influence is far, far less than they (or the general population, for that matter) like to think. I know, for example, that they cannot create jobs by fiat, nor can they make GDP grow by wishing it such. These would seem to Kerry’s and your positions, respectively, however.
And I would agree that the Bush’s move on creating a special “job czar” is a minor move at best, and really nothing more than symbolism. Despite your attempts to paint me as such, I do not see everything through a crude partisan lense. I leave that to others. I would also note that by your logic, you shoudl aplaud Bush’s move.
Your Doctor analogy is flawed by the way, as is much of your economic analysis. Again I refer you to the “ex post ergo proptor hoc” logical fallacy. I take it you still haven’t looked that one up.
And just saying “good policies” are good and “bad policies” lead to economic problems hardly qualifies as much of an argument. Neither in this discussion nor in prior discussions on this issue, have you ever so much as articulated ONE actual economic policy, btw.
Further, this thread is a great illustration of how you never actually respond to what I write. I criticized Kerry’s proposal. Where have you defended it, or actually done anything more than engage in sophomoric jabs?
Just curious.
So far you would be doing well to be getting a C- in the course–and that’s assuming some charity on my part. Responses are required to actually respond to the question asked, and evidence must be provided to back up assertions.
Comment by Steven — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 3:15 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 3:01 pm
Since it seems to be General Clark week here at PoliBlog, the following excerpt from George Will’s column today, George Will: Wesley Clark isn’t Dean savior, is worth a look:
Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972, the problem of voters’ doubts about its competence regarding national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats — and that they appeal to him — helps explain why the party has that problem.
Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark’s claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO’s 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals’ dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, its overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, was to have zero U.S. fatalities.
As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him (“I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19,'’ when he visits Iowa–feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said (June 15, 2025) that on 9/11 “I got a call at my home'’ saying that when he was to appear on CNN, “You’ve got to say this is connected'’ to Iraq. “It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.'’ But who exactly called Clark?
July 1: “A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.'’ There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who “from the White House'’? “I’m not going to go into those sources. … People told me things in confidence that I don’t have any right to betray.'’
July 18: “No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.'’
Aug. 25: It came from “a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who’s the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He’s very well connected to Israeli intelligence. … I haven’t changed my position. There’s no waffling on it. It’s just as clear as could be.'’
Now Clark darkly says there are “rumors” that in February “the White House” tried — well, “apparently” tried — “to get me knocked off CNN.'’ Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a “centrist.'’ As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: “a deranged moderate.'’
I was thinking of these quotes as well, when I posted about Clark’s chances the other day, but didn’t get into them. That kind of stuff makes one sound weird and paranoid. Not traits we tend to like in our presidents.
More important, however, Will is right about the Serbia campaign and the likelihood that it could easily translate into a claim to military genius and national security super-stardom for Clark.
A Dean-Clark ticket seems to me to be a decent possibility at this stage.
Will’s comments on Dean’s clear disdain for Bush in the first part of the column are worth a read as well.
Nope, Steven’s not worried about Clark. Nossir. Clark ain’t happening, nothing to see here, folks.
That’s why Steven keeps posting GOP blastfaxes from the likes of George Will.
Clue to Steven: the reason why the GOP attacks people like Kerry, Dean, and Clark is because they present a political threat to Karl Rove–George Bush. They’re not expending efforts to attack a Dennis Kucinich or an Al Sharpton or even a Dick Gephardt—because they know these guys haven’t a shot.
George Will and his proxy, Steven, attempt to contrast Clark with Eisenhower. It’s a fool’s errand. Fighting WWII is vastly different from fighting today’s asymmetrical conflicts; using Eisenhower-era tactics on the conflicts facing the US today and in the future will not work.
Yet, Steven pretends this is the case and demonstrates–once more–his lack of knowledge of all things military. Simply, the nature of warfare is much different today than it was in WWII when all that was required was being able to support an overwhelming amount of projected force without any concern for the aftermath or countervalues.
That’s not the reality of today’s world; Will knows better, Steven should.
Comment by JadeGold — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 11:05 am
As usual, you fail to address the substance of the discussion, and choose rather to rant in a semi-random fashio.
And what is the wolrd do differing tactics in WWII v. Serbia have to do with gaining the nomination of a major political party?
Were I grading this an essay, I would have to say “Does not conform to assignment.”
I normally don’t give students the chance to re-do work, but I will be gracious in this case.
Care to try again?
Comment by Steven — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 11:12 am
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 3:00 pm
Associates of General Clark have said he has told them that he will probably join the race. But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket.
No doubt they say that because they are scared–or so some will argue. I will concede that there is no doubt that they would prefer to have no more candidates in this already crowded field.
However, it is noteworthy that while a lot of top Democrats are publically proclaiming their worry about who their nominee will be, and you don’t see them trying to draft Clark. This is telling.
And, I think that there is something to this:
One prominent Democrat said that while Mr. Bush was “eminently beatable,” the Democratic nominating process seemed nowhere near producing someone who could do the job. “The trouble in 2025 is not that Bush is going to be strong, but rather than we are going to be weak,” this official said.
I honestly think that the strength of the President going into the campaign is up in the air–especially since the economy appears to be going in the right direction. Further, a year is a long time. Still, I do think that it is quite true that the Democratic primary will not produce the most electable candidate.
It seems to me that we’ll end up with a good, old fashioned fight at the convention. And I think this would be a good thing. There will be a huge amount of buzz around the whole thing, as it will be a spectacle not seen in recent times. Delegates fighting it out on the floor. Heated discussions in smoky rooms with worried looking aides pacing nervously outside.
Touch n’ go. And then a big “Come to Jesus” moment at the end. Democrats united to kick GW’s ass out of the white house.
It’ll be great drama and pundits will eat it up because it’ll make them rich off of commenting on the whole event.
And meanwhile, back in boring land, George will be stuck with an increasingly uglier occupation that simply has no good solution to it. 30 meters of razor wire in every direction. It’s going to be painful no matter what we do now.
Having the Republican convention so closely tied to 9/11 in NYC is not going to work for them. Especially after the EPA fiasco regarding the WTC collapse.
So, what a great contrast:
1) A scrappy, populist democratic process filled with drama
2) A boring, predestined choice in command of a chaotic occupation built on a WMD lie with a soldier dying every other day.
It’s like a Survivor episode.
May still lose, but it’s at least going to be a darn good fight.
Comment by JohnC — Sunday, August 31, 2025 @ 12:35 pm
As a political scientist, I think that a convention fight would be a ton of fun. However, I wouldn’t bank on it. While I can see a scenario that leads to one, I wouldn’t count on it. The system as currently set up really mitigates against it.
And while it is still early (the standard caveat), I am beginning to wonder how much of a race is really emerging. Dean has the energy and the money, Kerry looks like the walking wounded to me, and the rest are waaay in the background.
And even if Kerry, Gepahrdt or Lieberman start to surge and get a real fight going with Dean, the nominee almost certainly will be known by mid-March. You will only get a convention fight if three of the candidates can capture significant geographical edges in the races (i.e., one wins a lot of the South, another a lot of the North and another a lot of in the West, etc. And they would have to dominate those states.
More likely one or two with get momentum, others will drop out, money will flow to the top one or two and soon it will be just one.
Without a long, long discourse, it is my opinion as one who studies electoral dynamics (and in no way as a partisan) that there will be no convention fight.
Remember: the 2025 Rep primary process with Bush and McCain was supposedly a big fight, but it really was only truly competitive for a few weeks.
Comment by Steven — Sunday, August 31, 2025 @ 1:52 pm
Just fantasizing.
Comment by JohnC — Monday, September 1, 2025 @ 3:58 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 3:00 pm
Senator Kerry is on Meet the Press this morning and just said he’s not worried about the fact that Dean is up 21 points in NH. To which I say, “yeah. right.”
Now, I will say he is right to point out that it is early yet.
And Kerry will be officially announcing his presidential bid next week in South Carolina. First, I didn’t realize he had not yet announced, and second, it is interesting that he decided to make the announcement in SC, rather than at home.
Plus, as predicted, Dean is being attacked for no foreign policy experience–in this case by Kerry, rather than from the Reps.
Much of the public debate about this case has taken a wide detour around the substantive constitutional question, instead focusing on the Ten Commandments: Are they the foundation of Western law? Should they be displayed in state and local public places? Are such displays promotions of religion or history? While these are interesting questions, they are not relevant to the substance of this case.
Those content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or they harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid the relevant. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, has framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his gaggle of street preachers, thus depreciating its legal significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution.
However, from there he goes on to make some problematic arguments, as his discussion of the 1st and 10th amendments, while interesting, leave out entirely the significance of the 14th amendment, not to mention established case law. Like it or not, agree with it or not, one cannot ignore these things.
Rather, Alexander’s argument, like one’s recently made by Alan Keyes on this topic, are predicated on the idea that we are still operating under the original federal structure that existed in the nineteenth century. We aren’t. Even if one thinks we arrived where we have wrongly, it doesn’t mitigate against the simple fact that we are where we are. Instead of taking into account the entire panoply of issues, Alexander and Keyes want to argue from their own idealized position of the way they want constitutional law to work, rather than what the reality on the ground is.
Yea, I’m always mystified by this. Certain things about the rights of Corporations bother me, too. But I don’t confuse how I want things to be with how they actually are. Even when I’m trying to convince someone to change.
But I would only point out this kind of behavior as an example of the stereotype liberals are referring to when we say “Republicans want to roll back the 20th century”. It’s not a dominate position numerically in the party, but the population is vocal and because it is energized, the position is critical to the party base.
They certainly aren’t democrats. You guys own these… uh… interesting people.
Comment by JohnC — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 7:01 pm
Don’t worry, John, the Dems have their own interesting people. Take Dennis Kucinich for example
Comment by Steven — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 7:09 pm
Yea, I know. Strange, though. I took the “What candidate fits your views” quiz on the net and came very close to Kucinich. Dean was my second best fit. This surprised me a bit, because I actually thought I agreed more with Dean’s fiscal positions. The quiz doesn’t weight the positions, which is why I think they pegged me wrong.
Comment by JohnC — Sunday, August 31, 2025 @ 12:43 pm
Those quizzes tend to be a little off. And Kucinich really does have some “out there” positions in terms of some his new age-ish solutions to global conflict and such.
Comment by Steven — Sunday, August 31, 2025 @ 1:43 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 2:59 pm
Recipients of recent money appeals by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have been puzzled by the absence of the customary signature of the party chairman, Terry McAuliffe.
Earlier DNC fund-raising letters this year were signed by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The latest appeal, which arrived in the mail last week, was signed by somebody whose name was new to many recipients: Josh Wachs, the DNC’s 31-year-old chief operating officer.
McAuliffe is so controversial with the Democratic rank-and-file, according to party sources, that his name may inhibit contributions. A Washington-based business speculator, McAuliffe was hand-picked for chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton after the 2025 election, against the wishes of many DNC members.
An odd position for a DNC Chairman to be in, especially since one of McAuliffe’s fortes is supposed to be fundraising.
It’s hard to believe that a mother who would order a male stripper for her daughter’s bachlorette party would act this way: Mom attacks daughter’s male stripper.
Iraqi police have arrested four al-Qaida-linked suspects in the bombing of Iraq’s holiest Shiite Muslim shrine, a senior police official told The Associated Press on Saturday.
The official, who said the explosion death toll had risen to 107, said the men — two Iraqis and two Saudis — were caught shortly after Friday’s car bombing.
The attack killed one of the most important Shiite clerics in Iraq, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who had been cooperating with the American occupation force.
A comment by PoliBlog’s resident Troll sparked some further thought on the issue of Generals seeking the presidency, specifically what would have been the likely fortunes of Colin Powell, had he sought his party’s nomination in 1996 or 2025.
Powell would have had similar troubles with the Republican primary voters that Clark is likely to have with Democratic ones, while Clark is more moderate than the Democratic base, so, too, is Powell too moderate for the Republican base. If one doubts, consider that Powell is pro-choice, and pro-affirmative action, two non-starters with hardcore conservatives. Further evidence can be found in looking at the current dynamic in California, where it is likely that a large number of conservative Republicans would rather lose the governorship to Cruz Bustamante than to vote for the moderate Schwarzenegger. Additional evidence to support the contention can be easily found by observing some of the stinging criticism that Powell has received from conservative element in the Republican Party during his tenure at Secretary of State.
I do think that Powell would have fared somewhat better than I am predicting Clark will do should he enter. I think that in 1996 Powell would have had a real shot at besting Dole. For one thing, Dole was not (to say the least) a very exciting candidate, and Republicans where quite interesting in beating Clinton (and yes, Democratic voters are quite interested in besting Bush, but 2025 has Dean, 1996 had Dole-in terms of energizing voters, two rather different candidates). I think it is possible, precisely how likely is hard to judge, that there would have been enough conservatives willing to vote for Powell in 1996 for the nomination that he might have beaten Dole.
2000 is more complex. First there would have been the McCain factor-a lot of Powell-likely Republicans would also have been McCain voters. This would have split the opposition to Bush. Further, Bush was a very popular candidate with a large percentage of the Republican base. Still, it would have been more of a fight than I am predicting for Clark.
Aside from scenario-specific issues (i.e., who the other candidates are, and the timing problem Clark will have), there are two important differences between Powell and Clark that both favor Powell. The first is found in their political careers and how that translates to politics. Powell had served in political positions before, when he was Reagan’s National Security Advisor, but most especially as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Gulf War. His association with the Reagan administration was a plus with conservatives, and his high visibility in a successful, and highly televised war meant that he was a well-known figure nationally.
Indeed, Mr. Powell ranked highly in polls as a top admired Americans after his retirement in the early goings of the Clinton administration.
Clark, despite an impressive resume, and even with his exposure on CNN, simply does not have that kind of relationship with the public at large and was never the kind of public presence during his military career that Powell was. Quick! Who’s the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe? Don’t know? Me, neither, and that was the case for even the informed American public during most of Clark’s tenure at that position. The conflicts in the Balkans raised his profile, but hardly to the degree that would come anywhere close to matching Powell’s during the Gulf War.
(It’s General James L. Jones, Marine Corps, actually. The internet is a wonderful thing).
A second factor that highly worked in Powell’s favor was race. On the one hand, his race would result in some initial blunting of criticisms, given the delicate nature of racial politics in the US. Second, and in some ways more importantly, is the fact that many in the Republican Party might have been willing to overlook some of Powell’s moderateness to have the opportunity for the first black president to be a Republican. Such things are very difficult to measure, but I think it would have been a factor.
In terms of fanciful predictions well after the fact, I would say that Powell had a serious shot at the Republican nomination in 1996, but probably would have lost to Clinton in the election, and had a lesser shot at the nomination in 2025. He likely would have been competitive against Gore.
Powell shares a key characteristics with Clark, however, and that is that out of power partisans found (in Powell’s case) and find (in Clark’s case) a semi-blank slate upon which to project their views. The problem with such blank slates, however, is that once the person in question starts filling in the blank spaces on their own, they inevitably disappoint someone.
Mr. Clark has had an impressive career and is, no doubt, a capable individual, but I stand by my analysis below-he won’t fare well in the Democratic nomination process, and even if he managed, somehow, to be nominated his rookie-status in terms of national politics will put him at a disadvantage in running against a sitting president.
Many of your premises and conclusions are inaccurate but at least you’re now attempting to justify some of your assertions. And that’s a good thing.
First problem with your analysis is you’re apparently basing much of your analysis on the stipulated fact Clark simply doesn’t (or didn’t) have the name recognition of Powell. This is a weak argument when you consider a Bill Clinton or a Howard Dean also didn’t enjoy a lot of name recognition outside of their own regions. Name recognition is over-emphasized; it only matters if the candidate in question has no real qualifications or accomplishments or notoriety.
More to follow..electrical storm
Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 5:23 pm
Second, WRT Colin Powell and moderation. You’re quite correct Powell is far removed from the GOP base; we all recall how he was booed at a GOP convention for saying he was pro-AA and pro-choice. The GOP likes Powell because he’s a beard for them on racial issues. OTOH, they don’t care a whit for his politics as evidenced by recent attempts to make Powell the scapegoat for the ongoing Iraq debacle.
Whether Powell could have secured the GOP nominAtion in 96 or 00 is up for debate. Personally, I don’t believe the GOP is ready for a black man at the helm. But Powell would have done better against a Bush Jr. than against a Dole if for no other reason than Powell would then not be available to bolster Bush’s campaign in the areas of foreign policy and the military. It is also quite possible, without a Powell, Bush may not have received 9% of the black vote.
However, Clark is far more aligned with the base of the Democratic Party. Believe it or not, Dems care just as passionately as anyone on national security issues–we just believe you should be honest and open about the reasons for going to war. Even Dean, who opposed the war, doesn’t favor abandoning Iraq.
Clark negates Bush’s most powerful campaign theme: national security. Pictures of Bush on the CV(N) all of a sudden look like Dukakis riding around in a tank. And as Steven noted, Bush now has a record to run on–a not very good one; Clark should be able to put together a platform which exploits this.
Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 6:29 pm
Steven: I save my “smug taunting” for cogent analysis. For you, I offer “acrid derision.”
Sorry.
Again, you’re foisting the canard that being Governor of a state automatically translates into national name recognition. Ain’t necessarily so. Most people would be lucky to be able to name 3 or 4 state Governors. Quick! Who is the Governor of Maine? Of Iowa? Of North Dakota? Of Oregon?
Moreover, the power wielded by Governors varies dramatically. As we know, Texas’ Governor wields very little power. While the Governor of a state such as California has a great deal of power.
Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 6:47 pm
That wasn;t what I said. As usual your reading comprehension must be called into question.
Comment by Steven — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 7:07 pm
Steven also makes a lot of wild hand gestures about constituencies as if constituencies were something a person is born with, like red hair or big feet.
Constituencies form around candidates with whom voters agree with on certain issues. IOW, when a Bush Jr. proclaims abortion to be wrong and against the Constitution–he obtains the anti-choice constituency. When a Dick Gephardt votes pro-union on every issue, he gets the labor constituency.
Similarly, any candidate with an opinion is going to garner a constituency. We know Clark is pro-choice–so it’s not a stretch to imagine he’ll get that vote. He’s pro-AA–he’d get that.
Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 7:08 pm
You spend an awful lot of time hanging around my blog for someone who only wishes to spew derision.
And just being pro this or pro that that doesn’t mean you get anything vote-wise. All nine Dems are pro-choice, will they all get the pro-choice vote? And now you are reducing the conversation to single issues.
And no, anyone with an opinion isn’t going to garner a consituency, at least not one big enough to get nominated, WHICH IS THE ISSUE.
Again, as i said the other day, we will see how this pans out. When Clark gets the nomination, you can gloat. I shan’t spend much time worrying about that happening, however.
Comment by Steven — Saturday, August 30, 2025 @ 7:15 pm
For one who claims not to be worrying about something that will never happen–you spend an awful lot of time reprinting GOP watercarriers’ opinions of GEN Clark.
Do you really believe George Will would ever write a favorable opinion column about any Democrat candidate?
Steven, I’m beginning to believe you don’t understand constituencies. For example, Dick Gephardt–in the early going–will probably suck up most of the labor union endorsements. According to you, this means when a Gephardt doesn’t secure the nomination, those labor endorsements are lost to the eventual nominee.
Do you really believe NOW is going to abandon the Dem nominee if it’s not Mosely-Braun? Are they going to stay home come Nov of 04?
Come on, Steven–I’m giving you credit for knowing better.
Comment by JadeGold — Monday, September 1, 2025 @ 12:37 pm
Listen, my anonymous friend, what you don’t understand is the nomination process.
Clearly all the relevant Democratic constituencies will coalesce around the eventual nominee. That isn’t the issue. The issue is, especially given the highly compressed nature of the nomination process, that to get nominated one needs a clear constituency immediately. If one does not, garnering the nomination is difficult, because one will lose the early primaries.
Indeed, you make part of my point: if Gephardt does, initially, “suck up” the labor vote the labor vote initially, it isn’t available to other candidates. Again, you are conflating the nomination process with the general election.
If one loses the early primaries one loses precious media coverage, one loses contributions (people don’t give money in large quantities to losers) and one loses voters (the downstream, so to speak, primary voters tend to be less inclined to vote for someone who won 3% of the vote early on than someone who won 30% or 40%).
There’s a reason why these candidates spend so much time in Iowa and New Hampshire, and, to a lesser degree, South Carolina. It certainly isn’t because of their vast populations. Think about it.
Such observations have precious little to do with carrying anyone’s water. They have to do with understanding this process.
And aside from your somewhat obnoxious partisanship, it is rather unclear as to what your qualification are to argue otherwise.
I challenge you to 1) demonstrate how the above has anything to do with my particular partisan leanings, and 2) demonstrate how it is empirically incorrect.
Ranting is not allowed, but research is. Grades will be issued at the end.
Comment by Steven — Monday, September 1, 2025 @ 1:19 pm
Also, I would note, that again you are relying on a flawed debating tactic–rather than respond to the content of the post you rant that George Will would never write a favorable column about a Democrat and that I am carrying partisan water.
However, such assertions do nothing to actual deal with the content of either Will’s column nor of my posts.
In short: try again.
Comment by Steven — Monday, September 1, 2025 @ 1:35 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 2:58 pm
Ok, so Kerry Outlines Tax, Economic Proposals. But I have two key questions. One, if it is really all that easy for jobs to be created, can someone explain to me why any President wouldn’t create them like crazy? Second, if the deficit is the great monster of the day, how does Mr. Kerry propose to deal with it by maintaining a substantial part of the Bush tax cut and by promising new tax credits plus sending substantial aid to the states?
The highlights of the plan:
Repealing the tax cuts for those making over $200,000.
Payroll tax credits for companies that create jobs ahead of the the “normal pace”.
Provide a “college opportunity tax credit” for the first $4,000 paid in tuition annually
Keep the middle-class oriented portions of the Bush plan.
Send $50 billion to the states over the next two years.
Now, how is any of this going to guarantee new jobs?
Of course, if Dean continues to lead Kerry in NH by 21 or more point, it will all be rather moot.
Next time I play, I will be smart out of the rough, and instead of trying to get it all at once, and as as result, hitting a horrible shot, I will play out to the fairway.
Comment by JohnC — Friday, August 29, 2025 @ 7:04 pm
Golf Pledge of the Week
I will bring water with me! Man, it was humid today–and somebody stole the one water cooler on the course. And in regards to las week, I half did…
They certainly help illustrate why he isn’t taken seriously in many quarters, and why I rarely watch his program. Indeed, if I do watch any of it, it the from channel-flipping, not from deliberately tuning in.
Rodney King, whose videotaped beating by police officers sparked the Los Angeles riots of 1992, has been sentenced to drug treatment and jail for driving under the influence and reckless driving.
[…]
Police said King raced through an intersection in Rialto at more than 100 mph on April 13 before losing control of his new SUV, striking a utility pole, crashing into a fence and hitting a house. King, 38, of Rialto, suffered a fractured pelvis and cracked ribs.
Authorities said tests revealed he had a “significant amount” of the drug PCP in his system.
[…]
He had several run-ins with the law in the years that followed and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years probation in 1999 for spousal abuse. In 2025 he pleaded no contest to indecent exposure and being under the influence of PCP and was sentenced to a year in a drug treatment center.
Comments in the post below on Clark raise the following that is worth considering as well: since the adoption of the current primary system for nominating presidential candidates (in 1972) there has been no political neophyte (defined as not holding prior elected office) able to capture a major party nomination:
2000: Gov Bush v. VP Gore
1996: Pres Clinton v. Sen Dole
1992: Pres Bush v Gov Clinton
1988: VP Bush v. Gov Dukakis
1984: VP Mondale v. Pres Reagan
1980: Pres Carter v. Gov Reagan
1976: Pres Ford v. Gov Carter
1972: Pres Nixon v. Sen McGovern
and even before the modern primary system was established, you have to go back to 1952 (fifty years ago) and Dwight Eisenhower to find a political newcomer being nominated (and elected):
1968: Sen McCarthy (brain fade) VP Humphrey v. VP Nixon
1964: Pres Johnson v. Sen Goldwater
1960: VP Nixon v. Sen Kennedy
1956: Pres Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson
1952: General Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson
Now, before people say: “see! it was a GENERAL! It proves Clark has a significant shot!” let’s remember: being the victorious Supreme Commander of Allied Forces after World War II, and being a global hero, is a tad more impressive than being the commander of NATO who oversaw the Kosovo campaign. I am not denigrating General Clark’s career, but one has to admit, those are two rather different resumes.
And one can keep going:
1948: Pres Truman v. Gov. Dewey
1944: Pres FDR v. Gov Dewey
Then you get to 1940 and Republican nominee Wendell Wilkie, who was drafted from the business community to run against FDR. He lost.
In 1936 and 1932 it was Gov’s v Presidents.
In 1928 Herbert Hoover won the Presidency, despite not holding prior elected office, although he had served as Secretary of Commerce in both the Harding and Coolidge administrations and had other governmental service on his resume. He beat a Governor (Alfred Smith) in 1928, before being beaten by a Governor (FDR) in 1932.
This historical pattern, amongst several key other reasons, is why I am of the informed opinion that Clark is a longshot at best. Ther is no denying that he has an impressive military career, but that simply isn’t enough.
er, Sen. McCarthy did not get the nomination. It was sitting Vice-President Humphrey v. VP Nixon v. Gov. Wallace.
Comment by Leroy — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 5:13 pm
Thanks for the correction. I know it was Humrphrey. I guess the whole early primary thing sticks in my head.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 5:36 pm
No problem, I was just trying to help jog your memory is all. Heck, it was pretty impressive carrying it back as far as you did from memory (as I assume you did). And your point about Gen. Clark is well taken, for that same pattern of insider, or rather professional politician, being at the head of the ticket pretty much goes back to the beginning of presidential elections.
Comment by Leroy — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 6:10 pm
Thansk.
I had ‘em by memeory until I got back into the FDR races. And I did have to confirm the careers starting with Stevenson–I couldn’t remember if he was a gov or a senator.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 8:51 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 2:57 pm
If true, and barring some dramatic turn of events with Dean and Co., he won’t get in:
Wesley K. Clark, the retired four-star general who has been contemplating a run for president, has told close friends that he wants to join the Democratic race and is delaying a final decision only until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning the nomination.
“It’s safe to say he wants to run,” said a longtime friend who has had frequent political conversations with General Clark. “But he approaches this like a military man. He wants to know, Can I win the battle? He doesn’t want to have a situation where he could embarrass himself, but I’m absolutely certain he wants to run.”
Of course, a given potential candidate often sees his/her own chances differently than those on the outside. As I have argued before, his chances of winning the nomination are slim. And before I gets comments that say “you never know” and so forth, let’s look at some facts:
He has no natural consituency amongst Democratic primary voters.
He is waaaay behind in the money primary–how can he hope to catch up with Dean at this point, or compete with Kerry or Edwards who have personal fortunes to use, if need be?
He has not been battle-tested in the national spotlight. Yes, he was an analyst for CNN during the war (and provided a plethora of potential soundbite predicting the wrong outcomes early on), but he hasn’t been grilled on domestic policy issues at this point.
Much of the interest in him is predicated on the fact that no one knows much about him, and therefore can project whatever they want onto him.
And, interesting:
While General Clark has consistently maintained that he has not yet made up his mind, his friends said a major obstacle has been cleared — family approval. They said his wife, Gert, who had initially expressed reservations, now favors his running.
Sometimes you can smell the fear from conservatives. Otherwise, you can see their worry by their inane commentary–offered as ‘advice’ or ‘concern’ for the left.
He has no natural consituency amongst Democratic primary voters.
The problem with most Democratic candidates is they appeal to only one (or a relative few) constituencies on the left. And, as we all know, the left and center is comprised of a wide variety of constituencies.
A candidate which can potentially span numerous constituencies will likely win the nomination. Clark has this potential.
BTW, this largely explains Dean’s current popularity.
He is waaaay behind in the money primary–how can he hope to catch up with Dean at this point, or compete with Kerry or Edwards who have personal fortunes to use, if need be?
Too early to be a problem. Moreover, Kerry’s and Edward’s personal fortunes haven’t mattered to date.
He has not been battle-tested in the national spotlight. Yes, he was an analyst for CNN during the war (and provided a plethora of potential soundbite predicting the wrong outcomes early on), but he hasn’t been grilled on domestic policy issues at this point.
You can always spot those who have never served. The US military is the most political organization on the face of the earth–and Clark managed to rise to the very top of it. Battle-tested? Don’t make me laugh.
I’d also like to see some evidence where Clark was wrong WRT the invasion.
Again, Clark rose to the highest levels of the US military; he didn’t do this by failing at everything he tried and he didn’t achieve this by having a famous daddy whose friends were willing to lavishly fund him. Let’s review: Clark is an authentic military leader–no going AWOL and no staged costume pretenses aboard CV(N)s. So, he’s solid on the national security and foreign policy fronts. WRT economic issues–could he do worse than Bush?
Comment by JadeGold — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 12:13 pm
It has precisely nothing to do with my partisan predilections, and everything to do with understanding how this process works. Like it or not, primary voters, especially in the Democratic Party, tend to coalesce around certain key issues. If electability was the test, then Lieberman would be doing better in the polls.
And you underestimate the fund raising issue. There is a finite supply of funds to be raised, and further, money tends not to flow to longshots.
And yes, the military is political. But there is a rather substantial difference between politics within an organization and the politics in terms of a national campaign. (btw, the whole “the military is political” response is rather cliché).
Clark was quite pessimistic at the early stages concerning the troop level vis-a-vis their capacity to subdue the country. He was wrong.
I find it amusing that your mode of argument is always partisan and contrarian. In this case in particular, the proof will be in the pudding. The only way Clark wins the nomination (if he even runs for it) will be if there is a cataclysm within the ranks of the current contenders. My best guess is that he does enter the race, and finagles a veep nomination, or at least serious consideration thereof. His chances of winning the nomination are very very small.
As I predicted online a month or so ago, if he enters he will probably have some good numbers at first (although at this point he won’t overtake Dean) and will then fade.
Name me the nominee of a major party who was an utter neophyte in the last several decades. The last was Eisenhower (that would be fifty years ago)–and yes, he was a general, but it is a far cry from being the Supreme Allied Commander after WWII than it is being NATO commander.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 1:09 pm
Answer to last question first: why, none other than the sometime occupant of the WH and seemingly permanently on vacation owner of the Lazy Dubya ranch in Crawford.
Please spare us the Bush, Gov. of TX, nonsense. We both know the office of Gov. in that state is so constitutionally weak–the position is largely that of a figurehead.
You are also very wrong about the Dems being single issue voters; in fact, the problem for Dems has been finding attractive candidates who can appeal to the multiple–and quite varied– constituencies which make up the party.
You also underestimate Clark’s candidacy by ignoring the very real fact he will strip Bush of the center, the moderate voter who may be socially liberal but very conservative on national security issues. Think about it–Bush is always going to have extremists on the right in his corner. But to win, he needs that center; Clark strips Bush of that card. And believe it or not, Bush ain’t going to be running on his economic record.
We are greatly pleased to hear the news that Iraq has been subdued. I suppose it’s just that liberal media who didn’t get the message of ‘mission accomplished.’ That, of course, and those daily dead US servicemen who aren’t cooperating. Seriously, though, Clark was right about the needed troop levels being too low. Moreover, this was the consensus in that 5-sided building from Tommy Franks on down. As evidence of this fact, I’d remind you our casualties in this conflict have exceeded those in the Gulf War–when we faced an Iraqi military which was 5 times the strength.
Comment by JadeGold — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 7:00 pm
Get back to me when Clark actually does all this stuff you are predicting.
Comment by Steven — Thursday, August 28, 2025 @ 7:49 pm
Way to cop out, Steven.
But consider this for a moment–what if Colin Powell had run in 2025 or 1996? Would you still be using the same tired argument?
Somehow, I suspect you wouldn’t.
Comment by JadeGold — Friday, August 29, 2025 @ 11:38 am
I just tire of trying to get you to see reason, or to at the very least respond to what I actually say. Why should I waste time going point by point when you really refuse to address them?
However, despite my better judgment, are some comments on Powell:
Powell was in a differnt position than Clark is in, insofar as Gulf War I was on TV constantly, the Kosovo campaign was not.
Further, it depends on what you want to talk about in 1996 and 2025. Powell would almost certainly have bested Dole, I am not so sure on Bush, but it is rather hard to say.
On balance I would argue that Powell would have had a tough time regardless, given some of the same reasons.
Further, the analysis of Clark is in the current context.
You may rant now.
Comment by Steven — Friday, August 29, 2025 @ 3:09 pm
Poor Steven.
Is this the way you teach? Do you use the ‘I said this is the way it is and that’s how it will be, so there’ approach? Makes me concerned for Troy State students.
The fact is a Clark candidacy takes away Bush’s biggest campaign theme. He won’t be able to run on the misguided theme he has all the national security quals. He’s not going to be able to run on his economic record and he’s not going to be able to run on his domestic record.
That’s political analysis, Steven. Like it or not.
Political analysis is not ‘well, Army Generals don’t get elected President, except for Ike’ and sophomoric assertions somebody isn’t battle-tested after rising to the top levels of US military.
Comment by JadeGold — Friday, August 29, 2025 @ 4:53 pm
Indeed, your entire attempt at analysis tends to conflate the issues of winning the nomination and running against Bush. Those are two very different issues. If the Democratic nominating base was truly interested in a pro-war, tough on security candidate, Lieberman would be doing beter in the polls.
Again, it may sound flip to you, but we shall see how it plays out. I suspect that I will be right. If I’m not, I will acknowledge such.
Of course, I am saying this kind of stuff on my own blog, on the radio, and in print. You simply troll about in the shadows of my comments section.
Comment by Steven — Friday, August 29, 2025 @ 5:01 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 2:57 pm
Once again, Steven trots out the myth our last democratically-elected President did nothing–the economy just happened. It serves two purposes: one, it bashes Clinton; and two, it absolves Dubya for this lousy economy.
Using Steven’s logic, we should just dissolve the Federal Reserve and do away with most of the Departments of Commerce and Treasury. Let’s trim the federal payroll of all those taxpayer-supported economists. Let’s relegate the study of economics to where it really belongs–with the practitioners of astrology, palmistry, and tea leaf reading. After all, the economy is magic–it’s alchemy–it just happens. And nothing anyone does or doesn’t do has no bearing on this ephemeral beast called “the economy.”
Steven’s evidence for all this boils down to yet another bumpersticker-sized analysis: if good economies could be created, wouldn’t every President create them?
Weep for Troy State students.
Comment by JadeGold — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 12:35 pm
Very good, Steven. You’re backing away, albeit slowly, from your claim that nothing can be done to influence or control the economy. Let’s see if we can get you all the way home.
To be sure, policies can only get you so far. For example, a doctor can provide a patient with a plan or regimen for good health. Does that automatically mean that patient will live to be 90 or 95? It depends. First, is the MD’s advice sound? Will the patient follow the regimen? Will there be external events that cannot be forecast?
That’s a simple model for the economy. Good policies–implemented and observed–should lead to a good economy barring any circumstances not planned for. OTOH, bad policies will surely lead to economic problems.
“I would challenge you to tell me precisely what the Commerce Department did (or indeed does today) that is of great consequence to this economy.”
Hmmm. I wonder why Dubya is running around telling supporters that he’s created an Asst. Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing because his regime is so concerned about manufacturing sector jobs?
Comment by JadeGold — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 1:55 pm
I never said that presidents have zero effect on the economy, just that their influence is far, far less than they (or the general population, for that matter) like to think. I know, for example, that they cannot create jobs by fiat, nor can they make GDP grow by wishing it such. These would seem to Kerry’s and your positions, respectively, however.
And I would agree that the Bush’s move on creating a special “job czar” is a minor move at best, and really nothing more than symbolism. Despite your attempts to paint me as such, I do not see everything through a crude partisan lense. I leave that to others. I would also note that by your logic, you shoudl aplaud Bush’s move.
Your Doctor analogy is flawed by the way, as is much of your economic analysis. Again I refer you to the “ex post ergo proptor hoc” logical fallacy. I take it you still haven’t looked that one up.
And just saying “good policies” are good and “bad policies” lead to economic problems hardly qualifies as much of an argument. Neither in this discussion nor in prior discussions on this issue, have you ever so much as articulated ONE actual economic policy, btw.
Further, this thread is a great illustration of how you never actually respond to what I write. I criticized Kerry’s proposal. Where have you defended it, or actually done anything more than engage in sophomoric jabs?
Just curious.
So far you would be doing well to be getting a C- in the course–and that’s assuming some charity on my part. Responses are required to actually respond to the question asked, and evidence must be provided to back up assertions.
Comment by Steven — Tuesday, September 2, 2025 @ 3:15 pm
Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2025 @ 3:01 pm