Reply #18: Dean is wrong there, egregiously so

[hfojvt]

"Even more infuriating was the way my fellow Democrats went along for the ride, voting so much of the time to advance the president's perilous agenda."

Most Democrats did not, but why let the truth get in the way of some bashing of the party?

"They approved his tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug act, the war resolution, and educational "reforms" — all destructive measures that wouldn't have passed without their support."

"They" meaning who? Five or six Democratic Senators? (Yes 22 for the IWR, but not a majority in the House.) As for whether the measures would have passed without Democratic support, Republicans controlled the House until 2006 and controlled the Senate when the tax cuts and the medicare bill passed. True, Democrats could have theoretically fillibustered those measures, but who can expect them to fillibuster a tax cut? Somebody with no idea how badly that would play in the electorate.

In fact, what happened in 2002? Did voters get enraged about the destructive Bush tax cuts and vote a bunch of Republicans out of office? No, in fact, they went the other way and Republicans gained a seat in the Senate. Jean Carnahan lost in Missouri in spite of campaigning that she voted for the Bush tax cut. Dennis Moore of Kansas campaigned the same way, and won. Neither of their 'yes' votes really mattered since the bill was gonna pass anyway. Moore voted for the Democratic versions which got defeated by Republicans.

Same thing about the Iraq War Resolution. Did Republicans get voted out of office because of it? No, only Carnahan got voted out and then Wellstone died and Mondale got defeated. Voters were apparently so happy with the war that Republicans picked up four more Senate seats in 2004. And Dean thinks that the Democrats should have fillibustered the IWR?

Dean also gived Bush too much credit. I think Bush definitely had the hateful extremism. The evil of his policies was not due to just neglect of details.