forget "electability"; what about "effectibility"?

[Pez]

i think it's safe to say that if the democratic party goes all out and gets behind whoever the eventual nominee is, s/he will be elected. what about their ability, once in office, to successfully get their platform implemented? more important than campaign promises is actually getting something done... both houses are ruled by republicans; which candidate do you think will be more likely to draw bipartisan support for their campaign proposals? who could help win back the democratic majority? midterm elections are won/lost basically by the president's success/failure... which would be related to how effective they are.

tooahk amongst ye'selves.

[tsipple]

1. GREAT Question

I would argue that the two governors in the race, Dean and Graham, would tend to be favored in terms of ability to get Democratic issues implemented. Both had to work with sometimes hostile legislatures.

It's still hard, as Carter and Clinton both discovered, but it is worthwhile experience.

Reagan had the ability to do an end run around Congress by convincing the public that his policies should be implemented. I like Dean in that respect, although I'd put Edwards #2 on that list. I think he could also persuade the public to rally behind his objectives.

I'm not wild about a status quo president who wins but doesn't get anything other than a D next to the name of the President. (As the Greens would point out, what's the point?) Certainly that sort of president could work with Congress but, as Bill Clinton showed, sometimes confronting the opposition and letting them do something stupid, like shut down the government, advances your agenda.

[Pez]

2. hmm

i don't think ability to work with both sides would indicate pandering to the status quo... it's more about who makes the other side not feel like traitors for voting with them. i agree graham would be successful, but i think dean's trashing all the democrats in washington would pose a difficult challenge for him. i imagine the republicans would have as much or more hostility toward him than they had for clinton... i think kerry, edwards and graham (possibly lieberman, kucinich in some aspects) would meet the least resistance in washington. all the dem candidates would have a better agenda than the current administration in making american citizens, not corporate interests, top priority. that would be something state and local level campaigners could draw on in midterm elections, making it more likely dems would regain control of washington in general.

edit: oops, totally skipped gephardt. not sure how he would fare. seems like he is very popular... with voters. he would definitely get dem support, but what about the republicans? his face has been on their dartboard for a while.

[w4rma]

6. Those guys in Congress did a great job passing the Republican agenda

Somehow, I don't think they'd be as effective as Dean would in opposing that agenda or pushing another one through, as president. :)

[LWolf]

8. *Some* of those guys. Not all.

Congressman Kucinich has not helped * pass his Republican agenda, to say the least. And see post # 3!

[w4rma]

10. I concede that point to you. (n/t)

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Kucinich hasn't been very effective is stopping the GOP agenda either

What exactly has he accomplished in Congress?

[Pez]

12. convenient...

...ignoring dean's comments at the time of the iwr and the past voting record of those who you claim only pass "the republican agenda". seriously, these guys aren't "bush lite". they are democrats; i think we can all agree on that. we're lucky to have such a diverse pool of candidates. if anything, it helps define what our party stands for-- and apparently, it is in fact a "big tent". that will be to our advantage when the general election rolls around...

i've seen some positives for kucinich; how about some positives for dean based on his record rather than compared to others'? i'm sure all the candidates can stand on their own...

[JohnKleeb]

13. I am gonna show you irony when I say those who voted IWR are still

some damn good democrats. Now Lieberman I have problems with its his attiude more so. But seriously look at their records, I really got to say that Kerry is a good all around liberal, Gephardt good on economic issues, etc. IWR still bothers me and I am not playing devil advocate here.

[Pez]

15. heh; teh lieb.

lieberman is the only one who bothers me really. but apparently he doesn't bother a lot of registered democrats according to the polls. i completely understand the iwr issue; i'm sure you know who the candidates are who deserve the anti-war support. those who voted for and against it did so thoughtfully; it was not some blind agreement/disagreement. these kinds of differences in opinion are welcome in our party, unlike the repupupuppies. and in the end-- regardless of whether you agree with their choice or not-- you know they were actually THINKING; not something i can credit the repuppies with.

[JohnKleeb]

16. I know

oh I would prefer someone who opposed the war but I dont have it out for them. I like most of them except Lieberman.

[Pez]

19. kucinich supporters rock

you guys not only make me reconsider my #2, but #1. i'm not jumping ship yet, but kucinich becomes more and more appealing with each passing post ;-)

[JohnKleeb]

21. Its good to know that we are helping

Who has been your number 1?

[Pez]

25. heheheh

i'm a kerry girl. my main issues are the environment and education, specifically arts education. his wife is a serious asset; teresa has done so much for the arts and humanitarian causes... i think they make a formidable team. i also believe that kerry's alternative energy ideas are something to be reckoned with. his record is impressive; and so is his wife's. i also trust him, based on his past performance. he has been fighting for women's rights, civil rights, arts, education, the environment, democratic ideals, etc for decades...

[JohnKleeb]

28. A wise choice in Senator Kerry

Mrs. Kerry seems like a good woman, Ive heard a lot like Jackie Kennedy in one respect and Ellianor Roosevelt in the other. Well I am glad I made you think pez, would love to have you as one of ours, but I think Kerry is pretty good too.

[w4rma]

14. Dean's comments at the time of the IWR were *GREAT*. I'd never ignore them

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[Pez]

17. and

JANUARY 31, 2003 - LA TIMES

Ron Brownstein writes that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

February 20, 2003, from Salon.com:

"If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

FEBRUARY 20, 2003 - SALON.COM

Jake Tapper writes, " is -- 'as I've said about eight times today,' says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

FEBRUARY 25, 2003 - PBS NEWS HOUR

"If Saddam refuses, for example, to destroy the missiles as the United Nations has demanded, then I think the United Nations is going to have an obligation to disarm him."

"If he were , I would advocate unilateral action."

"We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy."

-Howard Dean on Feb. 25th

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html



and http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html#0921031159pm


dean went back and forth, ok. but don't trash fellow dems who had the responsibility of going on the record for their decision. they knew what a vote one way or the other would mean. ultimately, had it not been for bush and his ridiculous game of international hopscotch we would not be in this position today. it's not the fault of democrats.

[w4rma]

20. *I*'ve had no problem specifically with their *votes* on the IWR.

You are the one trashing Dean on the IWR vote, not the other way around. Give the man credit where credit is due. Dean was fully consistent. He was also outspoken and opposed to this invasion when it was extremely unpopular to do so.

Dean has consistently opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. He has always said that Bush* has not made the case for the invasion and therefore should not invade. That's not a dodge. That's not waffling. That's extremely consistent.

Your February 25 quotes are out of context. The Feburary 20 quotes are fully consistent with his position.

From the only source your provided which I could follow up on:
…
GWEN IFILL: You have said that the president has not made his case for leading an attack or starting an attack in Iraq. Why don't you make your case against that for us?

FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.
…
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[Pez]

23. i'm not trashing dean...

...he has gone back and forth on the issue. there is no reason to trash dean; his position on the iwr is unclear, which can be said of many people, including myself. but to try to paint him as definitively one way or the other is useless, since he had no official standing, and said many different things. that is not a weakness; the problem here is bush, not the dems. whether or not you agree with those who had to go on the record is one thing; you can't discount their reasoning though. none of the dems who voted for it are warmongering fools. if anything, they saw the iwr as a possibility for NOT taking actions to disarm iraq, based on evidence (or lack of).

[w4rma]

24. Yes you are

He doesn't go back and forth on the issue. I think that I've shown that he was solidly opposed to this adventure and tried to do everything he could to prevent it.

It's pretty obvious that Dean would have voted no. Look at these statements from just before the IWR vote. He was trying to tell the other Dems to vote no on it. Click on the link and read the statements from other Dems. You could tell which way they were about to vote from their statements.

Bush is a problem for America. But, Iraq is now also a problem for America.

…
Sunday, October 6, 2002; Page A12
…
Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.
…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[Pez]

26. thanks for telling me what i think...

...and for making dean's vote for him.

[DemDogs]

18. Not on taxes, not on the environment, not on judges

This is the Dean line because of a vote on the Iraq resolution, a vote Mario Cuomo reminded everyone that Dean did not have to take.
Dean likes to say that the Democratic candidates always voted with Bush on everything (the tax cut is his favorite "misstatement")but they did not.
And the idea that Dean will play well with Republicans is delusional. This is not the Vermont legislature.

[w4rma]

22. Are you serious?

Not on which taxes? The 2001 Bush bill or the 2003 Bush bill?
Not on ANWR, but thats about it.
Not on about 6 judges, but thats it.

[JoAnnSimon]

42. Mario Cuomo and Dean?

Mario is supporting Dean? I LOVE IT! I wanted Mario to run in 1992.

Hah, you see how easy it to spin things, when Mario has never made such a statement for or against Dean.

[no name no slogan]

43. Actually, governors have a WORSE time as presidents in DC

most governors who have not served in the US Congress tend to have a tougher time getting their agendas passed in congress.

Even if they have experience with tough legislatures as governor, they oftentimes cannot navigate their way with Congress-- which Carter very painfully learned in his term, as did Bill Clinton to a certain extent, as well. Even though they had majorities to work with in both Houses, they still failed to pass their key pieces of legislation.

Both Carter and Clinton had a condescending view of congress; that congressional Dems should pass the president's agenda unquestionably, without any regard to the wished of the congress.

Most members of congress have served in that august body for well over a decade before they get anything close to resembling seniority, and they demand respect from EVERYBODY-- even the president. If the president does not show proper respect for these powerful leaders, they will have a very difficult time getting their agenda passed.

Hence we got a failed National Healthcare plan in 1994 and "don't ask, don't tell" instead of a ban on gay discrimination in the military.

[Mairead]

3. Dennis has quite a nice record

From a 1996 Cleveland Magazine article, when Dennis was standing for Congress the first time:

"When I first started talking to Dennis about running for state Senate, a lot of people were telling me: 'Dennis Kucinich is a demagogue; he uses issues for his personal gain; he's a loner; he doesn't work well within a group; he won't take advice; he's headstrong; he knows it all,'" says Democratic state Sen. Robert Boggs. "I found out not only were those not true, but that Dennis is probably one of the most conscientious, effective members of the legislature that I've seen in my over 20 years there."

Impressive. But Boggs is a Democrat. In this era of partisan politics, he's supposed to like him. Let's look more.

"My first blush was, Oh no," says Republican state Sen. Grace Drake, chairperson of the Health Committee Kucinich serves on. "But it turned into a nice friendship and knowing a very, very nice person. He's an excellent legislator. And has proven to me in the Health Committee that he cares about people."

Another?

"Well, I'm not going to do your article any good, 'cause I really like Dennis Kucinich," says Republican state Sen. Richard Finan, chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee Kucinich serves on. "Now, we don't agree on a lot of issues, but I couldn't have a better committee member than Dennis."

"I fight the liberals tooth and nail," gloats {Republican state Sen.} Gary Suhadolnik, chairperson of the Energy, Natural Resources and Environment Committee Kucinich sits on. "I've been picketed by animal rights people, homosexuals, labor unions. I've had environmentalists dump garbage in my office. So I've had my share of confrontations with liberal activists. When Dennis rolled in, people thought that this would be the ultimate in personality clashes. And it hasn't been. It's been issue clashes. Dennis has not made it personal, he's made it philosophical and ideological."

He pauses then adds: "Philosophically, he's awful, OK? But I trust him. {emphasis added} Does that make any sense? And, of course, I'm in an awful quandary here. I'd like to see him get out of the Senate, but then he'll be my congressman!" He laughs heartily. "What do I do? How do I win this one?"

[JohnKleeb]

5. interesting

[LWolf]

7. You can't get much better than that.

The people you've worked with, on both sides, and most notably the opposition, all gathering around to say how good you are at working with others...issues, not personal. Trust.

Obviously, Kucinich has the background and experience to get things done.

[JohnKleeb]

9. isnt that interesting and some have said well hes idealogical

so it will be hard but according to these guys hes good at it,

[Pez]

11. nice

>>"What do I do? How do I win this one?"<<

harhar ;-p eat our liberal dust.

[diamondsoul]

29. Come on over to the dark side, Pez!

:evilgrin: Kerry's a great candidate, but let's face it there's only one Dennis J. Kucinich.

No seriously, to respond to your discussion points, one thing I love about Dennis Kucinich is that he doesn't compromise where it's most vital to succeed, if you understand what I mean? He doesn't ever stop trying to achieve a difficult but important goal. His Space Preservation act is a good example.

The bill is often used to paint him as an extremist because the original text contained a reference to affects on human mental state and behavior caused by space based weapons or defense systems. Well, I can't quite figure out what the big deal is about that, considering it was about two lines in a very comprehensive bill and that prevention is always a better policy than treatment after the fact.

So ok, fine, people thought that was over the top. He removed it and resubmitted the bill without that clause. It still failed, and he's still committed to getting legislation passed to ban all space-based weapons. It's been put on a lower priority status than other legislation for the moment, but he still wants it done, and he'll work towards that until he succeeds.

I'm of a mind that perseverance is a very useful quality when it comes to dealing with strong opposition. A good deal of the time you'll get something through because by G-d they want you to just shut UP about it already!*LOL*

Something else I've just recently figured out. There's a useful little trick to writing legislation, and you have to be a pretty good strategist to do it well. You start out with a bill that includes every possible little detail you could possibly want to pass. You make abvsolutely sure you have things in there that you KNOW will be objected to. Now when the speeches come around, you've got some things to negotiate with for the things you consider vital. "Ok, I'll remove this provision if you'll agree to leave that one alone."

Kucinich has been in the House for 8 years. Believe me he knows that trick. He knows when it's time to compromise and when it's time to stand firm. Ah Politics, the ultimate poker game.

[JohnKleeb]

30. lol di come on pez

We'd love ot have you, the more the merrier. You get a free kielbasa :evilgrin:, polka record, and bowling ticket lol, he really is one of hell of a candiate. Plus also Kucinich shares your views on the environment and education I think too.

[Pez]

34. aaaagh!

nooo! the pressure! heheheh... i've thrown my lot in with kerry, and i'm in it for the long haul ;-) i agree with your points on kucinich; personally i think kerry, kucinich and graham have the best creds and their experience would be a great asset to the you.s. right now. hopefully they will play key rolls in shaping the next administration, whoever ends up with the nomination.

>>Ah Politics, the ultimate poker game.<<

hit me! i'm feeling lucky.

[JoAnnSimon]

38. Dennis Not Electable

As much as Dennis Kuchinich has some wonderful ideas, the REALITY is that he isn't really electable for the office of President. He doesn't have a big enough following, and (as much as I hate this for being a prerequisite for Presidential electability), he doesn't have the physical presence that can fire up a huge number of the populace--which will be necessary if the Democrats hope to defeat the over-funded Republican machine, who will do anything to win, as they did in 2000. They'll distort, they'll slime, they'll lie, and they'll even resort to trying to 'fix' the votes. I can't see Kuchinich being able to stand up to that onslaught, simply because he won't have the finances to do so.

I only see three candidates who can: Dean, Clark and Kerry. Although I have nothing against Clark, except that he let his opponents slave in the trenches before slipping in unscathed three months before the first primary (sarcasm intended), I'm for Dean winning the battle because he really has 'the fire in the belly,' and, despite their speeches, I'm wondering if Clark and Kerry really share that fire. It's not a fire to win with Dean--it's a fire to take back democracy in this country.

Keep in mind that I, as someone whose first mission is to send the Bushistas back to Texas, will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated to run for the Presidency--and I WILL fight to make sure that candidate beats Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

39. Kucinich can stand up more than you can think actually

After his brave decision in the 70's everyone thought he was gone for good. He can fight as hard as hard as anyone. He doesnt have a big following now but believe me anything can happen.

[hippywife]

44. Don't

"misunderestimate" the man and his supporters. ;)

[no name no slogan]

45. They said that about Wellstone too-- I WAS THERE

I thought we'd slayed this "electability" strawman?

Wellstone was also "unelectable" here in so-called "liberal" Minnesota. The party all but ignored him, although he flooded the caucuses with his grassroots supporters. He even won the election against a very well-funded Republican incumbent.

Dennis has done the same, with his re-election numbers GROWING for each time he's run for re-election to congress (now around 75% of the vote in a conservative district!). He even gets close to half the REPUBLICAN VOTERS voting for him, too! How is that cross-party appeal "unelectable?"

Dean, OTOH, has had ever-decreasing win percentages for each of his re-election bids for governor. He even failed to turn VT over to another Democrat after he decided not to run for re-election. Dean was also in charge of the campaign to elect more Democratic governors in 2002-- a year where we LOST more gubernatorial races than we won.

Sure Dean has the rage, but not the 'outrage'. I see in him a man who's very very angry about the state of our country and wants to "take it back". I see in Kucinich a man who is angry, but has a constructive anger that has been turned into compasssion, not to "take back America", but to heal it from the years of misrule by BushCo, and "give it back" to ALL of us.

[Pez]

47. don't hijack this thread

it's not about electable. everyone has already established that no one/everyone is electable.

would they be effective?

[JohnKleeb]

48. Pez thank you

[gottaB]

4. good question

A few points. There's a lot more to being effective than just enacting legislation. If the opposition has a radical agenda that needs to be stopped, vetos are also a way of being effective.

Take Bill Clinton for example. He came into town wheeling and dealing just like back home. But he failed on several fronts, like health care reform, and was notably successful only on things like NAFTA that had strong support from the other side of the aisle. However, after the "Contract on America" and after trying to deal with the Gingrich congress, Clinton became frustrated and resorted to exercizing the veto. For him it became a very effective means of curbing the right wing agenda.

As for predictions of who will rule congress in 2005 or 2007, I wouldn't bet the farm one way or the other.

Campaign promises can be pretty shallow. You have to evaluate a candidates record and their word. A history of bipartisan negotiation can be seen as an important skill--or a tendency to buckle on important issues. What you really want to do is get a feel for a candidate's most basic priorities, and whether you support those. The office of the president is vested with enough power such that a hostile congress by itself cannot doom a presidency to failure.


Welcome to DU, Pez

[JoAnnSimon]

40. "good question" by gottaB

You DO make a good point in that NO president can fill certain campaign pledges without a willing Congress and a mild opposition. Bush got a lot of things through because the Democratic opposition (with only a one vote minority in the Senate) proved totally spineless and buckled to Bush's most outlandish right wing policies, such as two tax cuts this country couldn't afford, and increases in the military budget that this country similarly couldn't afford, etc., etc.

That's why so many Democrats were so angry, that they didn't bother to vote in 2002, allowing the Republicans to take both organs of Congress. Of course, that was a cut your nose to spite your face mentality, but I don't think Democrats are going to act similarly in 2004.

Democrats of all stripes are ANGRY, frustrated and energized to make sure that the GW Bush cartel is booted out of the White House in 2004.

The sequestered, bubble protected DC media, as well as other introverted media in the country, who generally choose to not even investigate the opinions and thoughts of the rest of us out here, are having their bubbles popped. I think for the first time in a long time, the People's voices are beginning to be heard--on both sides of the aisle.

I think the saying, 'the straw that broke the camel's back' is appropos here. Most of the public has just had the last straw rested on its back.

[carpetbagger]

27. This is what I think Clark's great strength will be.

I think it will be very difficult for republicans to keep a united front should he go the Bush route of picking off individual Senators and reps for each proposal, and takes to the bully pulpit.

[JoAnnSimon]

41. Clark-Elect?

And you think Clarks connections to former military people and republican people will be an asset? Not with me.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MuseRider]

32. I KNEW it.

Here you are AGAIN! Are you 12? This is really, really not productive and is stupid. Go do something good for Dean, OK?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[diamondsoul]

37. Nah, it was you who "turned us on"

with your pretty Dean face and total lack of substance. 'Cause we all know women just LOOOOVE the manly men who can't ever speak with any consistancy or intelligence. Why just look at Ahhhhnolds polling numbers for the proof!:eyes: :crazy: :puke:

[Pez]

35. thank you for your thoughtful, informative post

</sarcasm>

perhaps you'd like to share your views on the actual topic.

[MuseRider]

36. That is not lkely

to happen. I checked on all the posts by this particular poster and they are pretty much all like this unless it is a Dean thread. Must be home sick from school.