A question for people who oppose Howard Dean:

[ProfessorPlum]

If Dean wins the nomination and goes on to beat Bush in the general, what would be your biggest objection to that? What prospect of a Howard Dean presidency would bother you the most, from your perspective? What objectives are most important to you, that you think a Dean presidency couldn't achieve? Are there issues that you want out of a federal administration that you don't think would be addressed adequately, by Dean?

In other words, I want to know what your biggest fears would be about 4 years of Dean at the helm. Give us your worst predictions, and then let's look at them and decide if they are really all that bad. Presumably, Dean supporters are incorrect to support him, because our ultimate goal (his victory in November) is not something to be hoped for. Why?

[Democrats unite]

1. Why only Howard Dean?

Why not any of the candidates?

[ProfessorPlum]

2. I'm interested in the fears that people who are

virulently opposed to Dean have. I want to understand if any of them have real roots in reality.

Please do a similar post for other candidates if you wish. I think many of them are very strong candidates and it is a great field. I think Dean is no worse than many and much better than quite a few.

[eileen_d]

3. I don't oppose Howard Dean.

I support Clark, and I find many of Dean's actions worthy of criticism. There is a difference.

Dean supporters can support him until the cows come home. Whether they are "correct" or not is completely subjective. I'm just not buying what Dean's selling at this point. This point being "THE PRIMARIES." If Dean gets nominated, I won't complain, because that *would* be equivalent to supporting Bush (IMHO) and I find supporting Bush morally repugnant.

[Hep]

113. You don't oppose Howard Dean?

Interesting. I'll have to bookmark this one.

[onehandle]

4. Uh....

I believe that most people who "oppose" Dean, do so because they believe others have a better chance of capturing the presidency.

The vast majority of these people will support him as nominee, and welcome his Presidency.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. that's how I feel about many in the field

almost all of them, in fact.

But there are many, many people here who do not seem to feel that way.

[mrgorth]

5. Mostly

It's that they don't think he'd get to the 4 year part that worries people (not me).

[ProfessorPlum]

9. In other words, that Bush would beat him in the general?

Or are you talking about some kind of attempt on his life?

[mrgorth]

No, the first thing.

Very few of the Dean bashers actually dislike him on a policy basis. They think he can't beat Bush. That's just my observation.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. Understood

we all have our favorite matchups when it comes to a Democrat versus Bush. Thanks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. He would screw things up so badly he won't get re-elected

and make electing Dems evern harder in the future- not to mention the prospect of losing even more Senate seats.
Even Clinton said it took the whole first year for his admin/WH to figure out everything and do things effectively. I'm sure Dean will be no better if not worse on the learning curve.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. It's taken Bush 3 years

and he still hasn't figured out how to do things effectively.

I think this concern is one we shouldn't worry about at the moment, no? A lot can happen in 5 years.

[Hep]

114. Screw which things up? How?

What you provided is not what scholars would refer to as a salient argument.

Would you mind being more specific about exactly what Dean would "screw up" and how he would do this?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

119. Probably will make a lot of enemies in congress

and nothing will get done legislatively. You have to deal with those cockroaches after all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. My biggest fears are as follows

While I realize there is much ire directed towards federal gun laws, his "leave it to the states" mantra fares poorly for my state where gun laws are more strict due to the costs of gun violence in astate with 36 million people. Guns don't malfunction at the state line.

I am concerned that much of his positions regarding returning "power to the people" are nothing more than lipservice.

I am concerned that he is able to create wealth in an already wealthy state during BOOM years but may not be able to live up to that during fiscally tough years.

I also don't really regard him as the kind of statesperson it will take to repair our image internationally.

Having said that..I am NOT against him and would NOT be filled with fear should he win the primary and will pay money and work my ass off to get him elected if he does.

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Fair enough

Those seem like legitimate concerns to me.

On gun control, I think many people here would like to see somebody do more on the federal level. Certainly other candidates do better on this issue than Dean does, if gun control is an important issue for them.

As far as populism, it has been a long time since real power has been afforded to average citizens. But I think Dean is as well positioned to encourage this as any of our other candidates. Kucinich seems to have a good record on this.

His effectiveness at bringing fiscal responsibility to the federal government is, of course, unknown, but his committment to it seems real to me.

His statesmanship is certainly an area in which other candidates have an advantage over Dean. He would certainly be a world better than Bush.

Thanks for your last statement as well. I feel the same way about our current field.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Thanks for your reply. If all candidate threads were conducted like this

one, we wouldn't need a separate forum. :D

[FrenchieCat]

10. The worse prospect of a Dean candidacy

is that he would lose.
Don't even have to think about the presidency...as it will not happen. That I am convinced of.

see here, the Right Wing sites are salivating that the thought of winning all of those southern democratic senate seats as we speak:
Breaux Retiring

LOOK UNDER 12/15 FOR THIS PASSAGE.
Breaux Retiring
Senator John Breaux (D-LA) has decided to retire, rather than run for re-election in 2004. That means Democrats will be defending five open Southern Senate seats in 2004! In fact, the only Southern Democrat senator running for re-election is Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

The race to replace Breaux leans slightly Republican. For details, see my full 2004 Senate analysis.

I really, really hope Howard Dean is the Democrat presidential nominee. All those juicy Southern Democrat Senate seats just waiting to be picked up....
posted by PoliPundit at 11:44 AM Link to this post | Comments (32)
GO READ THE 32 COMMENTS, AND BECOME SICK!

Jaw-dropping Spin of the Day

Michael Moore on Saddam's capture:
Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.
It gets nuttier. Read the whole thing with a barf bag in hand.
posted by PoliPundit at 9:11 AM Link to this post | Comments (13)

AND THERE'S MORE OF THIS SITES - SAYING THE SAME DAMN THING!
Stephen Blythe
Backcountry Conservative
Spot On
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Transcended.net
The Ole Miss Conservative
Bowling for Howard Dean
The Fighting Gamecock
The Wise Man Says
The Irish Lass
Freedom of Thought
Miller's Time
Jeremy Kissel
PoliPundit
Argghhh!
Mark Kilmer
Ryne McClaren
Left Coast Conservative
Between the Coasts
eTalkingHead.com
Viking Pundit
Reagan Country
ExPostFacto
Slublog
Matt Margolis
AlphaPatriot
The Deeper Thinker
Brandon Speaks
Southern Conservatives
Boots and Sabers
Jarhead
The Hedgehog Report
Pardon My English
Proud American Girl
Blogs for Bush
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
A Rice Grad
Eternal Rebels

[ProfessorPlum]

12. As a thought experiment

I'm asking what you would be afraid of if he won.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I try not to

speculate on the impossible.

Just like I don't daydream about spending a million dollars that I might win in the lottery.

Too many other things to do.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. OK, thanks then

Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death . . .

[deminflorida]

37. Thank's Frenchie....

Give em, Hell......

The only thing I know about the Freepers (and I live among them), is that when I mention Dean losing 3-4 states on Feb. 3 to Clark they turn pale as a ghost.

[shivaji]

83. The same pundits predicted Clinton could'nt win

and guess what happened? Clinton ran a smart campaign and proved all the pundits and polls wrong.

Besides, if Dean's opponents are so much better, they should be able to whack Dean's ass in the primaries, no?

But in the end, I would rather vote a real democrat than a repug lite such as Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards or johnny come lately Clark.

[ProfessorPlum]

92. That was uncalled for

if you are a Dean supporter, please be gracious to our other Democratic candidates. Any of them may become our nominee. If Dean does win the nomination, graciousness will go a long way towards healing the wounds of the primary and gathering all of our strength to defeat Bushco.

[dpbrown]

14. I don't think that's the right set of questions

I support a candidate whose position on the issues I care about sets a higher standard, in my mind.

Kucinich is better on:

1. Ending the Death Penalty
2. Making the Pentagon Accountable
3. Universal Single-Payer Health Care
4. Abrogating the Failed NAFTA
5. Demilitarizing Space
6. Rebuilding Our International Reputation


And others.

A Dean administration wouldn't even try to achieve some of the gains a Kucinich administration will work towards.

I can't support a candidate who sets the bar so low when the stakes are so high and Bush is on the ropes and so many people see what a failure he is and Reaganomics has been for our country.

I don't want to "take America back," I want to have a President who sets outstanding, liberal Democratic goals to heal the damage done to our nation over 16 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush the Stunted.

[ima_sinnic]

23. but a majority of Americans will not vote for those "radical" points

. . . sorry, but that's just reality.

Kucinich would be portrayed as an "extreme liberal" and would be cast as a kook/nutcase. Sad but true.

[ProfessorPlum]

27. Easy there

this thread is not meant to be a discussion of subjective "electability". It is meant to find out what would be "wrong" with a Dean presidency.

[damnraddem]

32. I like Kucinich and his positions.

I would like to see a Dean Administration leading this country toward being a nation that could embrace Kucinich and his positions.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. That is exactly how I see it too.

.

[no name no slogan]

39. Wrong.

Americans are much more liberal than even most "liberals" think. Most of this is due to the reporting done by the useless mass media, who do their damndest to play down any kind of populist/liberal issues whenever they can.

Jim Hightower's recent book "Thieves In High Places" has an entire chapter devoted to polls and surveys that show Americans are much more liberal than we are led to believe on a number of issues.

For example, 60% of Americans support a government-funded single-payer universal healthcare system-- yet the only Democratic candidates proposing a system like this are "longshots" or "fringe candidates".

Most Americans believe that large corporations have too much say in what goes on in this country, yet only Dennis Kucinich talks about reining them in. Most Americans also believe that our family farmers need protection from predatory agribusiness companies, but only Kucinich has proposed breaking up the agribusiness monopolies.

Most Americans are also appalled at the waste that goes on in the Pentagon. For a VERY recent example, look at what happened with Boeing when their lease scheme with the DoD was recently exposed: several high-level executives resigned after public outcry, including the CEO.

What is "reality" is that we Democrats somehow think that we need to run "fiscally conservative" centrist candidates, when the majority of Americans are much more liberal on economics than these candidates are.

Maybe if we focused more on running REAL Democrats who are not afraid to speak out on the economic issues that truly affect working people (like fair wages, fair trade, and corporate corruption, and fair taxes), then maybe we'd start winning presidential elections again.

[dpbrown]

52. Application of the 40/40/20 rule shows Kucinich winning

40% of the "core" won't switch votes.

Half the indepedents were more liberal-leaning than Gore in 2000.

Only Kucinich can pick up the Green vote.

I think your reality exists only in your mind.

[ProfessorPlum]

54. Let's not let this thread get pulled off topic

I think Kucinich has a great chance to win if he becomes our nominee - there is a mighty army of people right here who would work very hard for him, which nullifies most of the "electability" argument anyway.

[dpbrown]

62. Agreed

Thanks for your comment.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. I understand and encourage

your support for Kucinich in the primary. He has excellent goals and I would love to see America move firmly in the direction of more progressive policies.

I realize it is frustrating that we may have to move at a slower pace than necessary to start. Are there items on that list that you think wouldn't be improved _at all_ in a Dean administration, compared to the one we are suffering through now? And I know that while incremental change is frustrating, don't you agree that working towards it and winning is also a good thing?

thanks for your response.

[no name no slogan]

59. I've got a couple

Are there items on that list that you think wouldn't be improved _at all_ in a Dean administration, compared to the one we are suffering through now

I can think of a few off the top of my head, that are the main reasons why I support Kucinich over Dean:

1) The so-called "War on Drugs". Kucinich would end the militarization of the drug war, and focus on treatment of addicted users, and NOT on a military solution like the that's destabilizing South American countries now. Dean does not have an "official" policy on this, at least not on his web site.

2) A cut in defense spending and reduction in Pentagon waste. Dean has called the Pentagon budget "off-limits", even if cutting it will reduce the deficit. If he won't cut the Pentagon budget, how else does he plan on eliminating the deficit (entitlement programs, social programs, etc.)

3) Reigning in corporate power, and creating true competition. Dean has said he'll provide more startup money for small businesses. As someone who has started and run a small business, that is not the real problem. The REAL problem is trying to compete against the big corporate monopolies who dominate today's economy. Without any controls on their growth, it's next to impossible for the little guy to survive and even make it to "medium guy" status.

4) Repealing the USA PATRIOT ACT. Dean has said that parts of the Patriot Act are "useful" and should be kept. I, personally, CANNOT support a candidate who doesn't believe this truly awful piece of legislation should be repealed ASAP.

These are just four that come to mind off the top of my head. I don't believe that Howard Dean won't make a great candidate (he does), but IMHO he's not the BEST candidate to represent my interests in the White House.

Good thread. :D

[ProfessorPlum]

66. Very good list

War on drugs - criminalization vs. treatment. I've not seen much of an official position on this either. As a doctor, I would hope he has a practical position. And because he is not an idealogue, I think that hope is well placed.

Corporate power - his remarks about re-regulation of corporations seemed to bode well. And the fact that he isn't taking any PAC money. I would like to see him take a stronger stance against monopolies, though.

PATRIOT act - he has proposed gutting it of its worst problems, and repealing the whole thing if necessary. My view is that it is necessary.

Defense spending - Dr. Dean and I may have a real difference of opinion here. I think we can hope that the "Star Wars" boondoggle will be seriously curtailed, as well as some other offenders, as Dean's fiscal responsibility is applied.

Thanks!

[TolstoyAndy]

30. dpbrown's got it right n/t

[seventhson]

15. PRESIDENT DEAN !

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!

It sounds so Goooooooooooood!!!

I just had to say it. It is the very first time I think I've seen it written and your post just made it visualizable.

President Dean!!!

It WILL Happen!


(Sorry, your post just caused me to get blissed out saying it. That and the polls reported even at Drudge have made my day. It sounds so so good.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. That he would

not make enough effort to reverse the damage that Bu$h has done, that he will get in bed with corporations rahter than help the _people_, that he will not reform our election system.

However, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If his name is on the ballot in the GE, I'm checking the box by it off. Then, when he wins, I'm sending him a congratulatory note w/ attached laundry list. :evilgrin:

(And the same goes for whatever Dem wins the election.)

[corporatewhore]

17. let me count the reasons

1he wont pull outta iraq and my dad will go back if dean is president
2he wont pull outta nafta/wto
3he wont cut the pentagon budget
4he is in favor of the death penalty
5endoresed by nra
6i think he will allow more privatisation to continue
7he will continue to aid israel as they wipe out the palestinians
8his state of the union adresses i cant stand his rants on the campaign trail so full of hate
9 his sealed records
10he wont give gays full marriage rights

[ProfessorPlum]

21. not to take on all of these at once, but

his sealed records? what does that have to do with anything?

Also, why would someone whose dad is fighting in Iraq have the login name "corporatewhore"?

[corporatewhore]

26. what is he hiding ?

He is not fighting he is back home he will be redeployed in 2005.He worked at a community clinic and lost his job and signed up in late 2001 early2002
as for corporatewhore should i have put in Armygirl18?
I take after my mom more (an long time activist)

[mindfulNJ]

20. I am supporting Clark but,

if there is a President Dean, I will be watching the inauguration with tears of joy in my eyes! I just think Gen. Clark has a better chance against shrub. Simple as that.

[ProfessorPlum]

25. We're at the same place then

I agree that Clark seems also to be an excellent candidate with an excellent resume, as are many of our candidates.

A Dem win will be a wonderful day. Can't wait until Jan 20th, 2005.

[redqueen]

29. I don't oppose Dean

But here's what I think would be my worst problem with him should he become president: no change to free trade.

I know, I know... he says he'll reform them. But on many other threads I've explained that due to the lack of any meaningful reform of these agreements over the last decade, I think that what Kucinich says is accurate. You cannot funadmentally reform NAFTA under the rules of the WTO. Sure there is a process for making amendments, but these probably have to be voted on and we all know what kind of influence corporations have on those who run the show at NAFTA, and at the WTO as well.

I fear that his claims to be willing to reform trade agreements are just red meat rhetoric thrown out as a comforting claim. On closer examination there is good reason to ask why Kucinich's claim that you cannot fundamentally change those agreements has not been adquately addressed.

So that's the biggest problem I'd have with him. Next I'd have to say would be the issue of cutting all the taxes, rather than only cutting the ones that were unfair.

After that, his plan to continue to flush hundreds of millions... heck... BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars down the pentagon's maw. There is no defending that stance.

And still there's the issue of corporate influence. I know, he's not taking corporate PAC money. But judging on his record, I can see where it might be a problem in the future.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. I agree with you on trade

I think many people are now beginning to realize just how bad NAFTA has been for this country - hopefully Dean is one of them and will help turn that around in any way he can, but your fear that he doesn't get it quite yet is one that I actually share. Should he win, we'll have to do our best to educate him on that subject (the good thing is he seems educatable).

Also have a similar uneasiness on taxes - but I'm hopeful that he will make tax policy more and more progressive in this country, as he clearly understands that the unfair burden on lower and middle income with respect to higher income people creates a stagnant economy and hinders our ability to help each other. Balancing fiscal discipline with the realities of what can actually be done about tax reform will be a tough act. I think "repealing the Bush tax cuts" is more a rhetorical tool, though, than an overarching philosophy for him.

Hopefully his fiscal discipline will trump both horrible military boondoggles and corporate graft. That remains to be seen, but I have hopes that he will try to pick out the best path.

Thanks for your response. I found it the most honest and on-topic so far.

[redqueen]

42. Thanks to you also for this great thread

I think it's the one of the best I've seen so far at actually staying civil ... great job keeping it on-topic!
:toast:

[TolstoyAndy]

31. Dean assaults civil liberties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=8369&mesg_id=8369

Somewhere on that page:
Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”


And

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268781.shtml
In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint judges willing to subvert the bill of rights.


Edit:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
(IndyMedia) "Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has "nothing to do with justice".

(Andy) Fuck that noise: civil liberties and the Bill of Rights are not negotiable for criminals or anyone else.

It pisses me off that at a time when we should be expanding the BoR to include health care and a college education, the leading candidate of "our" party should be on record supporting the New World Order "free" trade agenda and the diminution of our rights.

Having said that, I will vote Dean early and often if he is the nominee: AB*.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. I find this a non-issue

He has also gone on record many times championing rights, criticizing the Patriot Act, and generally being on the right side of this issue. Both of these articles/quotes have pretty much been drowned out by a sea of evidence to the contrary.

[redqueen]

43. Oh yes, that's another concern

You're right, of course, ProfessorPlum, that Dean has criticized the Patriot Act. But has he actually pointed out any parts that he'd specifically overturn?

I'm not sure which candidate it was, actually, but one of them said they'd 'review it' which raised a reg flag for me. This issue is not one that's not really worked out. There are more than a few enormous problems with this Act and it should be easy for a candidate to list which parts are either a) partly okay with them or b) must go.

Also, from what I understand he was not as much of an advocate of the public defender's office and has made at least one alarming comment about criminal justice in general.

[deminflorida]

33. Howard Dean Will Raise Middle Class Taxes on Americans....

You can argue: Well middle class Americans never got one anyway...
(Wrong people got them, I got one).

You can argue: Well you got a small 360.00 Tax Break but you property taxes went up. (But what if you don't own property.)

You can argue: Well sure Middle Class Taxes might go up but you'll get universal health coverage. (How is Howard Dean going to get this thru a Republican Dominated Congress, with an almost 500 billion dollar defecit inherited from Bush?)

Lies, Lies, Lies.....

You can paint the white stripe down a skunks back and it's still a skunk, too.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. My view is that middle class Americans will have their

taxes raised no matter what due to the horrible finanacial shape Bush will leave our government in. The question is how well that burden will be distributed.

The fact is Bush was irresponsible to give that tax reduction in the first place, and the day of reckoning for it is near.

[redqueen]

46. Small point of contention

I agree that bush's cuts were irresponsible, but we're talking about the cuts the Senate Dems fought for.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. do you mean the additional cuts for low income people?

Obviously I think those bring some much needed relief to people who are feeling the worst effects of Bush's recession. But I don't think there is any getting around the fact that Bush's folly is going to be very costly for everyone in this country. I know that kind of "eat your peas" message is not very popular, but I don't see how we are going to avoid raising middle class taxes (and upper class taxes even more).

[redqueen]

72. Cuts for low income people, for married people

"Eat your peas" is great, but when Dean says on the one hand that we have money to keep sending by the truckload to the pentagon, it's hard to understand why he doesn't think we have it to send to states for relief so they can ease up some of their cutbacks, or to keep the cuts for those that deserved them.

[ProfessorPlum]

90. I think his tax position is

progressive, but tough. I don't think there are going to be easy answers, though, like you, I would like to see the Pentagon take a major hit. Maybe we could just ask them to live on the funds they have mis-allocated over the last 10 years. That ought to hold them for a while.

And in the end, because fiscal responsibility seems so important to him, I imagine he will end up having to come back to defense spending. I think for him to talk about that now, as a Democrat, with Bush using the flag as his diaper and the military as his campaign props, he just cannot even begin to go there in his campaign speech.

Maybe I'm reading to much into that, maybe Dean sees pouring so much money into the military every year is a great investment, but I don't get that from his other very logical, non-idealistic positions.

Your mileage may of course vary, and I think it is a weakness in Dean's package of positions that I would like to see improved, but it may just be strategic.

[stickdog]

65. The scraps the Senate Dems whored themselves out to Bush for?

My $60 savings already went to Dean's campaign.

Thanks for fighting for me, cockroaches.

[ProfessorPlum]

68. Ok, ok - easy now.

We're talking about a Dean presidency here, not Tom Delay.

[frustrated_lefty]

81. Hey deminflorida

You said: "You can argue: Well you got a small 360.00 Tax Break but you property taxes went up. (But what if you don't own property.)"

I'm curious. Have you experienced a noticeable increase in sales tax or tuition, for example? Vehicle registration fees? Cuts in educational grants, for example, have had a devastating impact on college age kids in Louisiana, oftentimes making it impossible for them to complete their degrees.

[goodhue]

40. no single payer health care

no return of retirement age to 65
no withdrawal from NAFTA & WTO
to name a few

[ProfessorPlum]

47. Some good points

I too would love to see single payer health care in this country. It burns me up that coverage in countries with SPHC costs about 1/3 of what is does here, yet the coverage is more comprehensive and less stressful. However, every move in that direction gets us closer to our goal, and Dean's plan is a step in that direction (fuller coverage).

The retirement age is going to be a function of what kind of fiscal shape we are in as the baby boomers start retiring. I would say a fiscal conservative is a good person to help on this issue.

Again, trade remains an issue for me as well. I think Dean can be brought around on NAFTA. I think he saw it as a Canadian issue, being on their border for so many years.

[mjv135]

41. Hypothetical?

He won't win, and Bush will chew him up so badly in the race the Dem party might never recover. He's already lied and flip-flopped to us, just because the press doesn't seem to care, don't think the repugs aren't keeping a list and checking it twice. We're at war, justified or not, the REAL average American voter is gonna buy the fear that Rove sells, and will NO WAY elect an anti-war candidate, who went skiing after leaving the draft board with a bad back, and wants to take away their (real or not) tax cut. If you think the OBL ads are bad, just wait.
The same reason Dean is winning the primaries right now, is the same reason he will lose the G.E. ... perception.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. don't swallow that rightard koolaid

also: stick to the question at hand, which is what would be wrong with a Dean presidency?

[mjv135]

45. fairy tale

There won't be one. That's what will be wrong with it.

[ProfessorPlum]

48. Ok, thanks for your very helpful input

We'll be sure to take give it the respect it deserves.

[mjv135]

49. And

Why in the world would you think that I'm being told how to think by "rightards" I'm a lifelong democrat, I've seen my share of elections and candidates and believe me this one has "loser" written all over it. Do you honestly believe that millions of working class, non-political, average voters are going to run screaming to an anti-war, draft dodging, tax raising angry candidate? And believe me, this is how he will be painted. Not gonna happen. I can see this with my own eyes, everyday at my average job, talking to my average American voting friends and co-workers.

Maybe YOU should stop sippin the koolaid.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. Again, thanks for the helpful input

you seem to have the talking points well memorized.

[mjv135]

63. Sigh

You guys seem to forget that during the primaries, we are basicaly preaching to the choir.
The real world is made up of people who mostly don't even know what a "blog" is, let alone sit around and discuss politics on one all day. They are going to vote for who spins the best. And no-one spins fear like Rove & Co. After 9/11, and in the middle of Iraq, Deans draft/skiing WILL be a major issue.
And once again, does everyone who disagrees with you or your candidate get written off as a "talking points" freak? Sorry but I can make up my own mind and see with my own eyes, and speak out for my future with my own words. You don't own this country, or party, any more than Bush owns the flag.

[ProfessorPlum]

67. Your position is that we have already lost the election

because Roveco spins the best.

That was also true in 2000, but Gore still won the election.

And now we have many people pissed off at Bush (Republicans too) and a couple of candidates who seem to know how to fight.

I say we're in much better shape than we were in 2000, when we won.

As far as what to do about it, I intend to fight. How about you?

Also, how about answering the topic of the thread?

[ProfessorPlum]

70. edit

edit.

[mjv135]

73. My position

is that if we select Dean to go up against Bush, then yes, we've lost the election.
This election is a LOT different than 2000. In 2000 thing were humming along pretty smoothly, we hadn't lostt over 3000 people in a terrorist attack, we weren't at war in the Middle East. Now we are, and whether or not we "should have or could have" done something different isn't gonna matter to people who's friends and family are in harms way, or percieved to be in harms way. They will look at Bush, they will look at Dean, and they will choose national security. We know Bush is an ideological idiot, but a lot of people still really like him, and trust him, even when they don't like his policies, his favorability rating is always up there. Can he be beaten? yes, but not with Dean. Nixon had a pretty unpopular war going during his re-election too, and a hell of a lot more people were marching in the streets back then, he still won. As a party, we should have learned this by now.

[ProfessorPlum]

89. Bush's numbers are in the toilet

But thanks for continuing to hijack this thread with defeatist nonsense. Please go discuss your despair this in an appropriate thread.

[mjv135]

96. I'd be happy to

Can you show me the way out of the "fiction" section?

[ProfessorPlum]

107. That's a real knee-slapper

Let me catch my breath here.

[PassingFair]

97. mjv, have you read the "new" Common Sense?

You will, my fellow american. It will be EVERYWHERE. And if Bushco wants to make an issue of Dean's back, weelllllll...there's a little matter of failing to report for duty for about 1-1/2 years or so ....that spells AWOL in any language. Let him TRY to make service an issue.

[kayob1]

57. Well, actually

This "draft dodging" nonsense makes me laugh. Anybody who has been through a military physical (like me) and been through basic training (like me) and seen people kicked out of the military in basic because they lied about their physical conditions (like me) know that Dean told his physical story just the way happens. It tends to make me think that all the people hollering DRAFT DODGER are, well, somewhat hysterical - so I would have to question what else they have to say.

IMHO.

[ProfessorPlum]

58. Yes. I would also love to see Bush bring up "draft dodging"

in any way. Dean would make him eat that with gusto and a big heaping spoonful of "desertion".

[Droopy]

53. I don't so much oppose Dean

as I like another candidate.

Dean is just too much of a centrist, imo, for us to have many progressive victories under his leadership. I can imagine a lot of comprimising with him at the helm. But then again that might be the only way since we will likely have at least one side of Congress under Republican control.

That being said, he's 100% better than the far right leaning Bush and Dean would get my support should he get the nomination.

[ProfessorPlum]

55. I'm actually pretty thrilled to find that sentiment so widespread

in this thread. Here's to working together for our nominee against Bush.

[JohnKleeb]

56. I feel the same as droopy does plum

He is too centrist for my support but hey should he be the nominee, he has my support.

[Droopy]

60. Here, here Professor

Here's to kicking Bush out on his tail. :beer:

[Mairead]

61. He's Bush Lite!

Nothing substantive would change under a Dean administration. We might have fewer invasions and massacres, but Dean has no plans to fix a damned thing.

This is not a joke, kids. This is a really serious problem.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. specific issues, please.

.

[Mairead]

108. Here's 4 big ones just to start

- He has no plans to cut the insanely enormous war-industry budget, now nearly the size of ALL other military budgets in the world COMBINED.

- He has no plans to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets for healthcare. 31c of every healthcare dollar is diverted into elite pockets, enormous executive salaries, duplicated administration costs, and other non-essentials. That's more or less the definition of wasteful.

- He has no plans to kill the destructive 'patriot' act. He supposedly wants to 'reform' it, but has said nothing concrete except that there are parts of it he likes.

- He has no plans to stop the vicious drugs war that's responsible for incalculable misery, uncounted killings, the destabilisation of governments, corruption,....

[ProfessorPlum]

109. All very important issues

and ones for which we would certainly hope we could make happen sooner than later.

For any of our next presidents to seriously decrease military spending, to end the drug war, and to bring about single payer health care would certainly be a welcome miracle. It would bring us out of the clutches of the military-industrial complex, the judicial-incarceration cabal, and the evil health insurance companies. Those are fantastic goals to have and ones for which we all should work. There may be some work that needs to be done first, however. Like getting control back from the corporations that run the media to civic-minded, independent watchdogs, who will honestly report on when people are voting in their own interests. We don't have that now. Also, we need a congress that could see the desperate need to work towards those goals, instead of one hostile to them, as we have now. I hope that whichever Democrat beats Bush in November begins the process of turning us around so that these goals become more reachable, and I think any of them will make a good start of it.

I think, like you, that Dean is not as bold on these issues as he could be and probably should be, but as you know, getting elected is really the first step towards implementing these ideas, and I think he is working on that first.

Dean's plan to restrict or end the Patriot Act seems appropriate to me.

Thanks for your response.

[Mairead]

115. "getting elected is the first step towards implementing these ideas"

And when he has no intention of implementing these ideas, then what?

That's the problem: he stands for the status quo. Getting him elected will only assure that nothing changes.

I won't settle for that. Why will you?

[ProfessorPlum]

118. Certainly not the current status quo

I would think his positions mark him as someone who would govern with some sanity and a foothold in reality. But I can see how his positions would not be progressive enough to suit many.

Dean has the energy, the hustle, the organization to run an excellent campaign, and his positions are progressive enough for me to "settle". Kucinich doesn't seem as in tune with what running a hard hitting campaign against the Bushies would need to be like.

I like Dennis, and I like his positions. I don't think this country is where he is yet.

But I don't want this thread to get too sidetracked. Thanks very much for your responses.

[TexasPatriot]

69. If Dean were president I'd be ecstatic

but the same is true if I were president
or my friend Jon
or the guy from Buck's Pizza that brings me pizza (well, him not so much - he's kinda slow)
who could be as bad as George*?

Honestly, I think he'd be a good president. I'm not confident he wont fudge the environment a little - but it's hard to know that right now.

my biggest problem would be whether he can win with a mandate.

I dont think he'll be able to cut defense spending. I dont think he'll be able to get the senate to reopen kyoto. I dont think he'll be able to enact any changes to healthcare etc... honestly, there's very little of any of the published dem domestic agenda items that are likely to get passed unless we manage 12-2-1, and that seems reasonably unlikely.

[ProfessorPlum]

71. Gotta sign off for now

Everybody play nice until I get back.

Hopefully we've come to the conclusion so far that a Dean presidency wouldn't be the end of the world, and would in fact be much better than what we have now.

He may not deliver everything we would like to see immediately, but the ship of state is big and will take a while to turn around. Having a Democratic fighter is a step in the right direction.

Cheers. PP

[Vitruvius]

74. I support Kucinich; I do not oppose Dean;

IMHO Kucinich is excellent, Dean is very good.

If Dean wins the election, I'll be delighted. Only slightly less delighted than if Kucinich were to win.

[jpgpenn]

75. Dean wont beat Bush

[mzmolly]

76. Yes he will..

:kick:

[PissedOffPollyana]

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

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**

[frustrated_lefty]

80. Hey PHDiva

Hope you don't mind a brief reply, I wanted to touch on a couple of the points you raised. Not for confrontation, more curiousity than anything. Plus, this is a pleasant thread and seems to present a good opportunity to ask some honest questions no matter the stance one takes.

You mentioned Dean failed to explain where funding would come from for education. In Vermont, he overhauled the traditional system of paying for public schools with local property taxes, shifting funds from rich towns to poor towns through a "sharing pool." As a consequence, funding for education has risen by 40% in Vermont since 1997. Would the same approach be used on a national level? It seems doubtful, although I would not be surprised were he to implement an equally innovative approach for saving public education in America. Would you object to something of that sort? As to higher education, I have to agree with you, he doesn't do much there. This is typical of Dean, though...he tends to try and address issues at their root, assuming, perhaps unrealistically, that will make things better further down the line.

In your 5th point you point out his apparent refusal to use Roe v Wade for appointments to the SCOTUS. I may be misinterpreting your position, but I am guessing you want a woman's right to choose to be embedded in stone? I may also be misunderstanding Dean's position, but my understanding of that is it is a medical decision a woman makes. Consequently, if I read him correctly, the government doesn't even have a right to voice an opinion, much less establish laws on the subject. How would you feel about this?

Lastly, in your 7th point, you express concern that he only states a willingness to re-enter negotiations on the Kyoto protocol. But he required Vermont adhere to more stringent emissions standards that those described in the Kyoto Protocol? Granted, Vermont doing better than the KP is easier than, say, California, but this does not sound to be the action of a man who is unfriendly towards environmental concerns?

There are other issues I'd love to debate, but in the spirit of maintaining an educational and friendly thread (a tiny eye in the GD hurricane), these are some honest questions I'd love to hear your thoughts on. Again, not for confrontation, but to see how we got to opposite ends of the gamut while starting with similar data.

peace

[PissedOffPollyana]

82. Happy to ...

I will start by saying that I had less squeemish feelings voting for Clinton (much as it skeeved me anyway) because he had detailed plans with details of funding sources and left very little to the imagination. That is what I would love to see from HD, solid layouts for programs rather than loose suggestions.

In education, I am so very flexible as long as there is a plan that involves no robbing of Peter to pay Paul. No infrastructure robbed or reverting of funds that are going to otherwise desperately needed infrastructure. The military budget is a good place to start shopping for cuts **wink**. The program he implented in VT is applicable at the state level but, yes, would be downright heinous to maintain and very hard to structure. I would definately prefer a direct approach as well, where there are not monies conditioned on particular market trends or gains that we "expect".

oops... Chinese food is here... To be continued....

[frustrated_lefty]

84. The budget for a few military toilets and a dozen or so wrenches

could fund a NEW school! No, not, I don't have stats to back that up, and it's exaggeration, but, yes, I could see cutting the Pentagon budget. Honestly, I don't see Dean cutting the Pentagon budget....the spin on that would be disastrous. I could see him slowing the rate of growth on the Pentagon budget while simultaneously making a more efficient operation. He has a decent record for that, making systems more efficient, getting more bang for the buck. But he wouldn't go nearly as far as Kucinich there, it's a valid reason to object to him.

In any event, I await your replies to other issues, RvW and the KP seem to be hotbutton issues.

[Crunchy Frog]

78. I'm not opposed to Dean

but I am concerned that under a Dean presidency the extreme partisanship and polarization of politics and our society would continue or even get worse, if thats possible. I think he would be really easy for the repugs to demonize, and he would be tied hand and foot by a repug controlled Congress. I think Wes Clark would be less polarizing just because he comes from a non-partisan background.

That being said, I think he would make a good president and I don't see any major problems with any of his policies beyond the ones that would occur with any president. It sounds like he did a very good job governing Vermont.

If he gets the nomination I absolutely hope he wins, and will work my ass off for him. He would be infinitely better than the thing we have squatting in the WH right now.

[ProfessorPlum]

99. thanks for your reply

My take is that partisanship and polarization flow almost entirely from conservatives right now = if Republicans want a more "civilized" tone, they will have to produce it themselves. Democrats at the moment are going to civilize themselves all out of a job, if they keep it up.

The real danger from 'partisanship' that I see is if the Democrats don't stand behind their president, whoever it is, in much the same way they didn't stand behind Clinton (thanks Lieberman). Then whoever is in office will be left twisting in the wind, alone, to face the right wing and their trained monkeys in the media. Would Clark or any of the others be immune from this? Hard to say.

[paulk]

79. I'll accept your hypothetical -

My biggest objection to Dean is that I've seen nothing from him that leads me to believe he would be a good president. He's been the Governor of a state with a population of just over 600,000, a state whose ethnic and economic demographics hardly mirror the rest of the country. How does this qualify him for the job?

Much of Dean's campaign rhetoric is not supported by his tenure as Gov. - will his true colors come out if he is elected president? It's not surprizing that much of his campaign is based on bashing "Washington Democrats", since he spent a lot of his time as Governor bashing "Vermont Democrats". Dr. Dean was always willing to compromise with the Republicans. I believe Howard Dean is a conservative Democrat - bordering on Libertarian, and this is how he would govern our country.

His positions on guns, affirmative action, his states rights rhetoric, his desire for a rollback of the middle class tax cut - these positions are all to the right of mine. These positions are actually to the right of the Democratic Party platform.

Dean has no foreign policy or national security experience. We are at war, whether we want to be or not. The post 9/11 world is a reality, and I want someone in the White House with the credentials to deal with that world. We don't have the luxury of a learning curve - we didn't have one with Bush, either, and that was a hard lesson.

The only card Dean brings to the table is that he's not Bush. There are better alternatives for us Democrats than "not Bush".

[sandnsea]

85. Let's see

No progress on race relations, he's said he supports class based affirmative action.

No progress on guns and murder.

No progress on changing the prison structure, he increased prison spending in Vermont, refused to allow methadone treatment, won't even take a stand on medical marijuana. He didn't support adequate funding for legal aid so it's obvious he doesn't put the prison problem as a high priority.

His health care plan is expanded Medicare and Medicaid, a giant socialized health program that won't pass. No progress there.

His obsession with balancing the budget is going to cause harm to working people and could make the economy worse.

The Champion Land deal was land use, not wilderness type conservation. He's never acknowledged the difference and touts this as his greatest environmental achievement. It calls for logging just like Healthy Forests. I don't think he gets it.

Yucca Mtn & Sierra Blanca show a blatant disregard for the well-being of other people. Will he send radioactive waste to Costa Rica if they agree because it's good to get it out of the U.S.?

He supported NAFTA, says he's changed. How hard would he really push for these changes? His support of Enron insurance tax breaks and the expansion of several corporate farms shows his willingness to cozy up to business. What's he ever really done to reign in corporate malfeasance in Vermont?

Bottom line, the guys liberal plans are too liberal to pass. The conservative plans are too conservative to make a real impact for working people. And he's held so many positions over the years, I flat out don't trust him.

[frustrated_lefty]

86. Yucca Mt annoyes me too,

but what are you proposing we do with radioactive waste? Do you realize how much of that is medical waste? We should outlaw x-rays? If we don't outlaw medical technology, where do we dispose of the waste?

I would ask you one question. What do you think about Dean's policies towards children. I ask because that is a dealmaker for me. What I have seen in his history is:

Dean ensured that virtually every child under 18 and more than 90 percent of adults are eligible for health coverage.

Dean created the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee to identify strengths and weaknesses in the community response to domestic violence.

Dean increased investment on Child Care Services by 176% since 1991.

Dean instituted the first state protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.

I see Dean as a man who may make mistakes, but he stays on point, and his attention is on making things better. Do you think he fails in this regard? And, if he wins the GE, how do you think this will affect America?

[sandnsea]

88. Well let's compare with Kerry

First, alot of what Vermont has is due to federal programs. One of my biggest complaints about Dean is his berating Congress when the majority of what he did in Vermont wouldn't have been possible without Congress. I put any part of Kerry's record up against Dean any day of the week.

Expanding Medicaid coverage was accomplished through federal waivers and SCHIP, the health coverage bill for children that Kerry worked on with Kennedy and others.

When he was Lt. Governor in 1983, he began his work on acid rain which culminated in February 1984 resolution of the National Governors Association calling for cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions.

Kerry introduced one of the first rape and domestic violence prosecution units in the nation way back in the early 80's.

Kerry sponsored the federal Violence Against Women Act which set up funding for shelters, hotlines, assistance in getting restraining orders etc. It's very likely Dean's program was funded, at least in part, by this legislation.

Sponsored 1997 Early Childhood Development Act which helps fund a variety of child care services and training for workers, etc.

1998 "Zero to Three" Association's "Achievement Award" for work on early childhood development issues

2000 Early Learning Opportunity Act signed

Presented a "Two Strikes and You're Out" bill, which would stipulate mandatory life sentences for two-time child predators who engage in the rape or sexual assault of children. I think this past as part of the Amber Alert legislation.

And truly, this is just a small bit. Doesn't include AIDS, improved trade bills, oceans & fisheries protections, small business, glbt, etc.

[molly]

93. Everyone has got to admit that it's pretty damned difficult

to compare ANYONE to Kerry's record.

[ProfessorPlum]

100. On paper,

Kerry looks terrific. There is no disputing that.

[frustrated_lefty]

94. You're discouniting critisisms as part of an amber alert? Do you really

want to do that?

[LWolf]

87. Okay, I'll try.

Although I do not "virulently" oppose him.

Presumably, Dean supporters are incorrect to support him, because our ultimate goal (his victory in November) is not something to be hoped for. Why?

1. I hope whoever wins our nomination wins in November. Period.
2. I hope it's not Dean.

Why? Not because Dean is bad; because others are better. Of course, that's a subjective judgement. Others are more likely to take the country where I want to go. It's about the issues, and about candidates' records. Again, it's not that Dean is so terrible, or I would be so bothered; it's that I trust others more and would prefer to see others in that position. To give you something substantive:

1. I prefer universal, not-for-profit health care plans to insurance for almost all plans.

2. I oppose war. I don't want a longer waiting period before I engage; I want diplomacy to be the highest priority. Not a 60 or 90 or other) day deadline before calling diplomacy dead.

3. When a law was written with ill intent, and is harming America, I don't want to "fix" it. I want to repeal it and start fresh. I want our laws written and enacted with the intent to help people. So I don't want to "fix" the patriot act or NCLB. I want them gone. Tombstoned. And a fresh start.

I could go on, but you get the picture. My biggest objection to a Dean presidency would be settling for, in my subjective opinion, less than the best. Not that he might not be ok; just that I don't think he is the best choice. I want the best president for my country, the same way I would want the best doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc. for myself or my family. When I can't get the best, I have to settle for what I can.

If Dean wins the nomination, I will vote for him. But until then, I'll support and work for the best choice from my perspective.

I don't think all Dean supporters are "incorrect" to support him. The only Dean, (or other), supporters I think are "incorrect" are those who give up before the votes are cast. Those who support a second, third, or fourth choice out of fear. If you are convinced he is the best, based on platform and record, then you are correct to support him. Just as I am correct in supporting my choice.

[molly]

91. I'm really too tired to be answering this, but

where does Trippi end and Dean begin? Who is the REAL Howard Dean? Is he really filled with all that anger and rage? Would he be diplomatic? Could he withstand international critique as a lightweight on foreign policy?

[arewethereyet]

95. two things mainly

I don't think he'll be able to accomplish anything due with Congress. He has not shown much temperment to work with others.

All foreign matters. He would have to rope someone really competant for Sec State but even with that he has to deal with these people personally at least occasionslly.

There are other things but these two are the big items.

[ProfessorPlum]

104. agree - his ability to work with Congress may be an issue

Though Bush, who treats them like crap, seems to do just fine. (Well, not so well actually, but he gets what he wants way too often). I think Dean realizes this. When asked for his qualifications for a running-mate, he is apt to mention someone who knows DC inside out. Probably why Bob Graham is looking like a strong choice.

And again, foreign policy. I would submit that the only president to have more foreign policy experience than Dean in the last couple of decades going into the job is Bush I. The others, back to Carter, have had to learn much on the job, and Dean seems at least as educatable and willing to throw himself into it as the others. (Well, I don't know - Clinton and Carter are both incredible intellects. I don't know if I would put Dean on the same plane as them. He's definitely head and shoulders above Reagan and Bush II - though that's aiming pretty low, I know).

[AP]

98. Biggest fears:- further entrenchment of power of wall st, cloaked by

meaningless slogans like "you have the power."

- deterioration of race relations thanks to his crazy ideas like subconscious feelings are the final frontier of race relations.

- middle class people living the lie that they think they're accpeting less and paying high taxes to buy some crazy health plan that is just another way to transfer money to health care industry, and which rich people barely have to pay for.

- that the Dem party starts to embrace Libertarianism, thus closing the door on a democratic party which has embraced a completely different set of principles for over 100 years just on the verge of it's ultimate victory over conservative economic philosophies.

- the sadness that we narrowly missed having the greates president of the 20th Century, John Edwards, or even a real champion of liberalism like DK, or JK.

[ProfessorPlum]

102. These seem a mixed bag to me

I understand your preference for other candidates.

I'm also not totally pleased with Dean's health care program and would love to see single payer enacted here. I think it is going to take much more than a single presidential election to get rid of the monkey-on-our-back that is the health insurance industry. They have a firm hold on the people of this country, somehow. I was at a family dinner once and everyone was bitching about the rising prices of healtcare, etc., and I started talking about how healthcare in other countries only costs about 1/3 of what we pay, and how there is much less paperwork, etc., and it was almost like they were one person - everyone looked at me with horror in their eyes and said "We don't want the government controlling healthcare". Like the HMOs and insurance companies are so much more beneficent. I didn't get it then. I still don't get it now. But like Stockholm Syndrome victims, people are very suspicious of "government-controlled healthcare". Let's work together to educate them on that.

I don't see Howard Dean as very "libertarian" at all, especially since the driving force behind most libertarians is a desire to keep all of their money. He is not a gun-control radical, but he doesn't desire to repeal existing federal controls. What other libertarian stances would you claim Dean has?

His positions on equal rights for everyone seems genuine to me, and he frames those issues in terms of common sense, which appeals to me. Your mileage may vary.

As far as us being on the verge of eliminating conservative economic policies, I have to admit that made me scratch my head. Maybe I'm reading the wrong papers . . .

Thanks for your reply.

[Byronic]

101. Well,

I love not Dean the less, but Kerry more. :)

[ProfessorPlum]

106. Perfectly reasonable n/t

.

[BootinUp]

103. I can't accept the premise

because I know in my mind, heart, and soul he can not beat shrub. But if you must press me. I do not think he brings the kind of integrity to the job that Clark would. He is a skilled politician that has a typical politicians record of making deals with the powerful interests. Hey Dean, unlock those records damn it! We have the power!

[ProfessorPlum]

105. Not really looking for a comparison with others here

Just ideas on what would be wrong or bad about a Dean presidency. Thanks.

[BootinUp]

110. Sorry

I'll try again, he is too much the deal making, double talking, run your campaign any way to get elected politician.

Honestly that is what I think.

[ProfessorPlum]

111. So basically, he is a politician

and he seems to really be trying to win. Ok, well, I'll accept that as criticism, I guess, but I think all of our candidates fall into that category. I understand your objection is one of style and a personal reaction, but I was hoping for more policy discussion here. Thanks for your input.

[John_H]

112. This is an utterly disingenuous question

Nobody on this board would object in any way shape or form to four years of Dean. We'd be thrilled. The problem is there is a less than ten percent chance we'd get four years of Dean if he wins the nomination.

It's time for people to wake up. Yes, dean can win the Dem primary. There's a lot of pissed off dems. But look at the numbers--polls book sales, anything. No candidate who cannot assuage the national security fears of americans can win.

It's that simple: Bush with a media created mandate if Dean is our candidate.

[ProfessorPlum]

117. It is a hypothetical question

not "disingenuous", whatever you think that means.

Many people are not driven like sheep, bleating into the arms of whatever "savior" has promised to keep them safe but who in actuality makes the world a more dangerous place for us all.

The less than 10% chance you cite I can find nowhere in any poll, which all show any Democrat running close to or ahead of Bush.

Please take your despair to another thread where I'm sure someone will be happy to cry with you about how bad our chances are to beat Bush. I intend to fight, and you are off topic.

[mitchum]

116. He's a centrist