Democrats Spare the Friendly Fire (NY Times Editorial- Barf Alert)

NY Times ^ | 9/6/03 | NY Times Editorial

[NYC Republican]

Beyond making some amiably assorted stabs at speaking Spanish, the Democratic presidential candidates were united in their first major debate on at least one thing, resolutely targeting President Bush for his foundering postwar policy in Iraq. The clownish intramural sideshows that usually haunt the Democratic Party on the early primary circuit were missing in Albuquerque.

But those Americans bothering to tune in on Thursday night were also offered an early look at how the Democrats disagree. While they competed to come up with the most dismissive description of Mr. Bush's foreign policy (Richard Gephardt may have won with "miserable failure"), the Democrats have different histories on supporting the war, and different ideas about what to do in Iraq.

Most — particularly those currently serving in Washington — were far less critical and prophetic of the downsides when they first supported the popular president's war. Now they disagree about whether more American troops should be sent to support the beleaguered forces in Iraq. On the president's tax cuts, the candidates, in stressing education, health care and other spending needs, offered mixed ideas for full and partial repeals. As the primaries near, those who want to spare the tax cuts that most benefit the middle class will have to explain how they would pay for other priorities and nudge the budget toward a semblance of balance.

The Democrats have front-loaded the presidential primary season in the hopes of stifling intraparty debate fast, coming up with a candidate and getting on with the task of beating George Bush. But there are still several months before the first primary, and Democratic voters deserve the chance to wrestle with the differences that lie behind the catchphrases. How much should the nation pay to shore up Iraq? Which Bush tax cuts should be retained, if any? Should a national health care plan be gradually phased in, beginning with children, or is it time to provide coverage for all?

Democratic strategists would, of course, prefer a unified front that focuses entirely on the president from Day 1. But there is plenty of agreement on the essentials: that Mr. Bush erred in going into Iraq without international support, and that his failure to plan an exit strategy was an unforgivable error. All the candidates believe that the White House has frittered away opportunities to create jobs and improve health care in favor of unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy.

A forum in which eight people took turns giving very short answers to what were sometimes very long questions did not get much below the surface. But there will be plenty of other venues to come, and we are looking forward to the contest.

[NYC Republican]

Note how this liberal POS rag doesn't offer one bit of criticism of the SCUMBAG DemocRats, who blasted Bush with one lie after another. Nothing was challenged. They call Bush a miserable failure, etc etc etc.

I wonder... How do these folks follow this performance and go to Congress and try to legislate. Do the Ds and Rs not talk to each other anymore? Is there just an overwhelming animosity between the two parties?

Also, where the hell are Cheney, Frist, and Hastert? Why aren't any of them countering these lies? This is beyond frustrating.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Should a national health care plan be gradually phased in, beginning with children, or is it time to provide coverage for all?

Uggg... I really hope those ware not the only two options...

[Lazamataz]

New York Who????

Oh, you mean the fact-free embarrassed hopelessly inept supersocialist news nonentity?

But those Americans bothering to tune in on Thursday night were also offered an early look at how the Democrats disagree. While they competed to come up with the most dismissive description of Mr. Bush's foreign policy (Richard Gephardt may have won with "miserable failure"

Where's the failure, Little Dick?

We're losing a few soldiers a day. In Vietnam, we lost hundreds and thousands a day.

Buck up, you Little Dick.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Should a national health care plan be gradually phased in, beginning with children, or is it time to provide coverage for all?

Bad way to ask the question. A more accurate way is "Are you willing to pay more taxes for......"

They may get different results if they ask it this way.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Of course another good question to ask is whether or not they support reperations to blacks.

[auntdot]

...forum in which eight people took turns giving very short answers to what were sometimes very long questions did not get much below the surface.

The ninth dwarf, of course, was Al Sharpton.

What a jerk. The guy can't raise a sawbuck in political contributions. But he was given a chance to get some free face time on TV.

So what does he do? Makes airplane reservations that will get him to the debate at the last minute. Duh.

The plane is delayed and he is a no show.

This dimwit continues to show his Presidential mettle.

"Vote for me, I may be there and then again I might miss the bus."

Gimme a break.

[NYC Republican]

Of course another good question to ask is whether or not they support reperations to blacks

We know the answer- of course they support it

[Sir_Humphrey]

We know the answer- of course they support it

I should have been more explicit. We should get them to say they do.

[razorback-bert]

In Vietnam, we lost hundreds and thousands a day.

It appears you have use the demo-o-rat math system.

[razorback-bert]

you have used


Million man math