The official Dean's thread

it's given you a canidate that won't be able to beat bush.

i think this locks dean in, but i think if you really want a democratic president next term, this is bad.

Wow. Dean: the candidate of the Democratic party establishment.

Hooray. One politician endorses another politician. Excellent news. Really.


Am I the only one that responds to this with a giant:

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cares?

if given the option of being endorsed by gore or not, i'd opt for not.

dukakis did sooo well when mondale endorsed him.

I have to agree with alcimedes. The "hardcore" democrats are going to nominate an unelectable candidate, too far to the left as he's currently perceived. Dean will almost surely win the nomination, but would have his work cut out for him in a general election since he's perceived as being so liberal. Once Dean gets the nomination, he would have to make a mad dash for the middle as if Speedy Gonzalez were lighting his farts.

Am I being too machiavellian?

You forget that 49% of the American Public already thinks the war was a bad idea.

He's already in the middle.

jesus h. christ could ride down mount vesuvius on a painted pony handing out "vote for dean" buttons, and it won't get him elected.
he is a ticking time-bomb, the only question is whether he blows before or after the convention.

I'm a Democrat, a liberal Democrat, and too old to care who knows it. This is a huge step forward for Howard Dean. But I am pessimistic about '04. What issues will Dems run on? Mere anti-Bush stands alone will not generate enough votes to defeat him. And he and Rove have done a very good job of co-opting key Democratic issues.

and this is based on what?

Ross Perot was a lunatic and he got a substantial share of the votes as an independant.

The war and opinion of Bush are two completely different things. Although many people will base their decision to vote or not vote for Bush on what happens with the war in the next 11 months, you have to factor in the economy and other things like that. The war is a big factor in everything, but not the only factor.

the real problem is in the last few weeks a few canidates seem to have been pulling back from this mindset, and have started to come out with some legitimate alternatives to what Bush has offered up.

now those canidates are dead in the water, and you've got a "i hate bush" broken record as your front runner. what the hell is he going to get elected on?

maybe things will change when the election draws near, but it reminds me of the problem republicans had in california. the canidate that was popular among the republicans who voted in the primary elections was also the same canidate that had zero chance to win in a state wide election.

that is dean, at least for now.

Bingo. Intellectual honesty...and thank you for it.

Shawn,

Dean is not going to beat Bush. I don't care of the Pope endorses him. He's too Left. The best chance is Clark. But they'll nominate Dean anyway.

It just goes to show you how much you undervalued his candidacy. I think people will ultimately be surprised at the potency of Dean's campaign, even though much of it operates above-the-radar (the internet). Much like how they will be surprised at the reasonableness of Dean's actual positions on things, which are much more moderate than perceived. Yet, this guy can motivate the base like no other candidate so far. Now that he has Al Gore's support, it seems he will solidify that base. [/QUOTE]

Actually I would just call that giving the Democrats some credit. If anything it sounds more like the recall here in California. Davis was just paralyzed and Bustemante ran even more to the left of Davis and advocated raising taxes by billions and endorsed every program in the book.

Arnold won with a huge margin. However everyone was convinced early on the Dems would toss away Davis and run someone winnable and who could claim the middle ground. Instead they lost... badly.

SD saying Dean will never get the nomination is likely saying, "Look the Dems were so pissed about 2000 that they will find a nominate a winnable candidate for 2004." Instead they just followed the same pattern they have been following for a few years, and losing almost every time with. You would think that with all the issues they claim are on the line they could pull it together, but they can't.

I assure you I was saying the same thing about Republicans in 96 when they elected Dole for the nomination.

The sadddest part of this will be watching Dean suddenly toss aside his ideas. Sort of like how Gore was pro-life and his wife was getting musical artists into trouble for their lyrics until they wanted to run for president. Then all that was tossed aside.

We know Dean has already tossed away raising the retirement age, reforming medicare, etc. In some ways he does strike me as somewhat middle-ground. But it appears he might have sealed that all away and now is a creature of the hard left.

Nick

I'll make it simple, just for you.

Democrats lose, Democrats lose Democrats lose...

SD2001 sez... Dean won't get nomination because Dems are tired of losing...

Dean gets nomination.

Democrats lose, Democrats lose....

SD was saying that the Democrats HAD to change something and they haven't. So I teased/said that he was giving them some credit for wanting to win. Apparently that was misplaced credit.

As for SD's other predictions. Anyone find it ironic that Dean is endorsed on the same day the stock market cracks 10,000?


Nick

I seem to recall that the last president was a two-term democrat.

So they do win. And they even win the popular vote.

I don't find it ironic at all... the rich get richer.

See I feel like the Dems have changed tactics a bit since the last Presidential election at least. Dean isn't Gore or Lieberman, more conciliatory candidates who tried to occupy the middle of the road. The Democrats have tried this anti-whatever-the-Republicans-are-doing tactic in the recent elections and in Congress back in the Clinton days. The strategy has not gone over well.

If Dean is just anti-Bush he's not going to compel most people to vote for him in the end because he won't appear to stand for anything, he'll be perceived as just standing against stuff. It's not that Dean can't present himself differently after the nomination. It' just that these challenger candidates have to paint themselves into a corner early to get their party's nomination, and the mad dash back to the middle is a longer, harder trip when you start so far away.

It's not a matter of being conservative or liberal it's a matter of being pragmatic and empirical.

Yes and that two term Democratic president said Iraq was a threat with WOMD and regularly, unilaterally bombed aspirin factories to prove so.

Which candidate is that position closer to... Bush... Dean... hmmm...?


Nick

Nowhere has Dean ever said we should not have been tough with Iraq. He believes in the policy of containment and sanctions.

And I know he would not let his VP have a personal intelligence wing.

I'm talking about perception here.

And we're talking about reality.

And yes we know the republicans are really good at shaping perception through lies.

They're already starting on Dean... floating the lie that Dean performed abortions in the 70's when he was a med student.

And he's already stated that he and his wife have never performed an abortion... even though they are pro-choice.

The other fallacy is that they're going to portray him as an elitist snob from park avenue. Which is hard to be when you've lived in the most rural state in the country for 25 years.

I just hope he can make up for his probable loss of moderate swing voters with new voters. Dean has the worst position on tax cuts of any of them - he wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, even the ones that weren't Bush's to begin with. He's going to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. There's such a good fiscal responsibility argument to be used against Bush, and Dean can make it as a budget-balancing governor. But he just makes it that much harder to get that message out if he's saying he's going to raise taxes on everyone. That one position alone has lost him the general election already.

The only actual problem with Dean as a Democratic candidate is that he has had the 'unelectable' tag hung around his neck (Rove must love this)...but I don't see that this is necessarily the case. He's smart, charismatic, dedicated and has integrity. Granted, he's not as telegenic as Clarke, but he has more political experience. He's not as much a part of the Democratic establishment as Kerry, but has better policies. His policies aren't as good as Kucinich's, but he doesn't look like a weird gnome person.


So - and this is directed at trumptman and SDW2001 in particular - why do you think he is unelectable? What (partisan politics aside for the moment) abilities and leadership qualities does Bush have that Dean does not?

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/P...nomy_taxreform

also:

The ideologues gathered around the President have an ambitious goal Ñ to repeal the progressive legacy of the twentieth century. They want to return to a time when private wealth was insulated from the graduated income tax, and the many labored for the benefit of the few. They would ignore the widening gap between rich and poor, shred the safety nets that provide at least some protection for the unfortunate, and dismantle the safeguards that protect consumers and workers alike.

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:

*\t
Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.
*\t
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
*\t
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
*\t
Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees.

I know what it takes to generate economic growth. As President, I will work tirelessly to put the American economy back on the road to prosperity not just for the favored few, but for all.

Reality? I thought we were talking politics!

Seriously, you don't have to be so defensive. I'm just pointing out the pitfalls of Dean's probable nomination, adding some levity to the scene.

I know. The frustrating thing is how complicit the SCLM is in creating false perceptions.

Al Gore is on Apple's Board of Directors, which automatically makes him a demigod.

The real reason Dean is unelectable (in my humble opinion) is because most Democratic positions (and his too) are really criticisms followed by plans that believe in perfection.

When you have someone who comes from a privleged background as Dean has, (so did Gore too by the way) it just makes these positions even more unbelievable.

So Bush is a draft dodger who got a perk type position flying planes in the national guard. Dean took some time off and was a ski bum who's back ailment didn't allow him to serve, but did allow him to hit the slopes everyday.

The Bush criticism is, well see, he got that because of his background. He got that because his family is rich.

And we look at Dean and... say pretty much the same thing. In fact I would bet there were plenty of poor men who had ailments similar to Dean but who's families couldn't afford the array of specilists it took to find and identify it. They just went off and served, and also possibly died.

So the rich are privleged, including the Democratic rich, but we have to somehow believe that Dean, who obviously took advantage of his status is some how going to end it for all after him. It just doesn't float.

How about how Bush critics complain, in conspiratorial tones that Bush has secret deals for friends in all areas. That his policy is always slanted toward his interests. Then we look at Dean who has sealed up the bulk of his business while working as governor. So much for operating with open doors.

Let's take a look at a few of these since Chu posted them.


Might fly, but only if they can prove that they will tax all to give something for all. If the plan is full of exceptions and free rides, it will sink. People will not trust the health care they receive today to be replaced by something corrupt and that they end up paying more for.


So this means he will get rid of tax credits as well that pay out money to folks who haven't even paid in? It is hard for me to become outraged that someone who makes $200k gets to keep 1.5-2% more of their money when someone who make 30k also gets to keep 2% more of that someone's money via a earned income tax credit, child credit, etc.

If we all must suffer then share the pain, but I seldom see plans that call for that on the Democratic side.


The only way to do this is to make it less progressive. It is nice rhetoric that will never see the light of day on the Democratic side. The reason we have these huge fluxs in tax revenue is because the base is too narrow. To widen it you have to be willing to raise taxes on everyone instead of seeking more from the "rich." Sounds good, but I doubt the follow up reflects what I have stated.


Good luck... unless the program goes back to only trying to be a subsidy and this also goes for the big REPUBLICAN boondoggle of prescription drugs, these programs will go bankrupt. Dean at one times advocated means testing for medicare and social security and also raising the retirement age. Those were real solutions that have now been jettisoned.

The hardest thing about winning against Bush, and I DON'T like this as a Republican, is that he spends like mad. It is going to be really hard to run as the "I'm not going to take more, just give more and oh, they'll be no pain for anyone." type of guy. Bush has done well here even though I don't agree with how he has done it.

Nick

I think trumptman is being too deep here. People just don't think like this about candidates. The vast majority of voters won't even know the vast majority of his plans. It's all about taxes, plain and simple. It's a perfect point to play into the Republican attack machine, and people will have seen the ads and think "Dean - hmm, I think I heard something about him raising taxes on me." End of story. See you in 2008.

Yawn.

What is the conservative economic theory?
Starve government and give the rich a tax break?

I think a lower income family probably pays well over 2% in payroll taxes and sales taxes.

The tax system must be MORE progressive... not less.

What is this bizarre notion that Dean is too much of a "hard core leftist" to be elected? By any reasonable historical standard he is a moderate to slightly conservative candidate.

It wasn't very long ago that his brand of pay as you go budget management was the very mantra of the Republican (aka tax cut and spend) party. Thinking Bush's big Iraq adventure is a cluster$$$$ hardly puts him amongst the Stalinists (viz the many conservative voices saying the same thing), his gun control ideas are fairly to the right of many Dems, being pro choice is solidly in the mainstream of American public opinion, and he might be slightly to the left of the majority when it comes to civil unions for gays. Supporting Medicare and Social Security (as actual ongoing programs) is maybe now considered the secret brand of a fellow traveler?

I think any effort to portray Dean as some kind of liberal devil-man will back-fire when people get a chance to evaluate his platform. It may get people thinking, "Gee, if this is liberalism, why fear it? Seems pretty straight forward and reasonable".

Now here is food for thought: "How Dean Could Win" by Bill Kristol

Writing for the Washington Post, neocon honcho Bill Kristol basically lays out why Dean should win, while apparently trying to sound a wake-up call to the conservative faithful not to get to complacent.


And:


Weird....

This thread contains only the opinion of the author and nothing more.

First of all I believe that if Dean is the choice of the democrats he will lose against Bush. That is reason enough that Dean is bad for America.

If Dean were to win over Bush as attacks in Iraq may get worse to ruin Bush's chances for re-election then here are reasons why I am not impressed with Dean any more so than Bush:

SnipTo Howard Dean, they are a symbol of everything that is wrong with George W. Bushs America: wealthy executives who move their businesses to tax-free tropical islands. The kind of people who pocket the presidents big tax cuts and then move their corporations to Bermuda and their jobs offshore, as Dean told Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. People like Ian Cumming, a reclusive mogul who runs Leucadia National Corp. in Salt Lake City. Leucadia was one of several companies that sparked controversy last year by announcing plans to head to Bermuda to escape paying millions in U.S. taxes. The banking conglomerate later hired a high-priced Washington lobbying firm to block congressional efforts to crack down on the tax tourists. SO WHO IS Cumming supporting in next years race for the White House? Howard Dean. In May, Cumming threw a fund-raising party at Leucadias headquarters that brought in around $25,000 for the campaign. He also donated something more helpful: use of his corporate jet to fly the former Vermont governor to campaign events. Cummings jet even ferried Dean and his family to Hawaii recently to retrieve the remains of his brother, who died in Laos during the Vietnam War. When NEWSWEEK first contacted the campaign about Leucadias largesse, Deans aides said they were entirely unaware of its Bermuda plans and blamed the oversight on a lapse in vetting.Snip

So even before he is actually president he is taking money from people and groups he does not fully research? This indicates he is either not aware of the background of those he takes money from or that he is fully aware of their dealings but does not care as he needs money (at any cost) to fund his campaign of deception. I say campaign of deception because Dean is missing integrity where if on the one hand he campaigns against "evils" that in practice he employes in secret.

SnipAs NEWSWEEK reported last week, Dean has locked about 140 boxes of his own Vermont records in a remote state warehouse for 10 years to keep them from prying reporters and oppo researchers. State officials say these papers represent around 40 percent of his records, and include most of his communications with advisers, officials and lobbyists.Snip

Why is this? What is Dean afraid of? What is he hiding from the public?

SnipAmong the papers under lock and key, NEWSWEEK has learned, are the records of Deans meetings with utility executives about the controversial sale of a Vermont nuclear plant to Entergy Corp. Deans lawyers refused to release the papers to an environmental group last year, citing executive privilegeSnip

Snips taken from this
Newsweek Link

Anyone else find this a little troubling from a so-called "outsider" ?

Fellowship