Philly: take the time to go to his website and read and see the message. Its all right there for you any anyone else who gets it.

Ah, yes, I'm sure the lefties think it's just sooooooo unfair of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to not keep terrorists/would-be assasins up-to-date on their whereabouts at all times. What do they have to hide? Their secrecy is shameful!

And why don't the President and Vice-President ever appear together? Why, it's just plain un-American. I think we should demand a full investigation!

WM1865, we wouldnt have a terrorist problem if deano was the pres, he'd just have the soviet union take care of the problem ya know...

Actually right off his little web site...

My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:
***********
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.
Set the nation on the path to a balanced budget, recognizing that we cannot have social or economic justice without a sound fiscal foundation.
Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation.
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.
********

Uh guys i hate to break this to you BUT.. W's little tax cuts wont pay for all of this. In Fact it probably wouldnt even pay for homeland security. What's left? repeal the tax cuts AND raise taxes? To what? about 50%? Yeah, that will create jobs...

[ December 03, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

I don't have the time or inclination to wade through 11 pages and see if this has been discussed already, but...who do yall think Dean will choose as a running mate? I would think there would be pressure to choose an African-American running mate since Dean's support among blacks has been questioned. A hispanic running mate (Richardson, maybe) could help with that demographic. Don't think there would be as much pressure to go with a woman. If he sticks with a white male, I wouldn't be surprised to see Clark. I don't see any of the other candidates demoting themselves to mere running mate at this point. If Dean wanted to do something really effed up he could pick McCain as his running mate. McCain would probably go along with it because he hates W. and loves attention.

Assuming Dean wins the nomination - and I still think that is just that -- an assumption, I would expect that Clark, Edwards and possibly Graham might be on the short list.

And so were FDR, Churchill, et. al. *sigh*


One of these days, md, you'll understand the need for anonymity or secrecy when it comes to the travels of world leaders into or around dangerous territory. I fear that only the assassination of such a leader will convince you how important such secrecy sometimes is. Of course, you'll be one of the first to come running in here blasting such a person for publicly announcing his travel plans in a dangerous area.

Face it, no matter what Bush would have done, you'd be in here whining like a stuffed pig either way.

It's funny Phillyfan, but we were looking at billions in SURPLUSES before Bush's little tax cut jaunt. Had he just gone along with saner heads and put in automatic stops on those cuts, we would have 1/2 trillion dollar deficit this year.

As for health care, I happen to work in health care quality, and there is a hell of lot we can do to manage chronic conditions better so that the same amount of $$ can go farther. We need to redirect a lot of the $$ currently going into the health care system to make it feasible, but it likely wouldn't mean that much more in actual spending by the government.

Dean also advocates restoring America's prestige abroad - allowing an international coalition to deal with Iraq (as it was never a real threat to us, only to its neighbors in the Gulf, this should have been the path anyway) - and restoring competition to markets like the media (which is actually pretty popular).

You forget that there was a reccession there kiddo... So that surplus you speak about was merely a projection.

My point is this, Dean-0 is saying he's going to take the tax cuts away... give univ healthcare, protect medicare and such and wil work towards a blanced budget? WHOA... what? That is IMPOSSIBLE.

You know it and i know it. If W wants to run on that as a key, i'd laugh at him too.

I'm simply saying that if you buy this line of his, you are a fool. If you think the gov't will ever learn how NOT to waste money... you are a fool. If you think the gov't can run univ healthcare, you are a fool.

A few things you guys are missing on this univ healthcare issue.... America has the best doctors and the best hospitals and so forth... why is that? CAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY! When you start jacking with that, you lose the good doctors. No one wants to spend 10 years in school only to make 100k a year.

Ah yes, making money, thats the bottom line to the current thinking of the health care industry, the insurance industry, the drug industry, and so on and so on. Still funny to me that out of all the industrialized countries in the world, only the US has no universal health care coverage and 44 million people who most are working their asses off just to survive, with no insurance. This will also be a hot election issue next year for Shrub, that and the steel tarriffs he is going to lift, which will go along ways towards getting a Democrat elected next year! wink

Making money is what makes the capitalism system work, otherwise you are a euro socialist... well... flights are cheap right now guys...

Phillyfan - then why is it we don't have the best health care? By many measures the US is behind Western Europe in health measures, which could be because we have tens of millions of people without coverage in this country. Those people delay care until they are very sick, which INCREASES the cost of caring for them, adds burden to the system because much of that care must be gratis, and DECREASES the chance these people will be successfully treated.

As for the concept that universal health care, improving Medicare (which, of course, would be part of the same process), and balancing the budget are not possible, I have to disagree. Universal health care does not automatically mean socialized medicine. Sure the Clinton plan failed because it was hopelessly complicated, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying.

It will require a sea change in attitudes on the part of doctors, consumers and politicians. It will also require a radical rethinking of health care delivery, including reducing our reliance on doctors (who are overtrained for people who deliver routine primary care). Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners DON'T go to school for 10 years, so they don't require the same level of reimbursement, but can handle a huge amount of care currently provided by doctors.

As an economist, I see health care like defense - it's a public good. I benefit from a healthy, productive work force, but I am not willing to pay directly for it. Public goods are EXACTLY what the government should have a hand in delivering.

Maybe we should look to the Soviet Union for ideas on how to provide health care.

If George W. Bush had performed his duties in the first 9 months of his administration (instead of hiding out at the Western White House, Camp David and occasionally the White House) and read his intelligence briefings -- he might have averted 9/11. Now he is relegated to sneaking into a country that we invaded and occupy under false pretenses and under the cover of lies. To compare that PR trip with what the great statesmen did in the middle of the last Century is laughable.

We haven't caught Osama ("dead or alive") or Saddam. We have turned Iraq into a killing field and an incubator for terrorists and all the Commander in Chief does is pose for photo ops ("Mission Accomplished").

That's why I like Howard Dean -- he is one of the few courageous leaders who stood up (and continues to do so) against this madness.

All of your pronouncements aside MIB ("mark my words, come January") don't mean a hill of beans to be because the issue to me is not Dean's electability. I'm more interested in his authenticity, courage and guts.

By the way, talking about credibility, we're still waiting breathlessly for the bombshell that you promised would be forthcoming from the Kerry camp. Maybe the "big-wigs" had too many martinis when they told you that.

That was probably the stupidest thing Bush did. Those tariffs cost MORE jobs than they would have saved; they led to what now looks like an inevitable trade war; they're blatant protectionism that has damaged the steel industry more than their nonimposition would have.

The WTO is incensed over them. European nations are furious with Bush over the tariffs. Where are all you UN lovers and internationalists now? Bush's actions earned the wrath of foreign governments and trade groups, and his lifting of the tariffs would definitely make them happy now.

Unfortunately, this often does not win elections. Thump your chest all you want about principle, but hey, as Bobby Ewing once admitted, \"Honesty and trust don't often make for good business.\"

When you come back to Earth and reality, you may yet understand this.

Considering I never said anything about some Kerry camp bombshell...

P.S. I am not today predicting the outcome of the 2004 election. I never said it'd be decided, now or by January 2004. What I WILL "predict" is that IF Dean is the nominee, barring any major catastrophe for Bush, Dean will lose handily. I'd go so far as say it'll be Bush 420 to Dean's 118 in electoral votes (approx., of course).



[ December 03, 2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Oh boy -- the Nixon Wng of the republican Party is back in the saddle. I can't believe you actually wrote this -- one too many martinis with the "big - wigs" maybe wink

My sources tell me he was watching a "Dallas" re-run with Tucker Carlson when he came up with that remark!

And sipping some extra dry Martinis (with an olive)with the "big wigs" (who actually may be the "sources") wink

From MSNBC news, Dean has open a double digit lead in New Hampshire according to the latest Zogby polls. Kerry is a far distant second, with all the other Dems. in single digit percentage points. Dean was strong in all regions of the state and will all age groups of voters. Right on Howard! wink

[ December 04, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

But how's he doing in the Soviet Union?

How quickly the Republicans forget -- I remember their beloved Presdient Ford saying in a debate that Eastern Europe (in particular Romania and Poland) was free of Soviet domination. And he was the sitting President.

Is anyone planning to go to Iowa to help on the campaign for Jan 19th's Caucus?

He was also a dipshit liberal Republican who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

I actually respected him for his integrity. C'mon William -- we have to find some common ground on something wink

Judging from the number and content of the replies from our friends on the right, it sure looks to me like they are getting worried and nervous about things....perhaps they should be too. Howard is on a roll.

I don't care who the Democrats nominate, I'll vote for them. Go to graveyards, steal body parts out of coffins, stitch them together and wait for an electrical storm to bring that lump of flash back to life? That creature would get my vote. Any organism with a detectable pulse will get my vote. Dean, Clark, Kerry, the guy who serves coffee at the veggie restaurant on the first floor of where I live, I don't give a damn, they're getting my vote.

And any leftist who supports a Ralph Nader run should have their kidneys whipped with sticks until they piss blood (tm Hunter S. Thompson). My pal Rod actually made noises about that at an Angels game this year and I almost punched him but settled on verbally abusing him for the rest of the day. f**k Ralph "Destroy the Corvair at any cost and piss my Dad off for eternity" Nader and the Republican horse he came in on.

William: A friend of mine who's a political journalist thinks that Richardson is going to be the Veep of choice for whoever gets the Dems nod. A loooonnnngggg way to go, though.

Wow. My Dad was pissed off too, by Ralph Nader, for trashing the Corvair. I don't know why. My father had a corvair, but it was a piece of crap.

I couldn't have said it beter wink

Pat, that's funny. My dad had 3 of them over a period of a few years and they were all decent cars. One got eaten alive by the air in Hawaii (for some reason, the air there rusts metal far quicker than other places, it's the salt I think) and the other two got passed on to my older sisters.

And if we were ignoring Howard Dean, you would say Republicans were arrogant and complacent. I love that we've gotten to the point where actually mounting a campaign against a Democrat is seen as some sort of indictment of Republicans. Moreover, the Dems are attacking Dean right now just as hard if not harder than Republicans. It really serves Republicans better to wait until the general election starts to unload on the Dem nominee because most people aren't paying attention to Howard Dean right now.

Jesus H. Ker-ist. If you'd turn off The Word Parser and Assuming What Others Are Saying Machine for just 30 seconds--that's all, 30 seconds--you'd realize that's not what he was saying at all. The Republicans want some weakling like Kusinich or Gephardt to run; they'd win the second either of those guys accepted the nomination. Dean and Clark are feisty and slightly whacked and not above playing nasty; I don't think they're of the "Well, sure, that position the wingnuts are taking is one that only an insane person would, but let's discuss it to death to see if it has any merits" wing of the Democratic party, which is who the Republicans want to run against. f**k civility, f**k seeing both sides. Attack the Bushites for all it's worth and don't buy the rightwing memes "The Dems are Bush haters" or "The Dems aren't interested in debate". For the first time since the late 80's, I think the Democratic base is riled up and that has to be exploited and worked with, not feared.

But it's true, it's not until the primaries start that Dean's going to go "national". Actually, I'm glad that Dean has been under fire from the corporate media and the right blogsphere about things he's said and done because if he crumbles now, I wouldn't want him running after the convention.

I'll never forgive Richard Riordan here in California. He was running for governor against the odious Gray Davis. I think he had a real chance to siphon off the moderate/right-ish Democrat vote and win. He was running against the pathetic Bill Simon and Davis knew that if he ran against Simon, he'd easily win. Davis ran some smear ads against Riordan and Riordan caved like a house of cards and withdrew. We all know the rest.

That what doesn't kill Howard Dean only makes him stronger.

[ December 04, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I agree that the GOP should wait -- but they really want Dean to win the nomination so the attacks might not be a bad political strategy for them - I'm sure Rove has it all figured out.

I think the real interesting part will be what happens after New Hampshire -- the opposition in the Democratic party (to Dean) will probably focus on either Clark or Gephardt. I think Kerry and Leiberman are toast after New Hampshire. Gephardt may be damaged too badly with a loss in Iowa (which remains to be seen).

A lot of Republicans sure hope so!

Therein lies the intelligence of the Left (and too many voters in general). Their rage and hatred of someone is so intense, so vile, that they'd vote for any moron or dangerous individual, so long as said individual carries the Democratic label.

[ December 04, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

MIB, NO. No, no, no, NO. I would have voted for Riordan for CA governor if he'd stayed the course; look at all the people that voted for Nader. The right needs to stop buying their own spin and realize that it's not about Bush being an utterly mediocre human being, but that it's about his policies and his record. It's fun to bash Bush for being a slayer of the English language but it's just a diversion, like making Clinton + cigar jokes were. People weren't this riled up about freakin' Bob Dole after all; it's. all. about. Bush, Rove, Cheney and pals. Believe me, I'm all too aware of what voting for someone as a protest vote gets us (see: *groan* Clinton */groan*), but I don't have one doubt, not a one, that BuschCo are driving this country off a cliff and that stopping them from mashing the accelerator in an unfettered 2nd term is more important than partisanism. I mean, I wish someone in the Republican party would actually get 30 seconds of consideration as alternative.

What makes you think Dean is going to be a patsy? The "He's too liberal" thing is a lie and it can be countered. I'm geniuely curious to read why you think his nomination would be a Republican slamdunk (if that's, indeed, what you're saying).

[ December 04, 2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Like I said Howard is getting the attention of alot of people, and the right is pretty worried about it. Personally I love it. You guys are besides yourselves with the negativity about Dean that you say we lavish on Shrub, and deservedly so. Yet all you complain about is how negative Howard is. There is a word for that..... wink

I never said he was going to be a patsy, at least in the way you are inferring. I DO firmly believe that he will lose handily to Bush. I'd explain further, but there will be too many people here who'd turn it into a flame throwing contest and I do not choose to get into that. I hold this opinion on Dean strictly from analyzing the entire landscape politically. I also believe that Gephardt would be much more of a threat to Bush than would Dean.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Republicans are drooling over the prospect of a Dean nomination victory. There are others whom the right fears much more than Dean, believe me.

Who? I can't imagine who else running would fare any better than Dean. I keep hearing that the right is dying for a Dean nomination, but it just seems like the right thing to say. Peopl think Clark would be a worthy adversary, but his general arrogance and ideological hopscotch would make him a wounded animal going in. His campaign seems to have gotten on track of late, but I stil think he would be a sitting duck if nominated.

Apparently they think enough of Dean to run attack ads in Iowa trying to keep him from getting the nomination.

Don't think small. We guys are besides (?) ourselves with negativity about all of the Dem candidates, because they're all freaks.

Regarding Dean, though, we're not alone.

Gephardt's Dean Facts

And, of course, Dean would never, ever go negative. He's too good for that...

Bush as 9/11 mass murderer is an interesting theory, says Dean. In a positive way.

[ December 05, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Well, making money, but in this country, we have massive subsidies of a number of industries (oil, the airlines, banking, agriculture), that defy the notion of a "free market" and more extensive than what many European nations engage in. So what exactly are you talking about? And as for "making money" (and handling and keeping it and locking it up tightly), Switzerland, Luxembourg and Belgium have us beat.

Capitalism = making money (especially if it's off the backs of the poor and middle class, which is W's program in a nutshell), but also in this country, we have massive subsidies of a number of industries (oil, the airlines, banking, agriculture), that defy the notion of a "free market" and more extensive than what many European nations engage in. Why doesn't W practice what his party preaches, which really is free market economics? He wants everyone else to go along with this program, except his cronies in the energy industries, for example, or insurance, or....

Re: the article that W1865 linked to about Dean saying shit about Bush, Daily Howler has a Krauthammer smackdown that's interesting. Shorter Krauthammer: I'm going to engage in pop-psychology that even People wouldn't publish. And to make my points, I'm going to lie and take shit totally out of context.

Next.

[ December 05, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

William, it was the RNC who has already started going negative about the Democrats, and Dean in their debut on Nov. 21st of the Bush campaign commercials. Let me give you one other reason why the right is worried. Its called moveon.org , and their clout and power, in how they are going to respond to the RNC's negativity. This organziation has some very strong pulling power right now, and is raising a very large amount of $ to counter your negative ads. One of their biggest contributors is an international bussiness man by the name of George Soros I beleive, who is going to put his money where his mouth is with moveon, and match the funding efforts by the American public. In addition to this, there is going to be a Dean hookup event in the next week or so, with moveon. This is why the right should be worried.

[ December 06, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

So billionaire Soros spends millions to get rid of Bush, to get a Democrat elected, and it's called free exercise of one's rights, using the political process, etc. But if a Bush supporter were to spend millions, or if Bush raises millions to run, it's called buying an election.

Uh huh. Real consistent if you ask me.

For the record, BTW, I don't find anything wrong with either, though campaign finance reform in its truest sense would prevent Soros from doing what he's now doing. Wonder why the Left isn't advocating such reform now.

I haven't seen any of the Republican negative ads against Dean, but if I was his advisor, why not simply run an ad countering it that goes like this:

The RNC has begun a negative ad campaign against Dean. This commercial stated {such and such} which is an outright lie and the RNC knows it. The truth is {this}. For more details to decide for yourself check {this website}. Dean will be honest and open (Oops, better scrap the open part) about his record, unlike the last few Presidents. {Dean's voice} Hi, I'm Howard Dean. Since I feel strongly about this, if my campaign starts releasing negative attack ads, then I urge my supporters to not support me anymore either.

For the record, I still support Dean, but he's starting to fall into the same trap as the last few Presidents. Until our Presidents stop lying, manipulating, having cutesy photo ops, etc., I won't be voting for an incumbent as President, no matter how bad the challenger is (e.g., I voted for Dole). But I suspect I'll be long dead before that happens.

[ December 06, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

As an addendum to the Krauthammer smackdown I linked to above, I just saw this: The author, of course, was Charles Krauthammer, in 1999.

Well, when Gerald Ford runs for president again, I'll be sure to bring this up.

Reaching far into the bowels of the past, aren't ya, md?

Actually, I TIVO it on SoapNet every day, at least since it came back on TV in September.

I'm waxing nostalgic over J.R., Bobby, et. al.

DEAN NOT THE THINKER HIS SUPPORTERS BELIEVE?

Though I'm sure many will blast the author as a way of disregarding the article itself.