Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do we really want retreads for 2008?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:03 PM
Original message
Do we really want retreads for 2008?
I have been giving this much thought lately. What is the advantage? Disadvantage?

Talk amongst yourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. OK...just don't put Al Gore in the retread category! !nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a case made supporting both Gore and Kerry from the HuffPost some months
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. If Al Gore runs, maybe he'd let Kerry write a few jokes for him if he's not too busy
:party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. If Gore runs, maybe he'll pledge to open the books on BushInc that Clinton closed
and maybe that would be the best thing he could possibly do to preserve this nation's fragile democracy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. If Gore runs & wins, let's just hope he'll make a great President like Clinton did
I think he would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. You may want a coverup for Bush2 presidency, but there are many of us who see
how close this nation is to fascism BECAUSE of the Dems who helped coverup for Bush1.

A GREAT president would respect the voters as CITIZENS - respect them with the TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. There you go AGAIN, putting words into someone's mouth that don't exist
You may want a coverup for Bush2 presidency

Please show me where I ever said or implied any such thing. Saying Bill Clinton was a great president, which he was, doesn't mean my opinion includes any of your presumptions about what I think concerning his closing any books.

Why do you always insist on ramming your beliefs down everyone elses throats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Not my belief, it's the the REALITY and consequences of what YOU consider 'great'
Edited on Mon Nov-20-06 10:25 AM by blm
for this country.

The congressional record backs me up and Bush2's presidency proves that any good or 'great' program from any Dem president can be easily destroyed or dismantled within a few years if you LEAVE the Bush's powerstructure intact and protected, as Clinton chose to do.

You want a repeat of that under the guise that it was 'great' - I don't because the consequences are TOO GREAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Retreads" are tires..we're talking about
intelligent Democrats who ran against the frat boy with the media on the frat boy's side.

I like nothing better than a true come back story.

I would rather have either Al Gore or John Kerry than billary ..that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Do we really *want* 'retreads'?
I suppose the perfect answer in a perfect world is 'no'.

But the world isn't perfect and neither are answers to complex issues.

Nixon was a retread .... and won in round 2.

My guess is that your question is about Gore and Kerry.

I am NOT stating my personal willingness to vote for either of them, as it is irrelevant to my point about each man.

Gore has done a more than credible job of rehabilitating his image. The ways in which he's accomplished this have been all too often discussed on DU and should be obvious.

Kerry .... not so much. Time may be against him in terms of distance from his (as I'll call it for clarity sake) defeat.

Edwards is still pretty much the same guy he was before he ran as veep and the shit that's been flung at Kerry has remarkably avoided splashing onto Edwards. I see him as still viable and not a retread.

Same goes, really, for any of the other primary opponents from 04. I don't see a one of them as being in the retread category.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Reagan was a "retread"....from Wiki, 1968 and 1976
Reagan first tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's left led by then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Reagan managed to win the pledges of some 600 delegates, but Nixon quickly steamrolled to the nomination; Reagan urged the convention to nominate Nixon unanimously.

In 1976, Reagan challenged incumbent President Gerald Ford, a moderate. Reagan soon established himself as the conservative candidate; like-minded organizations such as the American Conservative Union became the key components of his political base. He relied on a strategy crafted by campaign manager John Sears of winning a few primaries early to seriously damage the liftoff of Ford's campaign, but the strategy quickly disintegrated. Poor management of expectations and an ill-timed speech promising to shift responsibilty for federal services to the states without identifying any clear funding mechanism caused Reagan to lose New Hampshire and later Florida. Reagan found himself cornered, desperately needing a win to stay in the race.

Reagan's stand in the North Carolina primary was a do-or-die proposition. Hammering Ford on the Panama Canal, detente with the Soviet Union, busing of school children, and Henry Kissinger's performance as Secretary of State, Reagan won 53% to 47%. He used that bit of momentum to add the major states of Texas and California, but then fell back from losing efforts in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan. As the party's convention in Kansas City neared, Ford appeared close to victory, thanks to New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania delegates ostensibly under the control of Ford's liberal Vice President Rockefeller. Acknowledging the strength of his party's moderate and liberal wing, Reagan balanced his ticket by chosing as his running mate moderate Republican Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, Ford squeaked by with 1,187 delegates to Reagan's 1,070. Reagan's concession speech was a stirring exhortation, emphasizing the dangers of nuclear war and the moral threat posed by the Soviet Union.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#1976_Preside...
----------------------------------

I'd say things look pretty good for Gore and Kerry, as well as others :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Nixon was a retread too.
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 03:13 PM by Telly Savalas
On edit: Sorry, I overlooked that Husb2Sparkly pointed this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I understand.....no problem
So many retreads, so little time, but Nixon was the HUGHgest retread ever...John F. Kennedy beat him in '60 :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Reagan was not a retread
Reagan sought the nomination in 1976 and LOST.

Gore and Kerry are retreads a la Adlai Stevenson. They both WON their party's nomination and then lost the election. (yeah, I know Gore won).

The only candidates who fit the Reagan mold would be someone who ran before, DIDN'T get the nomination and is now running again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Beat me to it.
Reagan came very close to the nomination, only losing because of the Superdelegates as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Exactly
and remember, they almost ran him as "co President" on the ticket with Ford, but the deal fell through at the last minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Ok...
"Reagan sought the nomination in 1976 and LOST."

My definition of "retread" :shrug: What about Reagan 1968..retread/retread ?

Gore and Kerry are retreads a la Adlai Stevenson. They both WON their party's nomination and then lost the election. (yeah, I know Gore won).

If you grew up in the 50's that's understandable, eh? Now, explain to Lucy here, and I'll let you off the hook that this is the worst politcal/analogy/comment ever!


The only candidates who fit the Reagan mold would be someone who ran before, DIDN'T get the nomination and is now running again.

Like Clark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Stevenson
got the nomination and lost in 52. Then got the nomination again in 56 and lost again.

The analogy is good for Gore and Kerry (they both have previously won nominations) but not for Reagan, who never had won a nomination before he ran in 1980.

And no, I wasn't born when Stevenson ran for Pres, but its' readily available knowledge in any American history text. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. But, but Nixon/Reagan LOST, then won
Stevenson didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The OP is about retread candidates
again, Reagan is not a retread candidate in the same way that Gore or Kerry would be, as Reagan had not ever won the nomination before his run in 1980.

Capiche?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. LOL....
Now you explain the rules. Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Not explaining anything
just pointing out that your comparison between Reagan on the one hand and Gore and Kerry on the other is not a valid apples to apples comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. I would definitely support Gore over Kerry
JMHO. Don't like Kerry for President. Why do people on DU get so pissed at other people for saying that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Because some of us are SERIOUS anti-corruption, open government Democrats
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 05:53 PM by blm
and Kerry has accrued the greatest record of investigating and exposing government corruption of any lawmaker in modern history.

Why would that be a mystery to you or to any Democrat with even a basic knowledge of recent history?

It's a mystery to me why ANY Democrat would want a repeat of a coverup Dem administration that led to another Bush presidency in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. No. Retreads will be sure losers.
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 01:25 PM by bowens43
This includes Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Kucinich and all the rest who ran in in the primaries in 2000 or 2004. If we're determined to lose, then put any of these folks on the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Who do you like so far?
Just curious, still time for that "dark horse" a la Bill Clinton :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. That was Christopher Dodd's line, announcing his exploratory campaign
for the Democratic presidential nomination in '08, on the Al Franken Show about a month ago (with a substitute host): He said Hillary's "in trouble with the antiwar crowd," and we don't want losers (Kerry, Gore). And that leaves HIM.*

What he didn't talk about was his pivotal role, in collusion with Tom Delay and Bob Ney, in destroying our country's election system, and producing a non-transparent election in 2004, by the fast-tracking all over the country (with $3.9 in boondoggle funding) of electronic voting systems, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations.

I'm for restoring the people to the White House who legitimately won both elections, 2000 and 2004: Gore/Kerry '08. These are NOT normal political times. Believe me, I've been around a while, and have seen a lot of administrations come and go, and what I see now is that we need to restore order. Words like "retread" come from a different world.

I realize that Kerry shot himself in the foot recently, with his botched joke about Bush's stupidity. And that, combined with lingering bitterness about his lack of a fight in Ohio (and re: the "trade secret" vote tabulation), may be it for him. He's too easy a target for the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' pre-written post-election narratives. Still, I am convinced that he was elected by the American people, and, though I have some fundamental political differences with him, and with Gore, I can't think of better medicine for this grievously weakened democracy than their inauguration in January 2009. Can you just imagine the celebrations? And can you just imagine the team of intelligent, motivated, determined people whom they would attract?

It almost makes one drool, we are so hungry for intelligent leadership, and for an unleashing of our positive energy, talents and genius as a people. Even if we can't get rid of the "trade secret" vote tabulation by then, I think a Gore/Kerry ticket would simply blow the machines away.

It's an interesting bit of magic and chemistry. Kerry alone--nope. That wouldn't do it. No matter who you combined him with, as his vp. He just wouldn't have the magic in top spot. But as the vp combined with Gore? Suddenly it ignites. Gore is the great speaker now. Gore is the one who has been passionately advocating return to lawful, decent government since well before the '04 (s)election. He's the one with eight years of experience in the executive branch. And Kerry, as vp, would preside over the Senate--where most of his government experience has occurred. And Gore, having been vp, would use Kerry well. Kerry wouldn't be sidelined. He would be put in charge of major initiatives. We can't waste talent--I'm sure Gore would realize that. He is a cooperator, not a dictator-type. And Gore, of course, is already onto the most important project of the 21st century, saving our planet from the impacts of fossil fuels and other environmental degradation.

Gore combined with someone else might create some magic. But not near the magic of a full RESTORATION ticket, of Gore/Kerry. I think the country would weep for joy. And so would the rest of the world.

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

*(As for Dodd, the voters of CT don't seem to have much sense, but I sure hope they send him to Ireland for a long, long vacation sometime soon.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. retreads? wanna poison the well some more?
I like'm all I suppose a one time senator with no record might be better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. What qualifies as a "retread"?
Is it every candidate who ran in '04, plus Gore? Just Kerry and Gore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. Personally, I think we need new blood
The only candidate who ran before who would seem to be viable is Edwards. Gore and Kerry have extremely high negatives and more than half the country tells pollsters they would "never" vote for them. Nominating either of them is not the way to win the WH back, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
20. Do you mean every single one who ran in 04 is a retread?
If that is what you mean, bring on many of the retreads. I am all for it. I hate that term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
23. I want experience for 08
Edited on Sun Nov-19-06 05:26 PM by politicasista
I want someone who is not just going to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq and here at home, but someone who is experienced, competent, cares about the interests of all Americans, and strongly believes in anti-corruption.


I don't care if they are "retreads," I want experience in a presidential candidate for 08. And that's that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Would Clark qualify for your approval?
I'm just curious because I agree with what you want and I personally think he'd qualify...how about you? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Yes, he is one of three that would qualify n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. Here's an interesting thought:
When I saw your post title, I had to laugh. Why? Because I was just thinking "retread" the last time I responded to a thread. I'd been thinking I didn't want retreads. When I saw your thread title, though, I came to an abrupt realization.

Not everyone who participated in previous primaries or previous general election is a "retread" in my mind. Those I was considering "retreads" are the candidates I didn't want the first time around, and am disgruntled at the thought of having to oppose them again. Those candidates that I actually liked or supported in previous elections are just fine for another round, lol.

I suspect it may be like that for many of us. I can't, with integrity, say "no retreads." I can only say, "once was enough" for Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, and one Clinton in the WH was plenty for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
32. I don't support Gore, Kerry, Edwards, or Hillary for the primaries
I'll take my chances with Clark, Bayh, Richardson, or Vilsack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I saw Vilsack somewhere recently
and he came across pretty darn well. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. You can have him if you want him?
As an Iowan, you can take him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
35. I Am A Proud Clarkie, But There Are Many Dems I'd Be Happy To Support, Such As:
Al Gore
Dennis Kucinich
John Kerry
John Conyers (I know, . . he's old, but I don't give a shit - He's awesome!)
Max Cleland
John Edwards
Jimmy Carter (Please see John Conyers explanation)
Jesse Jackson
Ted Kennedy (Yeah, Ted Kennedy)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Richard Clarke
Russ Feingold
Etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
38. The election process is full of surprises.
We don't have much control over who will run in the primaries, and we're sure to be surprised. For instance, not many people knew who Howard Dean was at the beginning of 2003. Think about it. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
41. I have no problem with this. We should pick our Presidents based on experience
integrity and leadership and for no other reason. I am tired of slick pols running and behaving like car salesmen to get our votes. I want substance not flash or good old boy charm.
Kerry, Gore, Biden and Bahy, all have that extra experience. Clark has the military experience and to a lesser degree Richardson, Clinton and Edwards has some experience. All old faces no doubt about it.
My personal choice is Kerry.He offers a complete package even if he is only human and has misspoken once or twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC