Reply #77: Great thread! I'll give it a whirl.

[PissedOffPollyana]

My first objection is that I would he prefer he not be the candidate in the first place, since I think we should be putting forward a more traditional vs. neo Democrat. That having been said, if we were to see a Dean administration there are a few areas that bother me. These are based on his policies as they are on the site, not from speeches & such (because, well, I have a life & have to count on these folks to put it where it's easily accessible). It's gonna be a longish one but here goes...

1) Education: His policies are slightly nebulous in pre & K-12 with a lot of mentions of drastically increasing funding with no specified funding source. This is not good but not quite as negative as the rest.

In higher education is where I think he is really lagging. His plan only applies to those in 8th grade or younger and is only applicable if they register for the program by then. It does not even address anyone who is older than puberty when it would come into effect. Where is the rest? If it stays as it is now, that's a big failure.

2) Health care: His policy relies on more privatization of public resources & services; very very bad. It also leaves millions still without insurance while relying on industry cooperation to keep rates down; also bad. Per the plan, those who will now receive health care total less than 24M. Those who would receive tax credits to offset insurance adds 5.5M to the mix. Aren't there are over 44M without insurance now? The rest are covered by a "message" of responsibility which does not equate with coverage; bad.

3) Trade: It relies on revisions to policy that are not specified, but does not give any example of what means would be used to make those revisions. "Free" trade would be much harder to enforce, even if the revisions could be made (which is still very doubtful anyway). This could result in something between status quo or worsening condition; neither acceptable. These agreements are killing the working class of America and the carnage has already begun working its way up the income scale as less real spending money is out there.

4) Military/Foreign policy: Well, Dr. Dean is a proponent of "pre-emption", so (in worst case land) he's already a threat for his own military campaign if in office. His stance on not cutting military budget but shifting it instead is not a good sign here either. He has a nebulous policy on ICC (puts up an Issue about it, but uses his statement as a way of looking like he supports it without actually saying so) and no section re: AMB, landmines, etc.. also not a good sign. Has a policy to shift budget monies, but this section of policy is too vague to imply that the significant effort to reduce Pentagon spending and waste (not to mention the possible fraud... "lost" a trillion... puh-lease) will be taken seriously. More waste, possibility for more violence and unecessary deaths.

5) Civil rights: PATRIOT policy items are too vague, so I will infer (being in worst-case land) that there will be no significant improvement and we will merely have the Dean version of constitution ripping for the sake of "security". No vow of SCOTUS litmus test; not good. No policy set re: drug war, particularly no firm promise to make medical marijuana legal as of my last check; bad (possibly damning for a doctor) feeling about that.

GLBT Americans fall back in rights and are forced into a pitched battle to revoke amendments banning C.U.s and marriage. Social ramifications are (though there may be statutes or legislation on the table re: hate crimes... those only punish, not prevent) more hate crimes and finding ways around the system to discriminate anyway.

6) Election/campaign reform: The problem will be the rejection of public financing. It will be a lost issue for the party throughout the administration because of the turn-around taken in this primary. Dean had the right idea when he said he would take any candidate who would do what he is doing to the carpet. It will leave him less of a leg to stand on in championing this issue; the result, more pay to play politics and less accountability and power to average people as usual. (BTW, still no hit on Dean's site when I search the word Diebold. Also not good.)

7) Environment: Has only said he would re-enter negotiations re: Kyoto Protocol; not good. He has some good points here, but too many open to translation or without enough specifics to infer that real improvement will happen. There is little said about actual enforcement and not a lot of specifics overall; worst case, mediocre regulations with toothless enforcement.

8) Economy: With the combination of trade policy (not good) and the repeal of the worthy tax cuts GW used as a carrot/bludgeon to grease through the irresponsible ones, there is not enough credit in his proposition of $100B for Fund for Restoring America (isn't that the name?) to pull economic progress using the information listed in his policies. In a worst-case, I would have to say that I fear economc stagation and continued loss of manufacturing base & middle class.

That having been said, the most intensive problems are in trade, election/campaign and health care (IMO, that is a big strike against him. Having been a doctor and taken that oath, he should be offering the plan with the best, lowest cost coverage for everyone... real universal health care, single payer). If he can stand by the greatest of the "people" issues, he will be a better candidate and if it came to that, Pres.

**whew**