Second, none of the Democrat 9 strike me as being potentially "Blairite" - only Harold Ford and Evan Bayh can be said to be this way, and neither is running.
Harold Ford in particular reminds me of a young Tony Blair - watch out.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 05/03/2003 3:11:45 AM PDT by MadIvan
THE race for the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has begun. The United States president George Bush’s Top Gun-style appearance on the USS Abraham Lincoln on Thursday night signalled the White House’s determination to milk every last drop of political advantage from the success of the war in Iraq.
This evening, on the other side of the political battlefield, the Democrats begin the process of whittling down a field of nine candidates as they seek to find a challenger to Mr Bush in next November’s elections.
The nine Democrat hopefuls will meet for the first time this evening as they take part in a televised debate in Columbus, South Carolina.
Although still in the early stages of what is surely a long shot for the presidency, the Democratic contest is becoming increasingly acrimonious as a crowded field of candidates jostle for position, and attention.
The competition is encouraging senior Democrat strategists to invoke the name of Tony Blair to both inspire and concentrate Democrat minds.
Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, championed the cause of what he referred to as "the Blair Democrats" in an article for the Washington Post.
Senators John Kerry, Joe Liebermann, John Edwards, and congressman Dick Gephardt, presidential contenders all, supported the war while pressing Mr Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to the US’s traditional allies.
Mr Marshall, an influential thinker within Democrat circles, suggested that by associating these four candidates with Tony Blair’s steadfast support for the war, Democrats can counter the perception that they are weak on national security issues.
"The truth is that the party is divided on Iraq. It’s probable that it’s the loudest voices that are heard and they tend to be anti-war," he writes.
"The point is that Blair’s arguments and those of Kerry, Liebermann, Edwards and Gephardt are the same. It’s important to make the case that the policy of toppling Saddam Hussein had a lot of support amongst Democrats."
Mr Bush showed no quarter yesterday, keeping the focus squarely on the security issues he hopes will return him to the White House.
After telling Americans, in a nationally televised speech from a US aircraft carrier that the war in Iraq was "one victory in a war on terror", he blew up enemy tanks from the cockpit of a simulated fighting vehicle on the grounds of a California defence contractor.
The United Defence Industries supplied Bradley fighting vehicles to the war - and also made the Hercules tank recovery vehicle that pulled the statue of Saddam Hussein down in Baghdad.
"The guy with the sledgehammer on the statute needed a little help," Mr Bush told about 1,800 people at the firm’s development plant.
"The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless," he had announced the evening before, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."
The tally so far meant nearly one-half of al-Qaeda’s senior operatives have been captured or killed, he said.
Mr Bush touted the other pincer of his own strategy for final victory yesterday - a push for $550 billion (£340 billion) in tax cuts over ten years.
The 6 per cent US unemployment rate that emerged yesterday should say "loud and clear" to both parties that robust tax relief was needed so citizens could find a job, he said.
The Democrats are hoping that this evening’s debate, close to 18 months before election day, will help weed out minor candidates early in the race.
In recent days the sharpest exchanges on the Democratic side have been between the former Vermont governor, Howard Dean and the Massachusetts senator, John Kerry.
Mr Dean’s attacks on Mr Bush’s foreign policy in general and the war in Iraq in particular have played well with left-wing Democrat activists - appalling party leaders who see it as a recipe for electoral havoc.
Second, none of the Democrat 9 strike me as being potentially "Blairite" - only Harold Ford and Evan Bayh can be said to be this way, and neither is running.
Harold Ford in particular reminds me of a young Tony Blair - watch out.
Regards, Ivan
He is also a person struggling with personal spiritual issues (questioning if he should convert to Roman Catholicism as leader of a Protestant nation).
The democrats, from Sharpton to Hillary, have far, far less courage, honesty, ethics, and spiritual inclinations than my Siamese cat.
Every last drop....LOL....they're sounding a bit shrill, aren't they?
The truth is that this is the first meeting with the wartime troops that Bush has scheduled. Going to stateside bases doesn't qualify.
The Dem's shot themselves in the chest with their anti-war, vietnam memorabilia during the prewar buildup. They should pay Babs Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Ms. Garofolo and their ilk to shut up and disappear for a while. They should have Dean, Dashhole, Edwards, fade away.
The smart dems supported the troops. The semi-smart kept their mouths shut. The imbeciles attacked our troops and their cause.
Funny, I don't remember much of it.
First and foremost, Blair was much more pro-war than any of these fools.
Quite right, except that I wouldn't call Graham a fool.
Really shrill - I couldn't help but think that might have been a tactic of Slick Willie and Monica...
He is way to moderate for the congressional DEMONCRATS. perhaps if he switched parties.
SHHH! DEMS don't need our advice. If these folks didn't exist, we would have to find others to fill their shoes, that's why we call them "USEFUL" IDIOTS!
He really is kind of a wack job though. He was against the Iraq war because he wanted to attack Iran and Syria first. The national "microscope" is oh so much more "powerful" than any state politics. It will be fun to watch, I'm for Sharpron, he's winning the FR poll by a hugh margin.
"The truth is that the party is divided on Iraq. It's probable that it's the loudest voices that are heard and they tend to be anti-war," he writes.
It doesn't matter how much they spin it. People will remember that it was the Democrats who were against the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.