Reply #64: Casually excited?

[loyalsister]

You must be kidding. I have said that Dean's position makes sense to me as does that of the woman who decided that even though she didn't like it, she should probably vote the way 77% of her district wanted her to. Why do you object to me being pleased in discovering a candidate with a position and an argument that makes sense to me that also very conveniently neutralizes what has been a losing issue for Democrats for a very long time?
"Pardon my French, but the "states' rights" issue is a crock of shit." Not true. It is very relevant to the position many states are finding themselves in today. Democrats have a great opportunity to co-opt that issue based on the unfunded education mandate as well as Dean's position here. Unfortunately, Dean or Clark (if he gets in it) are the only serious candidates who have much credibility using it, since they haven't been a part of handing anything down to the states.
I bet could see tremendous benefit in state politics if Dean runs. Every dem candidate here is going to run on the way pukes have trashed education. The pukes here followed the Bush education model, and tried to defund public education. Republicans voted to starve their own school districts of funding. In my county, we lost two Democrats and lost $9.2 million in education funding. The house majority leader's district lost $1000. That in itself is a winning platform for Democrats. Tie it to the national campaign and the fact that this was handed to us by the federal government, and those rural voters who voted in the pukes are ready to go back to Dems locally and nationally.