20-02-2003 01:41									#1
	Gephardt announces candidacy Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Gephardt has finally thrown his hat in the ring. Announcement

Every time I see this guy I wonder who could possibly vote for him? Words fail to express my disgust with this slimeball. Him, Kennedy, Daschle, Lott, and Armey. I feel the need to shower.

	20-02-2003 02:08									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ok, why is he such a slimeball? He's stood up for what he believes, often in the face of greater opposition within his own party.

I certainly don't think he's any more of a slimeball than Bush or Hastert or Dole, and he's certainly not as much of a slimeball as Lott, DeLay or Phil Gramm.

	20-02-2003 02:13									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

He looks incredibly smarmy. Don't vote him.

I mean, we have Prez the WonderMonkey, and what can Democrats find to face him? Mutant-headed Kerry, this smug-looking git and Lieberman, who looks like a ventriloquist's puppet. Aren't there normal-looking folks in American politics?

	20-02-2003 02:16									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Gephardt is probably too left-wing to prevail.

	20-02-2003 02:18									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Ok, why is he such a slimeball? He's stood up for what he believes, often in the face of greater opposition within his own party.

I dunno... the fact that Lott gets slammed for speaking in front of 'white supremecist' groups, but Gephart can do the same thing and get away with being thought of as a minority friendly candidate?

	20-02-2003 02:40									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Except for Gore, ALL democrats over the age of 35 are currently running for president.

	20-02-2003 02:46									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Ok, why is he such a slimeball? He's stood up for what he believes, often in the face of greater opposition within his own party. I dunno... the fact that Lott gets slammed for speaking in front of 'white supremecist' groups, but Gephart can do the same thing and get away with being thought of as a minority friendly candidate?

So, an old Newsmax article complained about Gephardt's debating of a primary-election opponent in 1988 at a meeting of the Metro South Citizens Council, which was primarily at the time focused on "states rights" issues, and because people who complained about Lott aren't complaining about this, that makes Gephardt a slimeball?

Please. Remember that Lott's racism was backed by both his words and deeds. Unless you can find me a transcript of the debate in which Gephardt pandered to the organization's views on race (if they had any official ones at the time), I'd say the comparison is pretty damned weak.

	20-02-2003 03:01									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

John Kerry is the pick of the litter.

	20-02-2003 04:11									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Gephardt doesn't stand a chance in the Presidential election. Believe me, I live in the 3rd District in St. Louis and have followed this clown my whole life.

The Council of Conservative Citizens, which Lott got in trouble for dealing with, is practically headquartered in his district. It may even be actually be headquartered there, but I can't remember right now. Cross membership between the Metro Council and the CCC was very high.

Gephardt's district includes the southern part of the St. Louis City*, much of St. Louis Country, and 2 large rural counties further south, predominantly white.

Most whites have fled the City of St. Louis proper out into the County, and the ones who remain, who are heavily racist, blue collar middle class/poor (e.g. my family), reside within his district. Racial politics here in St. Louis are extremely devisive. Ending desegregation is a major issue, also.

Gephardt has played a major role in keeping his district white. The fact that the area got an influx of tens of thousands of Bosnian refugees, all of whom hate blacks, is no coincidence.

The 3rd District have also been gerrymandered to put most of the blacks into the 1st District, which includes North St. Louis, predominantly black. (Also Missouri's smallest district.)

Plus, Gephardt has never run against a genuine Republican challenger in his life. Politics in the 3rd District is a Democrats only affair, and gerrymandering has kept it this way for years. The Democratic primary pretty much decides who will win the Congressional election.

Gephardt is heavily in the pocket of the Unions, and this is where the majority of his money and support are likely to come from.

Finally, he looks like a clown. What's up with those eybrows?



* A long time ago, St. Louis set a boundry on the city limits so their taxes wouldn't go towards paying for stuff in the rural surounding area. Now those farms are all affluent suburbs, and most of the whites with money** have moved out of the City proper into the surrounding St. Louis County area, which is more or less a group of suburbs incorporated into a single bloc with it's own mayor they call a County Executive. The City itself has less than 1/2 million people, mostly working class, and is still depopulating.

** And blacks too after the unspoken real estate conspiracy to keep them out of the white areas was finally broken.

	20-02-2003 04:21									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Gephardt is probably too left-wing to prevail.

Yup, he'll be squished in the primaries. In a lot of states independents can vote in primaries, and they'll all be voting in the Dem primary since there's no way Bush will lose the Republican one which will give the more right-wing dem candidates an edge.

	20-02-2003 04:42									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

And then you've got Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) trying to position himself to the left of Gephardt, while targetting basically the same constituency. Kucinich probably won't get far, but he could siphon off some of Gephardt's supporters, and Gephardt needs all of them that he can get.
Plus, Gephardt has been sniffing around the Democratic nomination since 1988, so he's old news, and unlikely to get the nomination.

	20-02-2003 06:11									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

You guys are too tough on him. I bet he could win in France or Germany.

	20-02-2003 06:30									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: So, an old Newsmax article complained about Gephardt's debating of a primary-election opponent in 1988 at a meeting of the Metro South Citizens Council, which was primarily at the time focused on "states rights" issues, and because people who complained about Lott aren't complaining about this, that makes Gephardt a slimeball?

It's more than that, and I didn't hear it from Newsmax. Gephart has praised the group many times and has gone to meetings by himself.

It makes Geppy a slimeball, that he decided to go after Lott for the CCC thing (and if you don't believe that the House Democrat leader has a role in just about everything the party does, you have your eyes closed).

	20-02-2003 06:34									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui (and if you don't believe that the House Democrat leader has a role in just about everything the party does, you have your eyes closed).

Not necessarily.

Can you be sure about that statement? After all, in a parallel universe, House leaders might have utterly no power to influence what their party does.

	20-02-2003 06:42									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Perhaps they might not .

But if we define the debate to this universe and dimension, US House Majority Leaders usually have a big hand in formulating party policy, but that isn't an absolute rule... I'm sure some Majority Leaders were kept out, but not Geppy.

	20-02-2003 06:50									#16
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But if we define the debate to this universe and dimension,

Gee, what an amazing concept!

	20-02-2003 06:51									#17
	Remove this text

I suspect Gephardt is doing this for any of a number of reasons:
1) He's not getting any younger.
2) He's tired of being in the minority, and doesn't think there's a reasonable chance the Democrats will retake the majority any time soon.
3) Maybe he's just tired, and this gives him a graceful way to get out of the House "on top".

With Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and every other Democrat jumping into the race, I wonder if the fractionalization of the vote helps Gephardt, cause he has higher name recognition, or hurts him, because it splits his base and makes him look too much like just another candidate in the pack.

It's also interesting that there's no Democratic governors in the race except Dean.

EDIT: forgot about Dean, as most votes will do as soon as the primaries start...

	20-02-2003 06:54									#18
	Put an end to popups!

I think it might hurt him, MBD, because Kerrey and Liebermann have much better name recognition. Without the crowd, Gephardt might have been able to stand out on some issues.

	20-02-2003 06:54									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MBD EDIT: forgot about Dean, as most votes will do as soon as the primaries start...

Don't be so sure. Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

	20-02-2003 06:57									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I concede that Lieberman has better name recognition, but Kerry's been in the Senate since '84 I think, and has very little name recognition to show for it -- the only thing he's known for is marrying into money.

	20-02-2003 06:59									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Don't be so sure. Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

Which is it -- moderate or liberal, or like Clinton, both?
And I agree there's a charisma shortage.

	20-02-2003 07:04									#22
	Tired of ads?

quote: Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders.

Different times, Boris. No one of substance was running against Clinton. His biggest opponent in the primaries was Gore, IIRC.

This time it is different, the big Senators are coming out.

quote: Kerry's been in the Senate since '84 I think, and has very little name recognition to show for it -- the only thing he's known for is marrying into money.

The media have announced him as the front runner, which goes a long way.

	20-02-2003 07:12									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Also, Clinton had been governor of Arkansas from 1979-81, and 1983- and had given that long-winded nomination speech at the 1988 convention, so was known within the party as an up-and-comer. I think the original speculation on him was that he was going to wait until 1996, but he got lucky on the timing of Bush Sr's drop in popularity.

And as for Kerry and the media, I agree the media seem to have annointed him as the front runner, but it's almost meaningless at this point, a year before the first primary. In fact, it may even be a handicap, cause it might raise expectations too much.

	20-02-2003 07:22									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Clinton was a small-state governor with little name recognition in 1992. Dean is an appealing candidate for moderate Dems, because he was a popular governor, is sensibly liberal and has more charisma than most of the other contenders. Different times, Boris. No one of substance was running against Clinton. His biggest opponent in the primaries was Gore, IIRC.

Wrong-o. Gore ran in 1988, not 1992.

Clinton's main opponent was Paul Tsongas, who was certainly a man of substance, as well as a popular senator. Tsongas was also dubbed the front-runner early on by the media.

MDB, Clinton's long-winded speech at the convention hardly gave him any serious name recognition for the rank-and-file in the party. Clinton earned the nomination by fighting for it.

	20-02-2003 07:25									#25
	Tired of ads?

Ooops, on the Gore.

Oh, and you are wrong on the nomination speech. It was considered as making him a viable candidate after Dukakis lost.

Dean has just about NO name recognition, against someone that was one state short of vice-president, and the Senator that seems to be the standard bearer of principled opposition to the President. Does not bode well at all for Dean. I expect him to be one of the first to drop out of the race.

	20-02-2003 07:28									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Oh, and you remember Tsongas' legacy wrong:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/reme...tsong_1-20.html

quote: Paul Tsongas, the former Massachusetts Senator, in 1992 presidential candidate, died over the weekend from liver failure and pneumonia. He was 55 years old. Tsongas served two terms in the House and then was elected to the Senate in 1978. In 1984, after only one term, he was diagnosed with cancer of the lymph nodes. He decided not to seek re-election so he could undergo aggressive treatment and be with his wife and three daughters. After a bone marrow transplant from his twin sister, his health improved, and he resumed his law practice in Boston. In 1992, he sought the Democratic presidential nomination, running second and went to the primary season behind then Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, who, of course, went on to win the presidency.

He was a one-term Senator, how exactly does he compared with Kerrey and Lieberman who have won big re-elections?

	20-02-2003 07:33									#27
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Ooops, on the Gore. Oh, and you are wrong on the nomination speech. It was considered as making him a viable candidate after Dukakis lost.

No, it didn't. He was certainly on a looooooong list of possible Dem contenders once Dukakis bombed, but he wasn't any more recognizable than others in the field. He certainly had less so than Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin and Bob Kerry, who were also in the race.

I remember quite well when the primaries began that we had no clue who Bill Clinton was or any inkling that he would win. Most of the early money was Kerry and Tsongas.

It wasn't until Clinton came in 2nd in NH that he separated himself from the rest of the pack.

quote: Dean has just about NO name recognition, against someone that was one state short of vice-president, and the Senator that seems to be the standard bearer of principled opposition to the President. Does not bode well at all for Dean. I expect him to be one of the first to drop out of the race.

I don't doubt that Dean has an uphill battle, but I would not write him off so easily. He is the only candidate I've see other Democrats actually get excited about.

	20-02-2003 07:34									#28
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov MDB, Clinton's long-winded speech at the convention hardly gave him any serious name recognition for the rank-and-file in the party. Clinton earned the nomination by fighting for it.

The only recognition the speech gave him was that in some situations he could give a long boring speech. The fact that he was chosen to give a nominating speech at all was a sign that he was considered an up-and-comer in the Democratic party.

	20-02-2003 07:35									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui He was a one-term Senator, how exactly does he compared with Kerrey and Lieberman who have won big re-elections?

He had been in the House, and was very popular in his state. He was also the early front-runner. It came down to a battle between him and Clinton.