. . . . But I’m gonna just talk off the top of my head, here. (It’s a blog, ain’t it?)
1. I’m pretty freakin’ dissatisfied with President Bush. I don’t like his social conservatism (I’m pretty liberal, socially), I don’t like his fiscal liberalism (I’m a bit of a deficit hawk), I don’t like his free trade policy (he seems to be mostly con; I’m mostly pro); and, though I agree with his goals in Iraq, I think he did a pretty poor job on the execution-side.
2. I’m pretty well convinced, however, that the answer to President Bush’s deficiencies is not to put a person with even greater deficiencies in the White House, i.e., Candidate Dean.
3. General Clark is weird. And not necessarily in a good way.
4. I really, really want to like John Edwards. I’m mean, he’s a pretty likeable guy, ain’t he? And he’s got the gift of the greatest of trial lawyers — he can persuade without seeming to, and attack without “going negative.” From a professional perspective, I’m in awe. (I also agree with Tacitus that, at present, he’s the most dangerous opponent for GWB.) He’s awful young, though, and flippery on free trade issues dear to my heart.
5. On the issues — and of the viable candidates (sorry, Joey from the CT) — I’m probably closest to Kerry. (This is not to say, by the by, that I’m “close” to Kerry.) But the guy bores me to tears. Assuming no unexpected alterations by Bush or him, I suppose he’ll have my vote. Just don’t ask me to feel excited about it.
I’m going to make you a tape to play while you sleep. It goes something like this:
at least 2 Supreme Court vacancies, maybe 3. at least 2 Supreme Court vacancies, maybe 3. Chief Justice Scalia. etc. etc.
Ditto to all.
Could you please explain what deficiencies of Dean you are referring to?
Et tu, MattK? (you’d really vote for Bush over Dean?)
Could you please explain what deficiencies of Dean you are referring to?
Yes. He’s certifiably insane. š
Try here and here, for a start.
I understand the criticisms of Dean, but what about Bush do you like? (Besides the decision to go to war on Iraq, which is surely harmed somewhat by the lack of honesty in justification and/or competence in execution).
Katherine,
HA! You caught me before I caught myself. I didn’t sleep much last night and sort of let my eyes slide over Von’s post and was like, “yeah… alla buncha… yeah… I’ll go along with that.” Then I went to get a drink of water and realized, maybe I better offer a bit more nuance. Let me look over this for a second.
To quote one of the aforementioned,
“MARY…. HELP!”
On Bush:
I agree with Von on his deficiencies, however, the tyranny Murphy’s Law holds over my mind prevented me from supporting the War in Iraq. I don’t argue the issue anymore, because I am desperately hoping I was wrong (as, in fact, I was about some of my more dire predictions). I believe Bush to be fairly hamstrung at this point, a solid group of Senate Republicans restraining him from implementing his ideas most contrary to my own. It is only my general dissatisfaction with our candidates that allows me to take solace in this thought.
On Dean:
Love the organization of real people trying to make a real difference, but do not particularly care for the standard bearer. The comparison of Members of Congress, who he would have to work with as president, and work with intensely, if planned on an expansion of health care, was foolish and I would say, arrogant. The statement that he’s “the only candidate talking to white people about race,” when in fact several of his opponents have far stronger records on the issue was the same. And these things happen over and over and over, sometimes followed by an apology, sometimes not. It does not bode well for Dean’s ability to be more diplomatic than Bush. On the other hand, I have never voted for a Republican, other than for town sheriff. I am ardently pro-choice and do not want Bush selecting two Supreme Court judges, plus I tend to vote on environment, and Dean’s so-so record trumps Bush’s (IMO) poor one. So if you get your guy nominated, I probably would still vote, and vote Dem, but I’d be voting for you guys, and not a candidate who, in my opinion, runs the risk of being a stymied as Carter.
As for the primaries:
Clark: No experience. Dangerously full of himself.
Edwards: Too lawyerly (apologies to everyone I just offended. C’mon, you know what I mean). If he had a longer track record, I’d feel more secure he’s going to walk the walk.
Kerry: Marginally less worrisome than the rest.
So, no, Katherine, I won’t vote for Bush over Dean.
Sorry, comparison of Members of Congress to cockroaches.
Going back to sleep now.
On Dean and race: I don’t know the positions histories of the other candidates on race, with the sorry exception of Al “Tawana” Sharpton.
However, I cannot recall a single Democrat who has spoken as bluntly and directly about the Republican “southern strategy” as Dean, and I applaud him for it.
And Von, the sanctions DID work to keep Saddam contained. There is no argument about that.
I certainly don’t agree with Madame Albright that if the sanctions led to the deaths of 500,000 children, it was worth it, though.
That was my least favorite Dean moment. They bought into blog triumphalism for a while there–as someone said, they believed their own bull****–and then they just freaked out over the attacks. But read that ABC interview (the transcript is better than the edited version) for a different side to him.
I think his record as governor speaks very, very well.
Edwards made a great speech on MLK day a while back….Young Johnny (that’s his given name on his birth certificate, isn’t that cute) could be great, or he could be a less wonkish Clinton minus the scandals. I feel like Dean’s engaged more with foreign policy than Edwards, but that’s probably not fair–Edwards is on the intell. committee.
Political courage goes a long, long way with me, which is why I’m so attached to Dean. That’s my main problem with Kerry. Clark’s too much of a wild card, especially on domestic issues, but when he talks about foreign policy in a non-confrontational interview he’s incredibly impressive.
i’m with Katherine—-that is, if she’s single.
Marky,
Believe it or not, Joe Lieberman’s got an impressive history with Civil Rights. Edwards, I’ve heard, is no slouch. Bob Graham had a near 100% rating from the NAACP. I think it’s great that Dean shone a spotlight on “the Southern Strategy,” but I feel he was putting his talking over others’ doing, and I have a problem with that.
Katherine,
Graham’s record as Governor and Senator spoke well, too, but as demonstrated by his elimination from the race, there’s more to it than that.
Von, I feel your pain.
My own ideal candidate contains the following attributes:
This generally sounds like a combination of Johns Kerry and Edwards, but the last condition may be electoral killer for Kerry, and the first condition is a problem for Edwards on sheer policy grounds. There are a few other problems in there as well–Kerry’s a middle-class panderer, and Edwards, who does have a pretty good education and poverty agenda, is no Amory Lovins.
As for Dean and Clark, their chances look grim in the wake of the Iowa caucuses and Dean’s infamous yelp, although I suppose that anything can happen at this point.
Re: Kerry. The one thing that really caught my ear and made me yell “what?!?” during the debate was when Kerry talked about banning MTBE gasoline additives (okay, fine, it’s a wicked toxin worse in some ways than lead), and going after the companies that use it, to hold them accountable. That last part really bothers me because (and I wish I had a link to the article where I read this–I’ll look for one) it was the way the government went about banning lead and requiring a different additive that basically forced the gasoline mixers to use MTBE.
I hope Kerry is merely mis- or uninformed about how MTBE came to be used, but, either way, his megaphone just put out a bad message.
Katherine,
I’m actually not so down on Lieberman either.
3 areas where I have a problem with Lieberman are:
1) His support of the war resolution
2) The degree to which the financial/insurance sector owns him—we do NOT need President Aetna
3) I don’t feel he would be a fair broker in the Middle East.
I understand the criticisms of Dean, but what about Bush do you like?
Well, not much. This really is a “lesser of evils” decision for me — I probably won’t be voting for any candidate.
But, to try to answer your question (and other than the clear-headedness to see Iraq as a threat, and the fact that he’s thus far thwarted significant terrorist attacks):
1. His position on immigration is excellent.
2. His little-talked about MEFTZ proposal is brilliant.
3. Unlike every Democratic contender (save, perhaps, Lieberman), he probably can deliver Sharon (and/or a Sharon successor). That’s going to be vital to resolving the single greatest driver of terrorism.
4. He’s more likely than the others to genuinely reform Social Security. (Are you reading this, Thorley?)
5. Reality is starting to starting to intrude on the bizarro foreign policy world of the neo-cons, and Bush is starting to retreat.
“. Unlike every Democratic contender (save, perhaps, Lieberman), he probably can deliver Sharon (and/or a Sharon successor). That’s going to be vital to resolving the single greatest driver of terrorism”
In what sense will he “deliver” sharon?
Bush has exerted ZERO leverage over Sharon.
You can’t seriously suggest that Sharon is the man who will bring peace to Israel.
He is the worst thing that has happened to Israel in decades.
“But, to try to answer your question (and other than the clear-headedness to see Iraq as a threat, and the fact that he’s thus far thwarted significant terrorist attacks):”
Oops, I let that one slide. Remember 9/11??
Clark is being eaten alive by the press right now, but I don’t see him as weird. He is unique, but not weird, IMO. If he can avoid a meltdown as bad as Dean’s, he may yet finesse his way to the finals. Dean – not sure he’ll ever be elected into office again. President of the US is an impossibility. Sorry Katherine. He’s got a lot of money to spend and I’m sure he’ll continue through the primaries, oblivious to how disruptive he is to the process.
von–What do you mean by genuine Social Security reform?
I mean this question sincerely, though I will inevitably spin any answer to Bush’s discredit–the question is what do you want, that you hope Bush might deliver.
the insanity difference
Dean looks somewhat psychotic when angry, Bush looks somewhat psychotic when calm
Praktike
Will not pander to the pampered middle class at the expense of the poor
Could you identify “middle-class” for me?
Supports the elimination of sprawl-inducing subsidies
Which subsidies do you mean? I mean, besides the home mortgage interest deduction š
Just wondering.
Katherine
Your statements about Edwards and Clark but when he talks about foreign policy in a non-confrontational interview he’s incredibly impressive. is why I predicted an Edwards/Clark nomination Tuesday.
Its funny, I like President Clinton when I see him interviewed now. Maybe its because his views seem to match mine…now. But I agree that a candidate willing to be him/herself is refreshing. I’m just not sure that I like what I see from Mr. Dean and am unwilling to give him points over an Mr. Edwards for that candidness. It seems that you are though,
Are there large differences between Mr. Dean’s and Mr. Edwards’ positions or is the fact that Mr. Dean seems more candid what’s swaying you?
“He’s awful young”
Edwards is 51. Dean is 54. Probably not enough difference to matter. Looks awful young, though.
I have to say, unless there are further issues that you’re not articulating, I think you’re arguing backwards. You’ve already made your pick and are looking for reasons.
Because the issues you enumerate that you have with Bush far outweigh the issues you’ve described with the other candidates, which range from ‘gravitas’ to excitement level.
And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you like spending reduction, the stats show having a split government is more important than party. With Republicans all over Congress, you want a Democrat for president.
Valid point, Sidereal, regarding Edward’s age.
In what sense will [Bush] “deliver” [S]haron?
Bush has exerted ZERO leverage over Sharon.
That’s untrue: Bush has exerted leverage over Sharon. Whether or not he can exert enough leverage over Sharon, I concede, is a open question — as it is for every candidate.
Oops, I let that one slide. Remember 9/11??
Do we blame Bush or Clinton for that? Or the institutions of our government that respond to neither?
Dean looks psycho when angry
Bush looks psychotic when calm.
that post made my day !! thanks
new guy here and somewhat new to blogs.
I never have figurerd out why Dean elicits
so much negative reaaction.
I dont watch TV news
and dont have cable so I did not see
the Democrat debates.
I kept reading oh Dean Can’t get elected.
and Dean is too angry
Well , WTF when I think of what Bush has
done in 3 years I am angry too.
I did once turn on tv and saw and heard
Dean for the first time and I thought
he spoke very well.
At least he is someone speaking out
when the cowardly Dems except for Sen. Byrd
were not.
“Valid point, Sidereal, regarding Edward’s age.”
Are you calling my other points invalids?
“Do we blame Bush or Clinton for that? Or the institutions of our government that respond to neither? ”
Can you simultaneously give Bush credit for lack of attacks and not assign him blame for the existence of them?
Personally, I think by and large he deserves neither. Our investigation and enforcement agencies don’t need to be led around by the hand by the President. It’s not like they can sit around and say ‘Oh, stopping terrorists is IMPORTANT? I didn’t realize that until I heard it in the State of the Union.’
Welcome, Max.
Can you simultaneously give Bush credit for lack of attacks and not assign him blame for the existence of them?
I’m not assigning Bush blame for 9/11, because there’s no evidence he should be blamed. That’s it.
Immigration eh? Have you been reading my Arar posts?
Ok, not quite fair; he does not play the xenophobia card–though his AG will. But why guest workers without the chance of naturalization? (Mark Kleinman explains this better than I.)
Does MEFTZ stand for Middle East Free Trade Zone? If so, what the heck is it?
Why can only he deliver Sharon? Why assume that Sharon is in power indefinitely? Bush’s record does not speak well here. (BTW, marky, I think Lieberman would be a fair broke, and probably preferable to Bush, but he’s too hawkish for me and would not be perceived fairly. I don’t know that I’d be willing to knock off a candidate because of other people’s anti-semitism. Anyway, I don’t like him anyway so it doesn’t matter.)
Social security reform, huh?
1. It’s INSURANCE. There are already plenty of opportunities to invest privately.
2. They have been so utterly irresponsible and dihonest with the budget–including their original SS proposals–that they are the last people in the world I would trust with this.
Wondertwin powers, de-italicize.
Crionna:
Could you identify “middle-class” for me?
Nope. I know it when I see it. But generally, it’s the handouts to those between 50K and 200K at the expense of those hovering around the poverty line that bug me.
Which subsidies do you mean? I mean, besides the home mortgage interest deduction.
Mostly highways. But you can read this Brookings report for the full extent of the problem.
Here’s another one.
Iām about 60-40 in support of the President at this point largely because:
a) On nearly every issue I disagree with the President, the Democrats are inarguably worse
b) Entitlement reform (he is the only candidate in favor of it)
c) Foreign policy
d) Judicial nominees
I am a libertarian who usually falls down on the āsocial conservativeā side of the greyer issues (e.g. abortion, immigration) largely because social liberals tend to be the people who favor racial discrimination mandated by the government, infringe on freedom of association, and generally blame America/society/whatever for the poor choices of individuals. Besides which, social conservatives are more likely to support individual rights than (modern) social liberals.
I do not care for it either, although I recognize that it is the overall size of government not the size of the deficit, which is the problem economically. However since all of the Democratic candidates are worse rather than better than him on the issue and more importantly he is the only candidate in favor of entitlement reform (the 800 pound elephant in the room which surpasses all other federal spending issues), he is still the best choice even if only because the alternatives are so inarguably worse.
Actually heās about 60-40 in favor when you consider that heās pushed for the Free Trade of the Americas, liberalizing trade with the African continent (which would be far more beneficial for them than our foreign aid), and Fast Track. There are no āfree tradeā candidates only managed trade candidates (including Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, and Clinton) each of whom favor protectionism in some areas and trade liberalization in others. On balance though (especially when you look at the NAFTA-bashing of the Kerry, Clark, Dean, and Edwards), Bush is better on trade than every likely Democratic nominee (most of whom has supported the infamous steel tariffs) with the exception of Lieberman.
I have yet to see any candidate offer a credible alternative policy other than āmore troopsā (which is debatable) while mouthing empty platitudes about ābringing in international forcesā often after insulting our allies in the field with rhetoric about a āphony coalition.ā Things on the balance seem to be going pretty well in Iraq (certainly better than the detractors predicted prior to the resumption of hostilities last year) and while it is typical that we are going to hear criticism and complaining about every misstep and setback (which are almost invariably exaggerated), I am unconvinced that the naysayers could or would have done anything better.
Agreed but that is true of all of the other likely candidates including Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, and Edwards.
In which case on the merits, my vote and support go to Bush.
Von wrote:
Well it took you long enough. š
Iraq is on the brink of civil war and you say things are going pretty well???
Praktike
Thanks. But, re: it’s the handouts to those between 50K and 200K at the expense of those hovering around the poverty line that bug me.
What handouts?
Well…. At least they’re allowed to have a civil war now, if they want.
Eggs. Omelettes.
“Iraq is on the brink of civil war and you say things are going pretty well???”
I have a rule of thumb about taking seriously news articles giving dire, nonspecific tidings of doom uttered by anonymous sources that are not backed up with any sort of hard evidence*: I don’t.
Moe
*I mean, really. CIA bureaucrats. Making verbal reports. With no CYA paper trails. They’ll be expecting me to believe in the Easter Bunny next. š
Ergo the eggs.
Kos has a new poll up re OK primary. Edwards tripled his number, to come in just behind Clark. Tripled. Kerry did much better. But not as well as Edwards.
von,
Mind you, your guy looks like a wanker from up here. But…
“But the guy bores me to tears.”
You are not hiring him to spice up your personal life. You are hiring to do a job. Why does he NEED to excite you?
In the same manner that the Dean folks are excited by Dean? Why not?
Crionna:
What handouts [to the middle class]?
Tax cut after tax cut. Tax credits. Mortgage deductions. Road improvements while transit gets cut.
Etc.
Property tax caps & zoning are kind of a scam too, but those are a state/local issue.
Well it took you long enough. š
Don’t think it a concession of the larger point, though, Thorley.
Sorry for being away.
Remarks on Clark noted, Poputonian. And your ideal candidate and mine share more than a few similarities, Praktile.
von–What do you mean by genuine Social Security reform?
Sorry Matt, I missed this one on the first go around. I mean that we should consider allowing individuals to invest a portion of their social security funds in private investments.
Katherine correctly notes that social security functions, in part, as a form of retirement insurance. But that’s a red herring. The questions isn’t how social security functions, but who makes the decisions regarding how the money is invested and what degree of risk we’re willing to tolerate.
Right now, to the extent that the money is invested at all, it’s invested in United States instruments, and the decisions regarding those investments are made by the government. You may say, my, that’s a mighty safe investment vehicle. It isn’t. We’re going to face an explosion of drawees on the social security fund when the baby boomers start to retire. To match their drawings, the diminishing “working” generations will have to pay far more in taxes; at some point, itās very conceivable that taxes will become so high that the government reduces the SS benefits. Poof! The insurance policy gets revised.
I’d favor a mix of government securities (like now) and private investments (which would be new), with private investment side managed by the individual (which would also be new). I think there are real benefits to the economy in making this change. I also think that there are real benefits to the citizenry — it makes everyone a shareholder. Moreover, as noted, it probably reduces the risk of the social security investments.
Btw, Thorley, this changes nothing regarding my criticisms of Bush’s detax-and-spend policies, or my view that several Democratic contenders are improvements on that point (and are also likely to enact some sort of SS reform — it ain’t only a Republican idea.)
Also, though Iām mostly with you on abortion, Thorley (it should be safe and rare — and the legislation should help make it such), I obviously disagree with you on immigration. If someone wants to work, let them come here. I also think the post stands on its own with respect to Bushās deficiencies. You may put a different spin on some of āem, but donāt ask me to spin with you. (Iām off spinninā in my own direction, as we all are.)
Returning to Katherine:
Does MEFTZ stand for Middle East Free Trade Zone? If so, what the heck is it?
Yes. See this.
You are not hiring him to spice up your personal life. You are hiring to do a job. Why does he NEED to excite you?
Good point, Angua. He doesnāt, of course. But Iāll still complain about it. (Hey, I like to be romanced, too.)
Sorry for those I missed.
von, I do believe you’re making me a liar (re my promise to Bash Bush)–insofar as what you want is workers having partial control of their funds, Bush is the most likely to try for it.
The immediate problem I have with this partial privatization is the medium-run effects on the deficit. While ramping in the partial privatization, we still need to pay the new retirees, and we won’t be able to use the portion of payroll taxes that’s going into individual accounts. Bush (well, a little bashing here) has consistently obscured this aspect of SS reform.
Anyway, I don’t believe Bush or anyone else will be able to deliver SS reform or a benefit cut. The best chance for this was in 2001, and it didn’t even get run up the flagpole. As the Baby Boomers get closer to retirement, they will be less happy about proposed benefit cuts. We will see payroll taxes uncapped, or top brackets back up to 50%, before we see Social Security cut.
(This makes me happy, even though I’m deficit hawkish, because I also favor big government and downward redistribution. Also, though Thorley Winston is right that entitlement reform is the most important long-run spending issue, it’s driven much more by Medicare than by Social Security.)
Von wrote:
Really and your evidence for this is what exactly? I have already pointed out (and no one has refuted it) that each of the likely Democratic nominees in addition to not favoring any spending reductions (and in the case of Lieberman, Edwards, and Kerry have voted for said spending or more costly alternatives) have each called for larger spending increases on top of the existing increases.
Really and how would you say that they are ālikely to enact some sort of SS reformā when each of them has denounced the idea repeatedly?
Sorry but Iām not spinning. I donāt have to since the facts have supported everything I have said (whereas you seem to be ignoring them). The facts of course being what the candidates have actually done while in office (voting for the spending in the case of Lieberman, Edwards, and Kerry), their refusal to support any sort of spending cuts, their calls for more costly increases on top of what Bush has already agreed to (and which three of them voted for), and their denouncing any form of entitlement reform.
The reason I say that is because it’s normal human folly. The moderates (though your guy isn’t necessarily one) LOOK boring, so the freaks get elected. This is not always in the best interest of the electorate.
Praktike wrote (in reference to āhandouts to the middle classā)
Provided the road improvements are actually paid for by the users either (e.g. gasoline excise tax) then they donāt qualify as āhandoutsā since the people using the service are paying the full or most of the cost for it (usually more than most transit users).
If you want a good example though of welfare subsidies for the middle-class ā Medicare, Social Security, the government K-12 schools, and federal financial aid programs.