Gephardt on Fire on Blitzer just now! Worth taking a second look!

[KoKo]

I just committed to Dean this weekend, but if Gephardt had shown the spunk and liveliness he did just now on Blitzer, EVER........I might have looked harder at the guy. Last weekend at one of his "meet and greet" picnics he was totally flat in his speech and lackluster when C-Span showed him meeting "one on one" with the folks there.

But, today he gave an "outstanding performance" on Blitzer. What happened to him! His "George Bush is a Miserable Failure Website" sounds great.......and if I could forgive his vote on the war, I might actually start to get more interested in him.

I hope any DU Gephardt supporters will feel perked up. And, I hope Gebhardt keeps up this new strategy. Another candidate going after Bush "Head On" only help all our candidates.

I did question his saying...that he always thought Bush was going to work with UN countries to bring them into a coalition to Invade Iraq and was surprised when he didn't. How could anyone with Gebhardt's experience think that Shrubby wasn't hell bent on going into Iraq alone if he had to.....so that didn't quite ring true as an excuse......but on the economy he was dead on......and he does have some interesting ideas about how he would turn it around. He gave a speech on C-Span many months ago...about his "Economic Plan for the US" and I liked it.....but it was so long ago....I doubt anyone remembers.

Anyway, I liked what I heard and Gebhardt was way down on my list of Dem Candidates......He moved way up, today!

[newsguyatl]

1. it's Gephardt

with a p


:hi:

[KoKo]

7. Thanks.....I've been spelling it wrong for a year! You are correct!

:-)'s

[Khephra]

2. While I praise Gephardt for finally joining the Bush bashers

IMO, To reevaluate him based on giving good speeches or attacks this late in his career is like giving the 5th person who called in a fire an award for bravery just because he gave a more forceful delivery than the rest of the other callers at that time.

[K-W]

5. This is an election, not a fire.

bad analogy, the reason it matters is that once a fire is called in its called in, that is certainly not the case in this situation

[Khephra]

11. Calling out Bush's actions for the public is a form of warning

So I stand by it. You praise the people who were acted during an emergency first, not those who came up later and pointed out that, yes, just like what everyone else has been saying, the country IS on fire.

It's too little, too late from the man who helped enable the Iraq resolution more than any other candidate on the pro-war side.

[K-W]

14. Stand by a bad analogy all you want

and live in the past. Your choice. The country is on fire, and what matters now is not who called it in, but who can best put it out. Ah, silly me, I used your analogy.

So why in the heck is anyone deciding a vote based on who screamed fire. 100% of the decision in this primary should be based on whether the candidate will beat Bush and will make a good president. So argue issues. Go ahead and argue that his iraq vote has some relevence on his ability to be a good president. I welcome a logical argument that connects the to.

So while your heaping praise on the person who called out the warning first I hope most democrats focus on fixing the problem and improving the nation. Im not implying that Gephardt is the only democrat who can do that, nor do I know he is the best, but any argument not based on winning and fixing is a really really bad argument. And anyone who votes based on anything other than winning and fixing is doing the country a diservice.

[Khephra]

25. I'm not heaping praise on whoever called out the warning first

or basing my vote on that point....

Although it should be mentioned that the point of this thread was for other people to look at Gephardt based upon his comments today, so everything I've posted in this thread has fit...the comments just don't apply to what you THINK I'm saying. It's about people making a re-appraisal of Gephardt based on his comments today, and I'm saying that it's a little too late for him to get points for trying something so utterly unoriginal at this point.

I should reward him for going "Hey! Dean and Kucinich and the rest of them are getting points with the base by attacking Bush! I think I'll do that too!"?

Nah, I'll call him unoriginal and a slow learner. There's nothing to praise in his actions.

Gephardt is one of the last people in this campaign to get the clue about attacking Bush and how to go up against him in a campaign, and for being near the back of the pack in originality or gumption I should priase him?

NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I'm also "heaping prasie" on other candidates in this thread, more like I'm pointing out that a clueless, johnny-come-lately candidate isn't what's needed.

Gephardt is about the last one to have finally clued in to Bush's actions. Right now we don't need a candidate who's slow on the pick-up, and that's all Gephardt has been showing me over the past 3-4 years.

[K-W]

31. Clueless

Hes not slow to pick up anything.

Every viable candidate is making calculated decisions in the goal of winning the primary and then winning the presidency. Dean went on the attack as a calculated political decision. Other candidates waited as a calculated political decision.

It makes alot of sense really, Dean had the least to lose and the most to gain. It worked, but it could have very easily backfired. So the other candidates have bided thier time, they didnt have to take that risk, they already had a base of support and recognition. The risk is now lower, so now they change thier tacts. In thier position I imagine dean would do the same thing.

The point is it doesnt matter when the candidate makes the move to attack Bush, if all our candidates were taking huge risks the party would have been in an extreme amount of danger.

Your argument remains completely pointless, start talking about the presidential election and the presidency or stop talking. Oversimplified petty charecterizations arent going to help anyone.

[Khephra]

57. Clueless?

If you're talking about me, well, sir, you don't know jack about me.

Haughty?

[ibegurpard]

26. Why should we believe that Gep WILL do what it takes

to challenge Bush and fix the damage that he's done when he was supporting him when he thought it was going to be politically expedient to do so?

[K-W]

33. easy

he is challenging Bush.

As far as fixing the damage, I refer you to his website where he explains his plans and stances on issues.

Contrary to popular DU opinion democratic candidates who make political moves are a good thing. Good politicians win elections. If supporting bush was the best political move for the democrat right now, I would hope that the candidates would do so. That would be an extremely unlikely scenario, but the scenario for the war vote was much different. Then it was certainly a smart move to make that vote. A smart move for politicians and a smart move for the party.

Now, when it is politically a good time, in his opinion, he comes out with a strong anti-bush message. Read the message, read his issues and judge him based on that, anything else is just pettiness.

Are you arguing that Gephardt has no ideals or that he supports Bush? I think both would be fairly rediculous points to try and make.

[ibegurpard]

34. Supporting Bush was NOT a smart political move

call it petty all you want.. that won't make it so. Gephardt and others FUNDAMENTALLY MISREAD the mood of the electorate. The took the public opinion polls at face value instead of realizing how ambivalent the American public was about the whole Iraq situation. They could have taken the opportunity to try to educate people about WHY it was the wrong move. Instead they tried to take it off the table, thus disgusting the hardcore liberals and Democrats who are usually the ones who turn out for midterms.

[K-W]

36. Thank god you dont run any democratic campaigns

it was absolutely postitively a smart political move. You are making the rather monumental error of judgement of using hindsight. Yes in hindsight there were no WMD, iraq didnt welcome us, the occupation is going badly.

These were not things that they could be certain of, so gambling the future of the democratic party on them would have been a bad bad move.

[Cocoa]

38. I think it was a very good move

It sets him up in a very good position.

His anecdote about telling Bush right after Sept.11 "you have to trust us, and we have to trust you" is very powerful, imo. Because that idea that the war on terror can't be partisan really resonates, even with me.

What he's saying is the dems did it right, and the republicans did it wrong. Only the hard-core Bush fanatics won't be able to see that.

[liberalnurse]

40. His history is one of a milk toast leader.

He had to go all the way back to 1993 to show where he did something progressive with President Clinton. He could not rally the dems in the House, he can't control an administration.

He did a great one liner on Thursday and I will repeat it myself...He just does not have the ability to collectively lead. he is just a sprinter.

[KoKo]

8. I agree with you on that Keph....But, it's the first time I've seen him

fired up and with conviction. It was so startling, I felt I had to post. Why now? What lit him up? What if he's had bad handlers....what if he was afraid to speak out?

On the other hand he was the House Leader......and didn't do such a great job there when Bush got in.....so maybe it's his "one great flash."

Still, something struck me in his interview with Blitzer......something I hadn't seen before.....

:shrug:

[K-W]

3. Why would anyone committ to a candidate?

I will never understand that, this isnt a marriage, its a primary.

But regardless, you imply that it was a forgone conclusion that Bush would go in alone. It certainly wasn't.

I like his new tact, I like his stance on the issues that matter to America. He is my #1 at the moment.

[Gloria]

12. K-W--I think you're right...there was no "foregone conclusion" that

Bush was going to go it alone.....Kerry, Gep, and even Hillary
were in those briefings and were told things we don't even know about. Hell, Powell went before the world at the UN and lied through his teeth. Look at Blair. I have every reason to believe now that when the candidates who voted for the war were initially briefed, they did so with the understanding that Bush would really go to the UN with an attack as the LAST RESORT. These people, who believe they were involved in an honest process, acted accordingly. We had our suspicions, but we don't know how they were briefed. Graham had further knowledge which he probably couldn't share. I admire Kucinich and Dean for coming out ahead of the game, but the Senate is a unique place and I think the "collegial" temperament that these people have been used to affected them also.

The little gathering with Bush out there around the podium at the time was extremely nauseating..... but these are political creatures and something in what they were setup with in terms of information prompted that vignette.

I am still not happy that Gep missed some key votes, esp. on the overtime rules. But labor apparently sees that as a strategic O since his vote wouldn't have made a difference--so they really are showering him with endorsements.

Right now, I'm happy they're finally slamming this Administration and except for Lierberman, there's a degree of unity on this.

[dansolo]

43. I don't buy it

There could have been ways to word the resolution to have prevented Bush from going in without the backing of the UN. The problem was that Lieberman and Gephardt used their leadership positions to stifle any debate from the Democrats in order to get the resolution passed quickly. And now we have Gephardt missing critical votes that are important to his main constituancy, labor.

[K-W]

44. The missed votes are definately something

that I would like to see some answers on, but his labor supporters dont seem to be bothered by it, so for now I will withold alot of criticism.

The democrats dont control a single branch of government, the werent in a position to word the document, and this congress doesnt really debate anything.

But you very well could be right, they may have miscalculated. But since when do we expect politicians to be perfect. I have no doubt his motivations were in the right place. And at the time brokering some kind of compromise was the right move.

[Skittles]

4. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT KOKO

*ON EDIT* I deleted this because I sounded snotty.

[KoKo]

9. I know Skittles........very red faced.....don't know why I spelled it that

way! You can see I never thought much of him. I did correct it on edit.......:-)'s

[Skittles]

21. I apologize KOKO

I came off sounding, I dunno, SNOTTY. I had a bad night!

[Cocoa]

6. I wish I got CNN

can you give some more idea of what he said. Is it anything different from what he's said before.

Gep has always shown flashes. I first saw it in NH a long time a go, more than a year ago.

[KoKo]

13. Cocoa.......He didn't back down when Wolf made him sound "unpatriotic" for

calling Bush "A Miserable Failure," when Wolf showed three clips of Gephardt saying that in speeches. He went on to say that Bush was losing 100,000 jobs a month and had the worst job record in 11 Presidents and the worst record since Herbert Hoover. He said his Economic Policy is a failure and his International Policy is a failure. He said that he assumed Bush was going to ask for international cooperation before he invaded and now he needs it and he doesn't think Bush will ask for it because he has to do things his own way. (all this is my paraphrase of what I heard)

He gave his website for "Bush is a Miserable Failure" and said that he is determined he is going to be the Dem Candidate.

It was the way he handled Blitzer that was excellent too. He never backed down or let Blitzer put him down. He was totally positive and upbeat.

That's what I've not seen from him, before, ever.

[Cocoa]

22. thanks for that..

Gep's unflappable, that's for sure. He should do well at his turn on Meet the Press.

[Terwilliger]

10. the backstabbing, Democratic party traitor is worth another look?

I wish he'd look after his job and give up on the presidential campaign.

[KoKo]

16. ROFL! I know.....I think I said something like that last weekend here on

DU about him.

I was overwhelmed with how he handled himself with Blitzer............(you think I over-reacted....) Maybe, there was just something there......Probably it's his Website.........it went to my head......"George Bush is a Miserable Failure."

It just sounds so good to hear that out of his mouth........:eyes:

[Cha]

54. I'll bet it did! Like we wish we would have heard during the

"rose garden" phase. I like that all the Dem candidates are jumping on the bushbashing bandwagon! The more the Merrier!

It's only going to get Better!

Thanks for reporting this for us non news cablers!

[mitchtv]

52. look T i don't like him much either, but

that characterization is uncalled for. why not say" --- is better, here's why". why do we have to enter the post primary season bruised and bloodied? Besides if the Unions say he's ok , he's not all bad.
no on Recall yes on Bustamante



PS who said" make your words soft and sweet, you may just have to eat them someday"?

[Terwilliger]

60. who said "just say whatever the fuck you want...they don't listen anyway"?

the "Unions" say he's ok? The Teamsters?

[KG]

15. was gep thinking whistle-ass was a miserable failure at the rose gerden

photo op handing chimpy the keys to war, after he a joe f. went back door on the party?

gep was a miserble failure as house minority leader and opposition leader to the repooks policies; what make him, and some DUers, think he got what it takes to lead this country? :shrug:

i must admit tho, he and lieberman wore tasteful ties to their rose garden photo op. :)

[KoKo]

18. Yes.......I remember the Rose Garden......How we all barfed all over the

place here about it. It was awful.....we felt so let down by that photo-op.

[K-W]

20. If only we lived in the world

you think we live in. Where everything is black and white and roses all over and all that matters is ideals. Where everyone is fully informed and everything is totally rational. Where we can have a party that is 100% progressive, always right, and always wins.

Im very sorry that we live in reality. Im not a fan of reality and I take it neither are you. But as much as we dont like it, we cant ignore it. The reality is that politics is not black and white. Moral indignation is utterly useless in making this country a better place. Gephardt made a decision, you dont agree with it, I dont agree with it entirely either, but im not going to sit around and pretend that what he did was evil or that making that one decision shows him to be anything more than a politician who made a difficult choice and picked at least partially wrong.

Find me the candidate with the 100% perfect track record. Id be glad to vote for him. Until then, Im going to look at the future and not the past.

[KG]

27. what makes you think you know what world i live in?

ideals are something to strive for, otherwise you find yourself justifying the weak willed acts of the kind gephardt and leiberman and many other dems pulled by handing the keys to war to a total moron.

gephardt can't have it both ways. he can't be a chimp enabler then 10 month later start with the empty rhetoric. he had the chance to do the right thing, and he chose shame instead.

ideal do matter. in fact they are all that matters.

the repooks have them, misguided tho they may be, and they don't sway from them.

that some democrats pooh-pooh 'ideals' for 'pragmatism' is the reason they are dancing to the repooks tune.

maybe you can be pragmatic when it come to enabling mass murder.

i refuse to be.

[K-W]

35. Well its a good thing some people can be pragmatic

when your emotions have destroyed your ability to make rational judgments for the good of the country.

You are a bush enabler more than Gephardt could ever hope to be. You want to tie the hands of our politicians. You want to hurt our ability win elections in favor of niave idealism. Voting for the war resolution was a good move to oppose Bush. It is very very simple. If Bush found WMD in Iraq, if things went well, if they spun it differently, than any anti war democrat would be politically dead. Meanwhile in voting for the resolution, it forced a compromise. They couldnt have stopped the war anyway, and they put themselves in a much better position to fight Bush.

Playing the political game and maneuvering into a good position to fight Bush in '04 is not enabling. Your rediculous standards for democratic politicians are.

[KG]

46. your adolescent accusations aside,

don't presume to know how i make my decisions. or to think you know what's good for the country.

leaders that have integrity, and do what is right is whats best for this country, not those who make decisons based on personal or political expediency.

but feel free to continue your feeble attempts to justify spineless acts and mass murder. your type of naive pragmatism is why US soldiers continue dying in iraq. i guess their lives are but a small price to pay to defeat the chimp in 04', eh?

[K-W]

50. niave pragmatism?

I know how you make your decision because you told me. And i know that what is good for this country I will state that what is good for this country is to put a democrat in the white house who will fight to help americans get jobs and healthcare and education etc.

Do you disagree with that?

You arent making your decision based on what is best for the country you are making your decision on some convoluted sense of integrity based on pretending that Gephardt was given a clear cut right/wrong decision and conciously chose wrong. A view that is absolutely rediculous and clearly niave.

Gephardt was in a much more complicated situation where he had to weight many factors, he chose a certain tact which is certainly defendable if not correct.

Until you get off you Bush-like good vs evil simplification of the way this world and country works and recognize that Gephardt wasnt choosing between mass-murder and not mass-murder, there is really not point in continuing this discussion.

When you are ready to discuss issues in more depth than black and white, id be happy to rejoin.

[wrkclskid]

58. As far as idealism vs. pragmatism

we could argue till the cows come home, with both sides having good arguments and good intentions. But just remember, the President who the civil right act, medicare and headstart passed was the biggest cynical pragmatist their possibly ever was, LBJ.

[Pastiche423]

62. The Rose Garden and tasteful ties

I applaud each and every Dem for speaking out against whistle ass and the grievous harm he and his whistlers have done to our country. How wonderful it would have been if they had done so much, much sooner, though.

It is far too little, far too late for Gep. His milquetoast performance, year after year, his exorbitant missed votes record (overtime bill) and most importantly, his standing butt check to butt check to whistle ass after voting for the mass murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis, clearly proves he is not worthy to lead our country.

W/that said, he seems like a really nice guy.

[wryter2000]

17. I liked him in the debate last night

He had the most passion, and it didn't feel faked. His "miserable failure" sound bite is catching on, and that could be a tremendous help.

[blm]

19. When Gephardt said that about the UN and allies

and that noone thought they would go in without building a real coalition, it made me think about something. All these guys in the administration were also in Bush1's administration, and it is perfectly reasonable for those who worked with them in the past to believe at the time that they WOULD have tried for a bigger coalition. Their track record in the past showed that they had some respect for reaching out to allies. Kerry even said that Powell PROMISED the committee that they would.

I think the other factors in this administration are Perle's greater influence and the stubbornness of Bush, himself.

[grasswire]

23. gephardt is a good and patriotic man...

....whose service to the country over many years has denied him the advantage of being a fresh face in this election.

He has consistently fought for health care, for workers, for everyday people. He's not a fat cat.

I would warmly support him were he nominated, even though he's not my first choice. And I hope he's appointed to the cabinet of the Democratic president in 2004.

[veracity]

24. Too little too late....he supported the war!

Dramatics are fine... but integrity is better. Gephardt has a very powerful position, and his support of the war was instrumental in the fiasco that followed. He had no backbone, and let the Dems in Congress who patted Dubya on the back for his grand scheme to lead the nation to disaster.
Where has he been all this time that Dean has raised his voice in opposition to the war and to the tax cuts? Where has his backbone been? Now that it's primary time, Gephardt is suddenly a more theatrical Dean wannabe. No way, Jose.

[LittleApple81]

28. I appreciate that he is not a Republican

and this "miserable failure" meme is great.
But I seem to remember he was not present at the vote on the overtime bill that will leave millions of Americans working for nothing when their overtime is taken away and they are required to do the work or lose their jobs. And it was approved by the republican dominated house by 1 vote.

[Frances]

29. Keep your eye on the big picture--

I think everyone at DU wants Bush OUT.

When Gephardt attacks Bush, it helps ALL Democratic candidates. It is SO much better for all 9 candidates to focus on Bush than on each other.

ALSO remember that if only those people who agreed with us back in April vote for the Democrats we're in big trouble.

We have to welcome those who have just "seen the light" or we LOSE the election!

[sham]

30. maybe I'm wrong, but this smacks of desperation

It seems to me like Gephardt has found a life jacket. While I think it's great and neccessary for people to hear statements like this, Gephardt's continual "Bush is a miserable failure" comments during the debate were positively Pavlovian. His new website (oviously created after the debate) is so hastily put together that it looks like a high school student did it. And he has been a bit of a media darling for the past few days, showing signs of life on various news programs.

I could be wrong, and I am open to evidence suggesting otherwise, but I really think this is a flash in the pan. Plus, I do not like what he said to Wolf about not regretting his war vote, and I really don't like that he said he trusted the chimp that stole the White House to do "the right thing" for the American people!! None (or very few) of us here at DU trusted him. How could someone with Gephardt's experience have trusted him? That said, if he really does build up enough momentum to win the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for him.

[Cocoa]

32. he needs this lift, definitely

he needs that AFL-CIO endorsement, and their biggest concern is electability -- sp? -- and this latest bump helps him out there.

[K-W]

39. Nope, just a more conservative political strategy

Each candidate is timing thier moves and changes the way they think is best. And that is a good thing. If we had 9 deans, and the political winds had gone a different way, wed have another 4 years of Bush garunteed.

[0007]

37. It's nice to the ears to hear Gephardt rattling junior's cage

Remember when Gephardt & Tom Daschle were doing those shitty press conferences?

Now is has some fire so I hope he keeps it!

[spooky3]

45. two things I have trouble sorting out

I have no difficulty with the notion that a candidate realizes today that something he or she did months ago was not right, particularly if she or he was deliberately misled by someone s/he should have been able to trust. I have a lot of difficulty with someone who knows something is wrong but thinks it would be unpopular to say anything (or worse, helps the wrongdoing be implemented)--then when someone else shows him/her that speaking out against the wrongdoing may get rewarded, he or she jumps on the bandwagon. It raises questions about the candidate's integrity. And if it happens repeatedly, it raises questions about the candidate's ability to problem solve. Why not prefer the candidate who sees a problem before others do, and tries to do the right thing and solve it, while persuading others that he or she is right?

What I can't sort out is which of these two things is happening now with Gephardt (and other candidates).

I do agree with those who have said it is important to keep our eyes on the prize.

[KoKo]

63. Yes, Spooky.....I'm curious too about the "sorting out." That's why I

posted about Gephardt.......I don't think we should totally give up on any candidate (except Lieberman..he's lost cause)......and there is another one I couldn't support........but we need to try to keep "a little open mind."

Some DU'ers haven't made their minds up........why shouldn't they hear when one of their candidates has done something good. Going up against "Blitzer" and standing tall.......is good. Why Gephardt didn't do it before should be open to discussion......but that he accomplished it .......should be pointed out, too. IMHO............:shrug:

[alcuno]

41. It will take years for Gephardt to redeem himself with me.

After he conspired with * to push through the unconditional support for a war with Iraq.

[K-W]

42. Do you have any proof for your radical assertation

that he conspired with Bush?

[Must_B_Free]

47. i think he means

his vote

[alcuno]

49. No. The whole "Rose Garden" moment

n/t

[alcuno]

48. I'll find you an article, but don't you remember the day he appeared

in the Rose Garden with *. They had the whole thing worked out. The only problem was that he forgot to take all the Democrats in the House with him; about 150 of them went with Pelosi instead. Why did Gephardt step down from the House leadership? It's called a revolt.

Is it the word "conspiring" that you object to?

[K-W]

51. I do remember

and I didnt like it anymore than anyone else, but to argue that he was conspiring with bush to push war is a bit radical.

[alcuno]

53. What I said was, "he conspired with * to push through the

unconditional support for war with Iraq." I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of what happened and don't see it as radical. When the House leader shows up at the Rose Garden with * without his fellow Democrats knowing about it ahead of time, I'd call it conspiring.

[tygerr21]

55. Someone get the fire estiguisher.:P

.

[alcuno]

61. Welcome to DU, tygerr21

Glad you're here.

[JohnKleeb]

56. Hes been up on my list for some time

although I share the concerns about the war with people I just find it nutty to call him bushite.

[KoKo]

64. Well......John Kleeb.....my post was for you and others looking at him....

I was trying to do a "positive post" as I saw it.....about our Dem Candidates.....Not all on DU are totally decided....and not all have our background of being in the DU trenches......

I don't want all "Idealism" to die......because of what we all remember about Gephardt. Unlike the Ken Starr Repugs.......I still believe that people can "Grow and change."

I won't forget what Gephardt did to us.....and the "Photo Op" in the Rose Garden. But, if our DEMs can do good stuff we shouldn't be so "Partisan" at this point that it can't be posted here in "General Discussion" on DU, IMHO.....anyway....we have much time yet to hash it all out.

Okay? That's where I'm coming from. Although my charity for Dems does NOT EXTEND TO LIEBERMAN!

I will never find a good thing to say about him.......never.......:-(

[lumpy]

59. About time Gep got a little fire in his belly

nt