Democratic Candidates for 2004

[Adam D]

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida
Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois
civil rights activist Al Sharpton

And hopefully Former NATO General (Ret.) Wesley Clark.

My eyes are on Clark (if he will run) and Kucinich (the most progressive of the bunch). There are some other good candidates in there, and then a few tepid ones like Gephardt and Lieberman.

[JonSlice]

I'm voting for Al Sharpton. Atleast then there will be something entertaining on tv EVERY night

I vote for Adam D. as DDM hooker

[Adam D]

When did I become a hooker?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by E-brake
Wow that lineup is making Bush look damm good, Dont the Democrats relize that all they need is one candidate with integrity and no extreme tree hugging views and they could have this election handed to them.......Its almost like they are trying to loose

I think the failure of the Bush administration to properly deal with domestic issues will result in a failure in 2004 to a Democrat who will prod enough on the intelligence blunders of the Bush Administration and can tell a solid story on the domestic issues. Bush may be putting chump change in the pockets of most people, but people aren't happy with the way things are going economically. Although it's blatantly obvious that another war drum will beat (the panic button pushed again) before the elections to try and push a security vote, a solid domestic issue-focused Democrat would be able to push Bush out. Particularly if Clark runs as a Democrat, because he's spent far more time in military service than Bush ever did (although he never actually did) and would be seen as a security-centered candidate.

[Adam D]

I think a lot of people are really tired of tepid centrist candidates, and are looking for somebody who is going to represent their needs rather than a demogauge who tries to pass under the radar as a "moderate".

[Element4040]

Background Voice: Al Sharpton, a man who fights for his beliefs.

Al Sharpton: I will not rest until there is a black m&m! We have blue m&m's, red m&m's, last year you voted for purple m&m's! Even the rapper Eminem is white! If no one else takes a stand I'm calling Johnny Cochrane!


But seriously none of these candidates look all that great, but like Warlord stated before neither did Clinton when running against Bush either.

[bfp]

think the failure of the Bush administration to properly deal with domestic issues will result in a failure in 2004 to a Democrat who will prod enough on the intelligence blunders of the Bush Administration and can tell a solid story on the domestic issues. Bush may be putting chump change in the pockets of most people, but people aren't happy with the way things are going economically. Although it's blatantly obvious that another war drum will beat (the panic button pushed again) before the elections to try and push a security vote, a solid domestic issue-focused Democrat would be able to push Bush out. Particularly if Clark runs as a Democrat, because he's spent far more time in military service than Bush ever did (although he never actually did) and would be seen as a security-centered candidate.

everything that the guy is doing is what the democrats want. he is stealing their issues 1 by 1. he is almost socializing medicine, he approved the tax cut for lower income americans, the nearly 90 billion dollars last week. he is stealing the democratic agenda(most of it anyway) to steal their votes in 04. there is no doubt bush will win the next election. bush has been big gov't since he stepped into office. the only person that would come close is hillary, but she still wouldnt win. national security is #1 at the moment for the american people. they know that. and every candidate has been opposed to what bush is doing on that front. besides lieberman, and he doesnt have a chance. and this decorated war veteran crap is ridiculous. ie kerry. what a joke.

[bfp]

But seriously none of these candidates look all that great, but like Warlord stated before neither did Clinton when running against Bush either.

the only reason clinton won was because there were 2 rep candidates running against each-other, and that drove their percentage numbers down, allowing clinton to win.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
everything that the guy is doing is what the democrats want. he is stealing their issues 1 by 1. he is almost socializing medicine,

His program is the most half-assed socializing of medicine one could imagine. There's nothing of socialization there.

he approved the tax cut for lower income americans, the nearly 90 billion dollars last week.

Please. This is a joke.

he is stealing the democratic agenda(most of it anyway) to steal their votes in 04. there is no doubt bush will win the next election. bush has been big gov't since he stepped into office. the only person that would come close is hillary, but she still wouldnt win. national security is #1 at the moment for the american people. they know that. and every candidate has been opposed to what bush is doing on that front. besides lieberman, and he doesnt have a chance. and this decorated war veteran crap is ridiculous. ie kerry. what a joke.

He isn't stealing the agenda, he's making a bunch of talk while on the flipside implementing more programs to rob the poor and enrich the rich. National security might be important, but to everybody who has lost/is at risk of losing their jobs...it's not.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by E-brake
Well only republicans can stand up for their convictions and still get elected, every Democrat that has ever made it to the white house has made it by walking down the middle of the road and bending to whatever the polls of the week tell them to believe in or say. The extreme Left democrats never make it past the primarys...Al Sharpton is a good example of that.

That's not true of all Dems. Sure, a lot of them in the past 15 years or so have followed the New Democrat bullshit, but there are plenty, several on that list who do stand on issues rather than demogaugery.

[bfp]

He isn't stealing the agenda, he's making a bunch of talk while on the flipside implementing more programs to rob the poor and enrich the rich. National security might be important, but to everybody who has lost/is at risk of losing their jobs...it's not.

what do democrats have in mind for building jobs? i have one answer. more unemployment benefits. and that gets you nowhere. how is that creating jobs? thats why tax cuts are the number one thing that the president can do to build the economy.

[Adam D]

But it isn't rebuilding the economy. Have you actually researched any of the candidates to prove your point? Doubtful.

[bfp]

its the best thing you can do for the economy though. you have anything better in mind?



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

Can pro-growth tax cuts pump steroids into our sagging national economy? Just look at the experiences of the states, many of which have been on a supply-side tax-cutting binge. Last year was the sixth straight year that the states, in aggregate, cut taxes. Over the course of the 1990s, 26 governors approved cuts in state income tax rates and 14 more slashed corporate tax rates.

The governors are proving that tax cuts can be a highly effective economic stimulant. Our research indicates that over the past decade, the 10 states that cut taxes the most created about twice as many new jobs and enjoyed about 27% more income growth than the 10 states that raised taxes the most.

Consider Michigan. When John Engler became governor in 1991, the state's manufacturing economy was in the tank and the Michigan unemployment rate was the second highest in the nation. A few months ago Mr. Engler signed into law his 30th and 31st tax cuts, for a cumulative taxpayer savings of some $20 billion. The result: Michigan has had 10 years of unprecedented prosperity, even ranking third among the states in job growth.

So which governors have successfully followed this prosperity model? Which have moved their states in an anticompetitive direction? The answers are in the latest Cato Institute biennial Fiscal Report Card of the Governors. Those governors who have cut taxes and restrained state spending the most receive the highest grades; those who have raised both taxes and state government expenditures receive the lowest grades. We use an objective measuring standard and rely on official statistics from the Census Bureau's survey of state finances, as well as National Association of State Budget Officers statistics.

The nearby table shows the results. The two champion tax-cutting governors today are Paul Cellucci of Massachusetts and Kenny Guinn of Nevada. Former Texas Gov. George W. Bush receives a B grade and impressively ranks third among the 48 graded. The three most fiscally reckless governors are John Kitzhaber of Oregon, Gray Davis of California and Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

Here also is a brief summary of the fiscal performances of some of the more prominent American governors:

Minnesota's Jesse "The Body" Ventura, the former pro-wrestler, is arguably the most colorful figure in American politics today. Mr. Ventura won a three-way race for governor in 1998 by arguing that the state's $2 billion surplus "belongs to the people." The people agreed. Over the past three years he has sent $2.5 billion in tax cuts and rebate payments back to workers. The average Minnesota family has received more than $750 in rebate checks. Mr. Ventura's political success has proven that tax-cutting still has broad populist appeal in America.

Then we have California's Gray Davis. The energy crisis isn't the only economic problem aggravated by his ineptitude. When he won office in 1998, he pledged to "govern from the center." Instead, he's been one of the biggest spenders in the nation. The California budget has soared to $99 billion from $75 billion in Mr. Davis's first two years. That doesn't count the money he now wants the state to spend buying up electric power so that it can turn around and sell it to Californians at a deep discount. In his state, three-fourths of surplus tax dollars have gone to fattening the budget.

Florida's Jeb Bush promised tax cuts, voter approval of tax increases, school choice and inner-city redevelopment. He's delivered in an impressive fashion. In his first year he signed into law a $1 billion property tax cut; his second budget contained another $500 million in tax relief. His signature achievement was a pioneering school-voucher experiment. The program has received national attention because Florida is the first state to give scholarships to students in low-performing public schools so that they can attend certified private schools. The plan was signed into law in 1999 and withstood a Florida Supreme Court challenge in 2000. It's already helping thousands of kids by forcing the public schools to raise their academic standards. No wonder Jeb is many people's favorite Bush.

Massachusetts's Paul Celucci is on a one-man mission to destroy this state's derisive nickname of "Taxachusetts." Mr. Celucci has fought with pit-bull determination for a $1 billion tax cut, the largest in his state's history. He proposed lowering the income tax rate to 5% from 6%, cutting the state capital gains tax in half, and cutting unemployment taxes. The overwhelmingly Democratic legislature said no. So last year, Mr. Celucci took his tax cut right to the voters by spearheading a ballot initiative. Despite universal special-interest opposition, the Celucci tax cut passed with 60% support. Mr. Celucci also gets high marks for opposing Internet taxation, a position he says "hasn't won me friends with some of my fellow governors."

Finally, there is the question of the fiscal record of George W. Bush while he was Texas governor. Mr. Bush racked up a decent, but not a dazzling, pro-taxpayer record. He came into office promising tax cuts, tort reform, a lighter regulatory burden for business, and stringent education standards. Mr. Bush delivered on each of those promises, more or less. He signed two of the largest tax cuts in Texas history. But Mr. Bush could leave conservatives frustrated. This is a politician who seems to always want to please everyone. As the Austin Statesman wrote of Mr. Bush's final budget: "He took a $6 billion surplus, cut taxes by $1.5 billion and spent most of the rest." Still, the latest comptroller report indicates that Texas still has a $1 billion-plus budget surplus.

For six years Mr. Bush gave Texans tax cuts and balanced budgets. If he can accomplish that trick in Washington, we could be in for an era of unprecedented prosperity.

[Adam D]

If that's the case, why are so many states running in the red? Because tax cuts, especially tax cuts aimed at the rich, fail to provide any growth for the economy.