DescentBB

Lets suppose that one of the Dem. wins the presidency. What do you think will change from where we are now? Will our troops be pulled out of Iraq?
Will we start sucking up to the U.N. and let them run our anti terrorist campaign?
Will the tax cuts be taken away?
Will unemployment go up, down or stay quiesscent?
Will the homeland security program be dismantled?
Will medicare be revamped?
Will the economy immediately improve at a faster rate?
Will the French be given big fat juicy contracts in Iraq?

In short, for all the posturing by the democratic pretenders to the throne, will any of them actually make a difference.

This is all just me guessing, but I'll bite.

"Will our troops be pulled out of Iraq?"

I'm not positive, but I think only Kucinich has said he would pull troops out of Iraq. The rest have said they would stay the course.

"Will we start sucking up to the U.N. and let them run our anti terrorist campaign?"

I think we will try harder to work through the U.N.

"Will the tax cuts be taken away?"

I think the tax cuts will be shifted toward the low/middle class, and away from millionaires.

"Will unemployment go up, down or stay quiesscent?"

That is dependent on the economy. I imagine that with a sane fiscal policy, unemployment will go down.

"Will the homeland security program be dismantled?"

The Departement of Homeland Security is here to stay.

"Will medicare be revamped?"

Maybe.

"Will the economy immediately improve at a faster rate?"

Well, I think the economy will improve if the US steers clear of the huge projected deficits.

"Will the French be given big fat juicy contracts in Iraq?"

I don't know.

"will any of them actually make a difference."

Yes.

Will stem cell research be allowed to continue?
What will become of gay marriage?

I think Bush has been a pretty good democrat for a republican. The dem's probably get more of their policy enacted by him trying to appease them than when they were actually in power!

So to answer the question more directly there is little difference between either party or any of the candidates.
The biggest difference I see between the two sides is the ideological bent of the judicial nominees they appoint, and that can be a big long term factor.

Vote for a third party, shake this place up a bit, demand a representative government where only registered voters have input to campaigns, financial or otherwise.
I'm sending Ralph Nader some cash this week with hopes he steps in again. I may disagree with a lot of what he would do but congress will stop him on a lot of those issues anyway, but his reform platform will do a lot of good in the long term if he gets in.

Don't be a lemming (like was) vote against the one-party-that-disguises-itself-as-two!

Nader?

ooookay.

The problem with nader is he is such a non-entity. We need someone like Perot that has enough money to fully engage a viable 3rd party. Will is correct in that the only difference right now between the dems. and the rep. is the rhetoric coming from the dem. hopefuls. Real difference's may come about when Bush finish's his 2nd term and Hillary runs.

There was an editorial on Fox's site that basically said Repulicans should vote for a Democrat for President because the party split would cause legislative stagnation, which (the article argued) is when the politicians best serve the people. Fair point. I don't think Bush has vetoed a single bill, and the spending has really gone off a cliff. Unlike many, however, I think his foreign policy has been outstanding, and I think most of the Democratic contenders (with the possible exception of Leiberman) would rather bend over and take a torpedo in the rectum than risk being perceived as an overly-patriotic-warmongering-imperialist-its-all-about-oil-Zionist-controlled-corporate-owned-cowboy-strutting monsters that the Bush gets tagged with. Kerry, for his part, has been Mr. flip-flop concerning the war (voting for military action in Iraq, then campaigning against Bush actually proceeding with it) ... I've yet to hear him explain that to my satisfaction. I think Howard Dean is truly a bit psycho ... a Department of Homeland Maturity might be in order if he's elected.

I think last night's display sunk any hopes Dean had. Bush gets tagged as a warmonger but I don't recall anyone seriously accusing Bush of being an unstable warmonger. Dean really does appear to be a few fries short of a Happy Meal. MELTDOWN! MELTDOWN! Heh.

Getting back to Chipper's question, I think a new Dem in office would be indistinguishable from when Clinton was in office. In other words, do very little except roll back the efforts of the other party and try to put enough locks on your own legislation that it can't be undone in four years, or after your impeachment, whichever comes first.

Yea, Nader. I know he's not what you'd expect from someone relatively conservative like me but his basic position on big money entities affecting/purchasing our election process is right on the money (pun intended)!

We have a great representative republic system here and it's potential is really held back by the two party system that charges such a high 'membership fee' that good men can't get elected without succumbing to the corrupt machine that issues the memberships.

I submit the quality of our representatives as evidence! There are far better, more honerable, intelligent men out there than ever show up on a ballot in the U.S. for any high office.

On the loopy side of things:
I do believe Dean really is as crazy as they tried to portray Reagan as being. Reagan talked like a cowboy as a tactic, Dean is likely to nuke China one day just because he got a bad eggroll at the local chinese buffet!

The shrill noises from the democratic contenders show how back-stabbing win at any costs the dems have become. A Zell Miller is badly needed to steer their party back to a sense of country instead of a sense of self. Even though both parties seem to be morphing into a amalgam entity called the republicrats, party loyalist seem not to understand this. So truely, all either side is desirous of, is the power that goes with the winner.

"MELTDOWN! MELTDOWN! Heh."

Good lord, did you see his "speech" last night? What a freak. I can honestly say that I would consider voting for Bush over Dean.

anyone have a copy of the Dean speech in .mp3 format?

The WSJ Opinion Journal has a link to Drudge. I didn't try it, but assume it works: http://www.drudgereport.com/dean.mp3

If one can remember how the wrestler "Dick the Bruiser" sounded, that would be a pretty good comaprison to how Dean sounded. The drudge linked worked fine this morning.

I've seen it now and it's not that bad. I saw still photos earlier and it looked like he was about to bite the head off a bat. From a strictly entertainment perspective I hope he can hang but my guess is alot of his supporters saw that face too and it spooked them. Despite being still very early I would predict it will come down to the two men that won last night. In the end, I think Edwards will be selected. Clark hasn't been very successful so far in defining himself to the Average Joe and Average Joe Lieberman isn't drawing enough press interest.

The answer is obvious. We must elect John Edwards because he is a psychic.¹

I think it is the case that there isn't a whole heckuva lot of difference between the current democrats and Bush. The main thing seperating them seems to be rhetoric. Dean is operating solely on the high horse of "Let's impeach the evil Herr Bush" and there's ltitle substance behind that. Plus he routinely fails to address contradictions he has made over the years, instead getting angsty and irate at reporters who bring it up. Perhaps the lasting impression Dean will leave behind, though, is the way he ran his campaign. Got to give him props for really embracing the Internet on a pseudo grass roots effort and the "roll up your sleeves" demeanor, but he doesn't have anything behind the gusto.

For Kerry, I would echo the sentiment of one of his campaign advisors who said words to the effect of "Whoa, we didn't plan on, y'know, winning it all in Iowa."

I'm critical of the democrat insistance that the tax cuts be repealed (I don't say "redistributed" because that's always a pipe dream). For one, I tire of the argument that the wealthy are benefiting so much from the taxes. This might come as a real shocker, but the wealthy people in the US also pay the highest taxes on average. Hence, they are very much entitled to their due share back. Although there are occasional cases of wrongdoing, the typical democrat argument of "tax cuts favoring the rich" is pure hogwash most of the time. For two, I think Bush's tax cuts have made a difference and the economy is going to get back up to speed eventually and it would be foolish to repeal them (a sneaky way of raising taxes).

I think the democrats are woefully out-of-touch with the population, tripping on their angry anti-Bush rhetoric rather than proposing real solutions to real problems. How they continue to fight amongst themselves in the Iowa and New Hampshire caucauses, I feel, is a very bad sign for the party that shows a genuine lack of cohesion. I can't tell you how much I tire of the "I'll fix Medicare, I'll fix schools, I'll fix the deficit" ****. Tell me how, in no abridged terms, and maybe I'll be inclined to believe you.

¹: I'm well aware there's an "s" missing

I don't necessarily like Dean but among the democrats, what the hell else is there? Wesley clark looked decent, but unfortunately he's not really in it. The rest are bush copies.

Not that I'll be voting for a dem, or anything.