Look, if Dean can win all the states Gore-Lieberman won and Graham could deliver Florida, they'd easily cross the electoral margin to victory and we'd be done with s©hrubya. I really wonder about Dean's electability in some of the upper Midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin, which are moderate. Iowa now appears to be pro-Dean and very anti-war.

Dean should start promising bon-bons to Richard Daley, though, so that he can be assured of winning Illinois, and his independent approach may work well in Minnesota, though if the body bags start coming back to the Midwest, he'll have an easier time of it. Right now, I could see every East Coast state from Maryland north, with the sole exception of New Hampshire, voting for him, along with the entire Pacific coast and Hawaii. New Mexico, that beautiful state, would be lagniappe.

BTW, what are Bob Graham's politics like? I see him as a centrist-right Democrat, with some populist streaks.

I like that ticket Fan -- I am really hyped on Dean. I also like Graham -- he is a centrist and a very practical politician - he was an excellent governor and now has considerable knowledge of foreign affairs and intelligence issues.

After doing more research on Dean, checking out his website and stances, I am even more motivated to help him. I have signed up to do volunteering, anything. First time I have done this in my life. Thats how much I agree and believe in him. This man is very very intelligent, and has done all of his homework. Right on Dean! You are the man.

Just got done seeing Mr. Dean on "Meet The Press" this morning. Under intense grilling from Tim Russert of NBC I though Mr. Dean did another outstanding job of answering completely,and in great detail, every question put to him. Once again he outlined his positions in so far as Iraq, North Korea, Social Security, the budget defecits, judicial appointments, and where he stands with civil unions. I paid very close attention to this answer. He said he feels that a mjaority of Americans would be willing to support his position on this that gays should have every rights that their straight counterparts enjoy in marraige, including hospital visitation, and things like insurance. He said its his view that homosexuality is genetic also, and that studies have proven this.
Right on Howard Dean. You are the man in my opinion!!

[ March 09, 2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

If Dean survives long enough to be on the California ballot, I'd vote for him. Chances are, he won't....So, I'd vote for either Kerry or Edwards.

speaking as a republican who would love to have McCain as President, I have to say... Howard Dean on Meet The press was very impressive.

could be that I was mentally comparing him to the anemic performance of question evasion done by Bush on thursday. However, Dean was insightful, intelligent, well informed, not afraid to say he didn't know when appropriate and very very hot. wink

the new issue of "The Advocate" has Dean on the cover and an interview where he addresses the issues and gives very realistic answers. I was impressed with the whole "civil union vs marriage" thing.

plus he is such a cutie!! Am I the only one who thinks that he is very sexy?

Nope, your not ung. I find him attractive as well.

And he's just as cute in person. Shorter than I thought but big hands... wink

Several of the Democratic candidates are quite attractive, and they don't squinch their faces up as if they're lying through their teeth every time they utter a statement (GWB).

Edwards, Dean, and Kerry are handsome, I think, the last in a craggy kind of way. Carol Moseley-Braun is an attractive middle-aged woman, but she ain't got a chance in hell of being elected, not as the junior senator from Illinois once again.

Daschle's also not bad looking. But he's the arch-demon of the Republicans, so I always expect to see penned-in or digitized horns drawn on an TV image of him.

Edwards looks like a twink who got old. Daschle would be called "Howdy Doody" if Dick Gebhardt hadn't taken that title already. Moseley-Braun.... hello? attractive? She looks like Florida Evans from "Good times".

Kerry.... I will admit is ..... I don't know how to say it..... First time I met him, I was really struck by how "magnetic" he was. It's like a subliminal voice was calling to me..."take me... take me... take me..."

He really makes an impact in person. But on TV, he looks like a scarecrow come to life. Too craggy. Maybe some Botox injections will get his campaign running along.

All in all Doctor Howard Dean MD is the stud of the bunch. who cares if he's short, I'll wrap him up and take him home to mama anyday. ("Mamma! Mamma! Look what I dugs up in the cabbage patch! He's a guverner! Ain't he a cute fella?")

I still connect with what he is saying out on the campaign trail, "This is the wrong war at the wrong time". Makes sense to me Mr. Dean! But while saying this he is also strongly supporting the U.S. troops, as do I.

I got a campaign e-mail from Dean this morning. In it he is requesting any financial contribution anyone can make at this time. He needs whatever he is able to receive by March 31st in order to be eligible for federal matching funding. He said further in a new poll just released he has pulled even with John Kerry In New Hampshire!
I would urge any Outsporters who support Mr. Dean to send him whatever they can now. Please go to his website for the address or information, which was listed at the start of this thread. Thanks guys!

Here's a question: I can't see this war running until 2004, but if it did, do you think that a majority of Americans would vote to unseat a commander-in-chief who was prosecuting an ongoing battle? I am beginning to think that no matter how sharp Bush's challenger is, and no matter how the war goes (though even in the worst case scenario I can't see it lasting more than 4-6 months, though the occupation could be very difficult), he has created the conditions to explain any issues or problems away and protect himself.

If the economy continues to sink, it'll be attributable to 9/11 and the war, and the response will be more calls for tax cuts. Any further measures to abridge civil liberties or emergency measures or special courts, etc., will be due to 9/11 and the war. The need to drill in environmentally sensitive areas can be attributed to the war. We'll be urged to support his judicial and other political nominees as a sign we support him as commander-in-chief. The currency of the war allows his supporters to label any criticism of unpatriotic and thus disparage the critic. The war's progress can be spun--and again, I think the U.S. military is going to win it decisively and in no more than 4-6 months at the very longest--in any number of ways, but any way it goes, the military will still have the support of most Americans, and he can wrap himself in this. Diplomacy on any other issues can be tossed out the window because the UN has been discredited. So really, W. has created conditions that will make it tough to defeat him. Not impossible, but very tough.

Everything you propose has occurred to me as possible if not probable. I am optomistic that the current administration can be replaced by someone who has the courage of their convictions.

Their opposition is its own worst enemy. Although it is becoming more and more difficult to speak out against anything the current administration does simply because there is a war, opponents of the war have to be more aggressive. They must make it clear that opposing this conflict is being patriotic and not the other way around; that taking our troops out of this situation is the best way to support them; that pre-emptively creating peace through our foreign policy is the goal of our nation.

Mr. Dean was in my state of Washington yesterday speaking to our Democratic Party. I guess he drew over 1,000 people, and blasted Shrub at every opportunity. Got many standing ovations. Sounds like he was received very, very well.

Had a long conversation with a college buddy who moved from SF to Vermont with his partner and opened a FABULOUS inn in Stowe. As much as I am intrigued by Dr. Howie, I had concerns about his "electability," but GatorBoy, who is and has always been a conservative Republican, is a big Dean fan. GatorBoy is not a single-issue voter, either.

I hope that Dean gets more endorsements from conservative small-business owners like GatorBoy. I haven't decided yet -- way too early for me -- but I like the fact that Dean has the cojones to speak when no one else is. I liked that about McCain, too, who I supported in the last election.

just read a great interview/story about Dean.

Talked about how despite his being from Vermont, he is no yokel. he is from upper eastside manhattan actually, the product of an old line family. He is married to a jewish internist who wants to keep practicing if he is elected prez. (that's something for the secret service to deal with)
They do not have cable TV, so they have not seen most of his speeches and engagements.
he is fiscally conservative.
said of his support for gay unions... marching in a parade after signing the bill and being called "f**king cocksucker" by homophobes convinced him that he did the right thing, however difficult it may have been.
He says if gays can die in 9/11, die in afghanistan and fight/die in Iraq, then we deserve the rights enjoyed by straight married couples.

I'm a republican. But I'm finding it hard not to like this guy. any guy who is intelligent, fiscally responsible, has strong convictions AND the balls to speak them... .. well he could be my boyfriend. but if not then he should be Prez

Dean's war stance may be a problem given that W. is now at like 67% popularity again--remember, it was plummeting BEFORE the War in Iraq, now it's back up over the 50% level, with supposedly 70% of the country believing in his "leadership," primarily based on the War. None of his lies, his misdeeds, none of it is sticking. I think Dean, who is socially quite progessive, fiscally quite responsible, and just a great person, may have a hard time against the cabal that has lodged itself in the White House and has designs on remaking the entire globe. Two things that I don't think are an issue are his coming from Vermont (Cheney's Wyoming has almost no electoral votes either), and his wife being Jewish; all the states that voted for Gore would probably also vote for Dean.

The Civil Union background, which I love, may hurt though if the GOP exploit it...and with the likes of Slagtorum in the party, don't think it won't come up. (I also think his verbosity on the topic was a trial balloon to see how the public and the media would respond. He was recently re-elected and is fairly safe in Pennsylvania. I don't put ANYTHING past Rove and now Frist.)

Kerry's new issue is his outspoken wife, who has more balls than he does, and is a multimillionaire. All in all, I don't think he's the right candidate. He just doesn't have a clue as to what touches people. I hate to say this, but Gephardt and Graham are more likely to edge past him in the long run. Kerry just always appears to be casting about for something, like Gore; he has none of the assurance of his class or caste, like W. or the Kennedys, but also none of the populist instincts of a Gephardt or a Dean. It's quite sad.

Verrry interesting, fan. I esp. appreciate the food for thouhgt re a Dean/Graham ticket...

Soley based on his stance on the war, he is completely un-electable. Everything else doesnt matter. That alone leaves him watching from the sidelines.

I would not be so quick to say that his opposition to the war alone is enough to make him one to be standing on the sidelines. While the war is "officially" over, the aftermath has yet to play out. There are already signs that the "transition" isn't going as smoothly as hoped. And...as quick as our society is to forget things, I personally don't think much begins to matter until next February/March other than fundraising...and Dean has not been a slouch at that so far.

Unless the economy and healthcare start to be addressed real soon (whether or not the President really has much influence on either of them), I think the election's going to be wide open...at least that's the sentiment of a lot of regular voting-type folks here in North Carolina--and a lot of them didn't vote for Gore, either.

Howard Dean is far from a one issue candidate. In a weak field he could very well get some "traction" in the early primaries. Plus, the war thing could actually help him especially since it is becoming more apparent that the war was a big phony personal vendetta to begin with. We have effectively destablized the Middle East even greater than before the crusade and have given the Muslims even more reasons to strike out.

Here..here you guys. I agree with you about the war stance. Dean should also point out that Afghanistan is once again..a mess after we pretty much left it. War Lords are running the country outside of Kabul, and the people are pissed off bigtime, that the U.S. has abandoned them..once again. He should bring this up as well!

Well NC only allowed two choices in that election, so who in their right mind would vote for Gore? Had they actually counted the votes of other candidates it might have mattered who was voted for and who wasnt in NC and they could see where people's votes are at.

Did anyone else catch the Dems debate before the labor faithful? That was a fun one. The most sincere and thoughtful of the candidates were Dean, Moseley Braun (I'm not kidding), and Graham. Gephardt and Sharpton were fiery but the former was whining a lot and the latter was preachifying, which was great but he really doesn't have a chance at all, and on some issues he had no clue. Kucinich literally is so far to the Left that it actually was thrilling to hear him spout off at times, but he also is simply unelectable. John Edwards is the most attractive and just really comes off as insincere. If he mentions his poor parents one more time, I swear I'm going to vomit. Yes, Bushie grew up very rich, and you didn't, but stop PANDERING.

Graham, I think, has got to work on his delivery. At times he gets lost or his mind wanders. I think he's smart and moderate to liberal, which is what we need. He won't triage the Demos like Clinton did. Dean is definitely sharp as a whip and just full of policy ideas and plans, many of which sound very reasonable. Moseley Braun blew her chances shimmying with the Nigerian dictator and flubbing her campaign dollars, but she did come across as very thoughtful and reasonable. The woman is also smart.

Kerry and Lieberman, the Republican Democratic candidate, were not present. Everyone criticized Lieberman's attempts to mimic the Republicans, but no one called him out by name, which I thought was good.

The labor chief who was running the whole thing, Gerald McEntee, was an old-line, hardcore, and very unctuous liberal. Not the kind of person you'd want to cross and then find yourself in a dark, one-way alley....

[ May 19, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

One other point: despite the spinning that's going on at the White House, how long can the situation in the Middle East continue to devolve without W. and Lebensraummy finding a new target? W.'s war is being tarnished day by day: stories of staged events, stories of disinformation (Jessica Lynch's wounds, the rescue attempt, etc.), the entire WMD scenario, the new explosion of Al Qaeda attacks, Hamas's deathly resistance, and on and on. We were told that the War would clean things up and bring peace--and it was painted as an immediate thing. But we haven't even found Saddam, let alone all those weapons he supposedly had, and the military sat by as the KNOWN nuclear stocks were plundered...by whom? So I think the War may come back to bite W. in the butt, particularly if he can't clear things up or come with a new scuttlebutt, particularly by mid-summer. I can't see Rove letting things steadily worsen--the economy just isn't turning around and now the stock market is plunging again, the dollar's at its lowest level ever against the euro, and in many of the red states, there are JUST NO JOBS and healthcare is unaffordable. Stay tuned.

[ May 19, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I don't know what world you're living in, but it ain't this one: A couple days of the Dow finishing down--never mind the fact that it is up for the year and the quarter and has been pleasantly positive much more often than not lately--is not "plunging again" as you put it.

BTW, just how do you think jobs are created? By making it easier for companies to hire, retain workers, and do business. The stifling regulations and taxes and other obstacles to corporate success have a lasting impact: layoffs and non-hires. Until the federal government can make it easier for small to medium-sized companies (supercorporations tend to be less affected) to exist, they will continue to lay off and not hire in order to cut costs.

two points:

fantomas, this is a howard dean thread. please at least try to mention him when you go on and on about the white house's spin on the war! fortunately, others have brought us back to topic.

mib, sounds like supply-side, trickle down, voodoo (call it what you will) economics. been there done that. it wasn't pretty.

now back to howard dean....

Um, hello, did you read my comments about the debate in the post prior to the one about the war? The "white house's spin on the war" is directly relevant to Dean, who with Kucinich has been THE MOST OUTSPOKEN CANDIDATE against the war, and is thus being called "unelectable" by members of his own party! Sheesh! It's ALL about Dean.

And yes, we went through voodoo economics. In fact, most of the states are suffering now because the local "tax-cutting" frenzy of the late 1990s has left many of them with no means to 1) pay their expenses and 2) assist business in CREATING JOBS! I know how jobs are created, MIB, and giving tons of money to huge corporations (not small businesses) and the superrich isn't the answer. We had a textbook example from 1993-2000. Why you and others who are fixated on supply-side economics in the face of reality refuse to acknowledge what we witnessed versus what your ideology holds true just baffles me.

the main reason to elect Howard Dean MD? He is a cutie!

enough with the policy wonking. let's get real with why we support someone.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052003/gephardt.aspx

Is Gep gonna do any work or just campaign the whole time?

Point of fact: The states went on a SPENDING orgy. THAT is what caused their current economic woes and NOT tax cuts. Look at those states, for example, that had tax cuts--even their own internal ones--but held the line on spending. Where are they? Comfortably in the black.

That's the problem w/ the Left and many government bodies who find themselves flush with cash: They spend and spend and spend, then they plead for help when it comes time to pay the piper. Note: The blame goes just as much to many Republicans who spent their states into orgies. Add to that the fact that congressional pork knows no ideological boundaries, and once again, we pass tax cuts that will be ineffective--not because of the Left's arguments; rather, because stupid Congressmen will \"offset\" them with tax increases and spending increases elsewhere.

It never ends! :mad:


Apparently, you do not. Government does not create jobs. Never has, never will. Government can help businesses create jobs by making the environment in which they operate less regulatory, less taxing, and more capital and employee-centered.

BTW, don't feel so lonely. I have NEVER met a liberal who favored a tax cut. They incessantly whine about the rich reaping the benefits, states getting hurt, blah, blah, blah. (What they're really scared to death of is taking money--power--away from government, which tax cuts do.) It's the same class warfare argument that was shot down even by the darling of the Democrats: JFK, who himself rammed through a massive tax cut that, BTW, benefitted the rich and super-rich most of all.

[ May 20, 2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

>>>Government does not create jobs. Never has, never will.<<<


Truer words were never written. Until America's left accepts this reality they'll continue to be irrelevant and ineffective.

Was just watching a bit of "This Week".They were focusing mainly on John Kerry, and following him around Iowa campaigning. They said that Gephardt currently leads there, with Kerry second, and Dean very close behind Kerry. They showed a snippet of a speech that the Democrats gave to the Wisconsin Dems. Howard Dean was yelling, actaully shouting, and his face was almost red, telling how he wants to take America back from the Bush administration. The crowd went nuts! Right on Dean!

Go Howard!

He's such a cutie.

Tax cuts for Bill Gates and other billionares do that, right?

Government does not creat jobs? I think you are being quite naive here. Let's see--defense contracts create jobs. Transportaion funding for highway construction/maintenance create jobs. Agriculture inspections create jobs. National Parks create jobs. National forests create jobs. The existence of a post office creates jobs. Medicare and Medicaid billing requirments create jobs. I can go on and on.

I think Halliburton has done fairly well by the govt.

As others have noted, this is such a false statement it boggles the mind. Government subsidizes MILLIONS of jobs in myriad ways each day. There has never--EVER--been an impoverished government that operated at or near full employment. Direct government employment is NOT a good thing, but government underwrites all sorts of industries, from banking and finance, to insurance, to higher education, to national and local infrastructure, to shipping, and on and on. And as to the asinine argument about taxes being "the people's money," well, debt is the people's money too. When GOPers cease finding ways to gouge or grab as much public money as they can for their own purposes and friends, when they practice what they preach, maybe I'll begin to believe their economic arguments.

And by the way, the great tax-cutting god Reagan consented to the RAISING OF TAXES at least 4 times after his massive initial tax cut caused a drop in government revenues. Not only did he not sign on under duress, but the record shows he literally DID support the raising of taxes when it was necessary.

Dean & Graham, Dean & Gephardt, Gephardt & Graham--anybody but "W" (Wolf)!

Good heavens, I didn't even remember writing that, but when I went back and looked I saw that it was four weeks ago. Amazing that it took that long for the usual suspects to retort with the usual responses. That, in a nutshell, explains the the irrelevance of their party: a long silence, followed by the same mantra.

But Munson: with all due respect, tell me that the Republicans mode of operations isn't the same lines over and over and over. It seems they forever preach about big government and cutting taxes, but then when they find they have no alternative but to raise taxes, like Idaho's Repb. Gov. Kempthorne, or have to raise the debt ceiling into the hundreds of billions, everything is just fine?

That could be the mantra for your party. I dont remember writing/saying that.

Tax cuts wont raise the deficit....oh, I dont remember saying that.

WOMD....oh, did we say that?

Iran is stockpiling aluminum tubes....I dont remember saying that

Mission accomplished in Iraq....oh, did we say that?

As opposed to the Dem mantra, where you cut and paste the same old failed doctrines weeks and months later, while the American public yawns and pulls the lever in the "R" column. So by all means keep the sameold sameold coming; it'll spell good news in '04.....

Oh, I don't disagree with you, Puckman. I think, though, it's a function of politics on both ends of the spectrum. Preach one thing, do another, grasp at straws to justify it. It's been SOP for every administration pretty much since WW11. I think both parties are equally cynical; I'm simply pointing out the Dem shortcomings in response to the pointing out of Rep shortcomings. As I've said on here before, both parties say and do things that leave a lot to be desired......

Good point MM. A Bush in the White House "wins" a war with Iraq, great poll numbers a year and a half before the election....how could he possibly lose. Thats crazy talk, right?

No, but it will require new ideas and fresh perspective, and an actual plan, rather than what we've heard so far, which is essentially "vote for Dems because we're not Bush; we don't know what we are, but we KNOW we're not Bush." That's not a message that's going to inspire confidence or garner the necessary votes.

But your point Munson takes me right back to this thread. I have listened to the Dems, and so far the guy that impresses me the most is Howard Dean.He is speaking quite eloquently about the things that are important to him, and should be to all Americans, namely overhauling the health care mess, and ensuring that every American can afford health care, a far cry from where we are now, sad to say.

Just caught part of the "roundtable" discussion on "This Week", and Howard Dean and the Dems came up. George Will said if Howard Dean is the nominee for the Dems it will spell "political disaster" for him and the ticket. He also said Dean is the "McGovern of '72". Why will Dean be a disaster Mr. Will? Is it because the Supreme Court would never appoint him as President??????

Dean was on Meet the Press this morning. Russert was brutal in his questioning. Nevertheless, I thought Dean handled himself quite well. Interesting that the other Democratic candidates are questioning (through mostly a whispering campaign) his "temperment" to serve as president. His response basically is to point out that the rest of the field consists of "inside the belt" legislators. He also effectively points out that he has faced many of the issues on the table as Governor of Vermont -- a tactic that worked well for Bush II, Clinton, Reagan and Carter.