I see nothing wrong with our policies being influenced by world events, etc. Economic policies and similar policies are often very interdependent on other nations' same policies.
My problem is with U.S. Constitutional judicial opinions relying in any manner on other nations' legal rulings.
[ December 18, 2003, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Full Version: Howard Dean for President!!!!
on that we agree.
When it comes to constitutional interpretation, we need not be concerned with what the law of other cultures happens to be. Our sole point of reference is our own. If we depended on others, we'd be trying to ban yamulkes, crosses and head scarves like France.
When it comes to constitutional interpretation, we need not be concerned with what the law of other cultures happens to be. Our sole point of reference is our own. If we depended on others, we'd be trying to ban yamulkes, crosses and head scarves like France.
Dr. Howard Dea today criticized "washington democrats" (deserved) and the Washington Post (non-justified).
He said, "you can believe me or The Washington Post."
This is not a good move. Being a maverick and speaking your mind... good
Pissing off the most influential washington paper and one of the most influential in the country along with it's sister publication, Newsweek. ... Not good.
He said, "you can believe me or The Washington Post."
This is not a good move. Being a maverick and speaking your mind... good
Pissing off the most influential washington paper and one of the most influential in the country along with it's sister publication, Newsweek. ... Not good.
QUOTE
ung:
on that we agree.
Another one agrees with MIB. Soon I shall have you all at my side. *evil laugh*on that we agree.
One more closer to utopia.
Yes MIB, this Supreme Court does frighten me...with the likes of Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and sometimes O'Connor and Kennedy. I don't have a problem with our Justices keeping an eye on what's happening around the judicial world, so to speak - influencing them - not dictating to them.
I do have a problem if the Supreme Court, the Congress, and especially the President, subjugate American sovereignty and defense of the nation to any international body. A President of the United States should never be in a position of going to the UN to ask "permission" to defend the nation. This is common sense stuff for any American politician - the U.S. Constitution comes first - period.
I'm still at a loss regarding Howard Dean's position on this - an issue that would change my vote. I'm with the Doctor on his healthcare plan, his tax plan, and I even like the fact he's a member of the NRA - but if he would subjugate our foreign policy to approval by the United Nations then down comes the bumper sticker.
I do have a problem if the Supreme Court, the Congress, and especially the President, subjugate American sovereignty and defense of the nation to any international body. A President of the United States should never be in a position of going to the UN to ask "permission" to defend the nation. This is common sense stuff for any American politician - the U.S. Constitution comes first - period.
I'm still at a loss regarding Howard Dean's position on this - an issue that would change my vote. I'm with the Doctor on his healthcare plan, his tax plan, and I even like the fact he's a member of the NRA - but if he would subjugate our foreign policy to approval by the United Nations then down comes the bumper sticker.
William your reply to my post isn't worthy of a reply.
QUOTE
puckman1:
William your reply to my post isn't worthy of a reply.
That's a reply.
William your reply to my post isn't worthy of a reply.
Not in my mind really.
That's two replies!
QUOTE
ung:
It's not a matter of \"IF\" american policy is influenced by int'l forces. Fact is... US policy IS influenced by global pressures as I have noted in my steel tariffs example.
Very well then. Let's make it official so there will be more accountability.
QUOTE
If U.S. policy should naturally be influenced by European/world opinion, ...
William, It's not a matter of \"IF\" american policy is influenced by int'l forces. Fact is... US policy IS influenced by global pressures as I have noted in my steel tariffs example.
QUOTE
MIB:
My problem is with U.S. Constitutional judicial opinions relying in any manner on other nations' legal rulings.
As I said in a previous post, if this is your view, you're shit out of luck.My problem is with U.S. Constitutional judicial opinions relying in any manner on other nations' legal rulings.
See, for example, The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900), where the Supreme Court held (not for the first time): "International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination." For another example, see Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. 542 (1854).
You might also want to familiarize yourself with the Constitution you profess to love. It says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." (It's in Article VI). You'll find if you do a little research that in construing treaties we've ratified (which, like the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land), the courts have often looked to see how other parties to those treaties have interpreted them.
There is nothing sinister in this.
Jingo.
[ December 19, 2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]
First of all, you seem to misunderstand Paquete Habana. As aptly explained in The Bloomberg News:
What exactly Justice Gray had in mind is debatable. What is certain is that his dicta have given rise to a number of cases where plaintiffs have sought relief in U.S. federal courts for a violation of customary international law in the absence of any federal statutory basis. None has been successful.2 Most recently, on July 31, 2003, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia faced such a case, which was apparently of first impression in that district. Judge Kollar-Kotelly held that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action.
This case is a reminder that the U.S. federal courts are not open to all human rights grievances, despite the growing public perception otherwise.
They are, instead, subject to constitutional limitations on their jurisdiction, one of which is the requirement that a party have a federal cause of action.
\"To imply a cause of action from the law of nations would completely defeat the critical right of the sovereign to determine whether and how international rights should be enforced in that municipality.\"Once again, skigal, you perceive my explanations as little as a spoon perceives the taste of food. When I comment on not following international opinions to form our own, I am not talking about cases involved with treaties or cases involving national law. Some examples of this would be an alleged violation of the SALT II treaty, or a dispute arising in international waters or similar maritime or piracy situations. Of course those have international ramifications, ones that the Constitution specifically assigns to the U.S. Supreme Court via original jurisdiction (in most specific cases).
My concern, one echoed here by both ung and Undercenter as well, is when a case comes before a federal court--a case that involves some domestic issue (sodomy law, abortion, gun control, improper search, death penalty, etc.)--such federal court must be bound ultimately by the U.S. Constitution and not any foreign nation's opinion or judicial decision, nor by any international court. To do so gives up our sovereignty, and this must not happen, your desire for some world utopia notwithstanding.
[ December 19, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
What exactly Justice Gray had in mind is debatable. What is certain is that his dicta have given rise to a number of cases where plaintiffs have sought relief in U.S. federal courts for a violation of customary international law in the absence of any federal statutory basis. None has been successful.2 Most recently, on July 31, 2003, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia faced such a case, which was apparently of first impression in that district. Judge Kollar-Kotelly held that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action.
This case is a reminder that the U.S. federal courts are not open to all human rights grievances, despite the growing public perception otherwise.
They are, instead, subject to constitutional limitations on their jurisdiction, one of which is the requirement that a party have a federal cause of action.
\"To imply a cause of action from the law of nations would completely defeat the critical right of the sovereign to determine whether and how international rights should be enforced in that municipality.\"
My concern, one echoed here by both ung and Undercenter as well, is when a case comes before a federal court--a case that involves some domestic issue (sodomy law, abortion, gun control, improper search, death penalty, etc.)--such federal court must be bound ultimately by the U.S. Constitution and not any foreign nation's opinion or judicial decision, nor by any international court. To do so gives up our sovereignty, and this must not happen, your desire for some world utopia notwithstanding.
[ December 19, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
MIB:
First of all, you seem to misunderstand Paquete Habana. As aptly explained in The Bloomberg News:
AH, the Bloomberg news, that reknowned source of legal knowledge, oft cited by American courts. Not. If you'd notice, they're addressing in that article whether a specific type of case may be brought in an American court, not whether, in cases properly before them, the courts may look for guidance to the laws of other nations. That they can do so -- and have since the founding of the Republic is incontrovertible.First of all, you seem to misunderstand Paquete Habana. As aptly explained in The Bloomberg News:
QUOTE
Once again, skigal, you perceive my explanations as little as a spoon perceives the taste of food.
QUOTE
My concern, one echoed here by both ung and Undercenter as well, is when a case comes before a federal court--a case that involves some domestic issue (sodomy law, abortion, gun control, improper search, death penalty, etc.)--such federal court must be bound ultimately by the U.S. Constitution and not any foreign nation's opinion or judicial decision, nor by any international court.
Ummmm, Duh. Only in your paranoid fantasies is there a likelihood that a court would consider itself bound by foreing law or by an international court. No one has suggested otherwise. But to suggest that these sources are not a valid place to look for guidance, as the courts have since the 18th century, and as our founding fathers did in drafting our COnstitution, is mere jingoism.QUOTE
your desire for some world utopia notwithstanding.
Here you're just putting words in my mouth. I never suggested any such thing.
Another endorsement for Dr. Dean. NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey endorsed Dean today. I'm not sure how much this helps, since McGreevey is not a popular governer, and some of his political moves have been rather mindboggling.
QUOTE
Skiguy:
Ummmm, Duh. Only in your paranoid fantasies is there a likelihood that a court would consider itself bound by foreing law or by an international court. No one has suggested otherwise. But to suggest that these sources are not a valid place to look for guidance, as the courts have since the 18th century, and as our founding fathers did in drafting our COnstitution, is mere jingoism.
Perhaps you ought to tell this to Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy, who both publicly stated the Court looked to international opinions when Lawrence v. Texas was discussed in conference.Ummmm, Duh. Only in your paranoid fantasies is there a likelihood that a court would consider itself bound by foreing law or by an international court. No one has suggested otherwise. But to suggest that these sources are not a valid place to look for guidance, as the courts have since the 18th century, and as our founding fathers did in drafting our COnstitution, is mere jingoism.
Sadly, liberals just don't care how the Court comes to a decision, as long as the decision goes their way. Well, the ends do not justify the means.
(Note: I am not debating here whether Lawrence v. Texas was correct or not. I am merely using this case as one example of my above points.)
At this point, I don't foresee any Democrat beating Bush and see Dean as the best sacrificial lamb. Unless current trends in the economy and foreign affairs change dramatically, this incumbent is safe. I hope Dean is the nominee because it will be nice to have a candidate who defends the L word instead of runs from it. Even in defeat, I see him helping to move the politics of this country more to the left than his Democratic opponents would and probably a closer race than they would be able to mount against W.
QUOTE
MIB:
Perhaps you ought to tell this to Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy, who both publicly stated the Court looked to international opinions when Lawrence v. Texas was discussed in conference.
Yes, I'm well aware of their comments, but you don't seem to grasp the difference between being bound by foreign courts (or state courts, for that matter) and looking to them for guidance. The former is a bad idea -- but has never been done or even suggested by any judge of an American court. The latter is routine, and has been for more than two centuries. Perhaps you ought to tell this to Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy, who both publicly stated the Court looked to international opinions when Lawrence v. Texas was discussed in conference.
Your continued insistence that liberals alone are ruthless "ends justifies the means" politicians, while conservatives are pure as the driven snow in their fidelity to the Constitution is simply risible. If you actually believe it, then you're naive, delusional or criminally stupid.
[ December 20, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]
QUOTE
Skiguy:
Your continued insistence that liberals alone are ruthless \"ends justifies the means\" politicians, while conservatives are pure as the driven snow in their fidelity to the Constitution is simply risible. If you actually believe it, then you're naive, delusional or criminally stupid.
Unfortunately, there are too many on the Right who wish to use, or should I say misuse, the Constitution to fit their desires. To this I say: A pox on their houses as well!
Your continued insistence that liberals alone are ruthless \"ends justifies the means\" politicians, while conservatives are pure as the driven snow in their fidelity to the Constitution is simply risible. If you actually believe it, then you're naive, delusional or criminally stupid.
Now, before everyone dismisses the article just because of its author, I think you should read it without such bias: DEMOCRATS' DEAN DILEMMA
It's rather interesting what is happening in the Democratic Party. So much for inclusion, I guess.
It's rather interesting what is happening in the Democratic Party. So much for inclusion, I guess.
I won't necessarily diminish the article, but I can diminish the author, Mr. arrogance himself, Bob Novak, the wonderful one who outed a CIA Operative some months ago. :mad:
QUOTE
pat125:
Another endorsement for Dr. Dean. NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey endorsed Dean today. I'm not sure how much this helps, since McGreevey is not a popular governer, and some of his political moves have been rather mindboggling.
McGreevey is not a "competent" or "effective" governor, but he also is not unpopular. In fact, despite his constant missteps, the Democrats actually INCREASED their representation in both houses of New Jersey's legislature. I also saw a poll early in the fall, after one of McGreevey's political gaffes (was it traveling on a union's dime to Puerto Rico?) that showed him still with fairly high positive ratings (which I didn't understand). He is especially popular at both of the east-west poles of the state (the Hudson-Trenton axis). Unaccountably.Another endorsement for Dr. Dean. NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey endorsed Dean today. I'm not sure how much this helps, since McGreevey is not a popular governer, and some of his political moves have been rather mindboggling.
[ December 23, 2003, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
WChip:
At this point, I don't foresee any Democrat beating Bush and see Dean as the best sacrificial lamb. Unless current trends in the economy and foreign affairs change dramatically, this incumbent is safe. I hope Dean is the nominee because it will be nice to have a candidate who defends the L word instead of runs from it. Even in defeat, I see him helping to move the politics of this country more to the left than his Democratic opponents would and probably a closer race than they would be able to mount against W.
WChip, I hear you, but maybe we should all recite the following phrase in unison: DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. Not. A. Liberal. Compared to George W. Bush, yes. Compared to Dick Cheney, yes. Compared to Joseph Lieberman, yes. At this point, I don't foresee any Democrat beating Bush and see Dean as the best sacrificial lamb. Unless current trends in the economy and foreign affairs change dramatically, this incumbent is safe. I hope Dean is the nominee because it will be nice to have a candidate who defends the L word instead of runs from it. Even in defeat, I see him helping to move the politics of this country more to the left than his Democratic opponents would and probably a closer race than they would be able to mount against W.
Compared to John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Bob Graham (no longer in the race), Carol Moseley Braun, or Al Sharpton, no. His record as governor of Vermont is the RIGHT of all of their legislative records and affirmed stands. (And John Edwards is a Southern Democrat).
This is why the media are particularly dangerous. They have got many liberals and Democrats believing that this man is farther to the left that he truly is. It is very likely that his ideological position as president would be closer to Bill Clinton than Lyndon Johnson, though with more integrity than than either of these two. But he is not a liberal, and is especially not an ultraliberal.
fantomas said : this is why the media is dangerous I hear you loud and clear. It seems like to the media, any candidate who comes out of the Northeast, is automatically a liberal. Nice broad stoke of the paintbrush if you ask me. Dean is a centrist.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The last few posts highlight exactly what Dean has to do in order to compete against Bush-- he has to communicate his centrist past and views more effectively.
HOWEVER, he has no interest in doing that NOW as he needs to sew up the nomination.
Harken back to the last Republican primary season when Bush had to pander to the right wing, religious zealots in order to defeat McCain. When it was clear that he captured the nomination he moved to the center (the right center -- but the center nonetheless).
HOWEVER, he has no interest in doing that NOW as he needs to sew up the nomination.
Harken back to the last Republican primary season when Bush had to pander to the right wing, religious zealots in order to defeat McCain. When it was clear that he captured the nomination he moved to the center (the right center -- but the center nonetheless).
You said it exactly my friend. wink
The governor who signed the first and only state civil unions protections into law isn't going to play any other way but as liberal, regardless of evidence to the contrary. He will be attacked throughout the campaign as being one- hopefully he can make his record clear without becoming too defensive. Lots of people will be concerned that he did support civil unions and he needs to speak clearly on why he felt this was the right thing to do.
QUOTE
fantomas:
... but maybe we should all recite the following phrase in unison: DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. Not. A. Liberal.
Huh? WHAT are you smoking that you can say this with a straight face? Someone who supports civil unions, abortion-on-demand (including partial birth abortion), universal health care, tax increases, etc. is not a liberal???... but maybe we should all recite the following phrase in unison: DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. Not. A. Liberal.
Man! Have YOU got a lot to learn then.
Dean's as liberal as the day is long, my friend, whether you, me, or anyone else wishes to deny it.
[ December 23, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Have to agree with MIB here, and on a politics thread to boot.
Dean is a liberal. I differ from MIB in that I think Dean (and we Democrats generally) ought to embrace the label. One of the most frustrating things for me about American politics is how successful Repblicans have been in turning that noble label into a slur.
Also, fantomas, you neglect to mention that on the 400-pound gorilla issue of the day, national security, Dean has deliberately staked out a position that is so far to the left, only the loony anti-semite Dennis Kucinich is to his left. His centrist views on economics are not going to count for much against that when it comes to picking a label.
Now if you want to start a discussion about how the reducing of candidates to a one-word labels and 10-second sound bites is destroying American politics, I'd be happy to agree.
Dean is a liberal. I differ from MIB in that I think Dean (and we Democrats generally) ought to embrace the label. One of the most frustrating things for me about American politics is how successful Repblicans have been in turning that noble label into a slur.
Also, fantomas, you neglect to mention that on the 400-pound gorilla issue of the day, national security, Dean has deliberately staked out a position that is so far to the left, only the loony anti-semite Dennis Kucinich is to his left. His centrist views on economics are not going to count for much against that when it comes to picking a label.
Now if you want to start a discussion about how the reducing of candidates to a one-word labels and 10-second sound bites is destroying American politics, I'd be happy to agree.
QUOTE
MIB:
Man! Have YOU got a lot to learn then.
Dean's as liberal as the day is long, my friend, whether you, me, or anyone else wishes to deny it.
i don't consider someone who supports equal rights for all americans, sovereignty over one's own body, affordable health care, a balanced budget to be a liberal. these are ideals which resonate with everyone!QUOTE
fantomas:
... but maybe we should all recite the following phrase in unison: DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. Not. A. Liberal.
Huh? WHAT are you smoking that you can say this with a straight face? Someone who supports civil unions, abortion-on-demand (including partial birth abortion), universal health care, tax increases, etc. is not a liberal???... but maybe we should all recite the following phrase in unison: DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. Not. A. Liberal.
Man! Have YOU got a lot to learn then.
Dean's as liberal as the day is long, my friend, whether you, me, or anyone else wishes to deny it.
i say tomato, you scream liberal and hypocrite.
QUOTE
thersis:
i don't consider someone who supports equal rights for all americans, sovereignty over one's own body, affordable health care, a balanced budget to be a liberal. these are ideals which resonate with everyone!
You can call it whatever you wish, but those are liberal positions. Raising taxes, universal health care, and killing unborn kids are NOT characteristics of the conservative position.i don't consider someone who supports equal rights for all americans, sovereignty over one's own body, affordable health care, a balanced budget to be a liberal. these are ideals which resonate with everyone!
[ December 23, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
MIB:
Okay, George H. W. Bush supported raising taxes, and was pro-choice, at least till the Right Wing slammed him repeatedly. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, both in California and as President, and was pro-choice (for part of his political career.) Neither supported universal health care as we know it. Were THEY liberal?QUOTE
thersis:
i don't consider someone who supports equal rights for all americans, sovereignty over one's own body, affordable health care, a balanced budget to be a liberal. these are ideals which resonate with everyone!
You can call it whatever you wish, but those are liberal positions. Raising taxes, universal health care, and killing unborn kids are NOT characteristics of the conservative position. i don't consider someone who supports equal rights for all americans, sovereignty over one's own body, affordable health care, a balanced budget to be a liberal. these are ideals which resonate with everyone!
Dean is a centrist Democrat. He is not a CONSERVATIVE Democrat, like Joseph Lieberman. And he is not a LIBERAL Democrat--or his record in Vermont wasn't--like Dick Gephardt. A centrist. His position on this war, I do agree, equated well both the liberal left AND with the far isolationist right, like Pat Buchanan (a proto-N....). So does that make him a loony ultrarightist too? I think not.
Overall, his politics and policy actions as Vermont governor were centrist. And he's proposed rolling back the outrageous tax cuts for the superrich, not for all Americans. Recall that Bill Clinton did something similar--he was hardly a liberal by any stretch.
So label him liberal. The media have already started their lazy rush to do so; I guess it's a fait accompli at this point.
QUOTE
fantomas:
Okay, George H. W. Bush supported raising taxes, and was pro-choice, at least till the Right Wing slammed him repeatedly. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, both in California and as President, and was pro-choice (for part of his political career.) Neither supported universal health care as we know it. Were THEY liberal?
Yes they were, until they became conservative. A conservative, like a liberal, may do one or two things more common with their ideological opposite, but that doesn't make them a \"centrist\" or cause such an individual to no longer be a conservative or liberal. Okay, George H. W. Bush supported raising taxes, and was pro-choice, at least till the Right Wing slammed him repeatedly. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, both in California and as President, and was pro-choice (for part of his political career.) Neither supported universal health care as we know it. Were THEY liberal?
QUOTE
Dean is a centrist Democrat. He is not a CONSERVATIVE Democrat, like Joseph Lieberman. And he is not a LIBERAL Democrat--or his record in Vermont wasn't--like Dick Gephardt.
One who holds and espouses liberal issues can be nothing other than a liberal.
QUOTE
So label him liberal.
[ December 24, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Liberal, smiberal..Yes, Dean is a liberal compared to say Shrub, and like he said so eloquently a few months ago, "if being for a balanced budget is liberal, well thats fine with me". I myself, am a liberal, and proud of it. So there I said it. eek!
f**k "liberal". That's too milktoast for me. I'm a socialist and that's that. OK, maybe a bit of a syndicalist, with a smattering of......
From a blog I go to:
From a blog I go to:
QUOTE
So, I didn't go all the way back, but doing a check through a Nexis search of news transcripts back through October, the first appearance of a talking head referring to Dean as \"pessimistic\" or discussing his \"pessimism\" was Laura Ingraham on the Friday Dec. 19 Hardball, followed by Mary Matalin on the Sunday Dec. 21 Meet the Press.
Look for it to be coming out of every Republican's mouth soon, and then it will increasingly creep into \"objective\" reporting. The process will go something like this. First, they'll quote Bush campaign sources describing Dean as \"pessimistic.\" Next, they'll move onto Democratic campaign sources, often anonymous, describing Dean as \"pessimistic.\" Next, they'll stop bothering getting the quote and just write things like, \"Some have criticized Dean for his unappealing pessimism...\" And, then, finally, process complete, campaign analysis pieces in print and the \"objective journalists\" on the roundtable shows, will just write/say things like \"Dean's pessimistic rhetoric...\" By the end no discussion or news story about Dean will see the light of day without the word \"pessimism.\"
It's already started, with this NYTimes article.
Look for it to be coming out of every Republican's mouth soon, and then it will increasingly creep into \"objective\" reporting. The process will go something like this. First, they'll quote Bush campaign sources describing Dean as \"pessimistic.\" Next, they'll move onto Democratic campaign sources, often anonymous, describing Dean as \"pessimistic.\" Next, they'll stop bothering getting the quote and just write things like, \"Some have criticized Dean for his unappealing pessimism...\" And, then, finally, process complete, campaign analysis pieces in print and the \"objective journalists\" on the roundtable shows, will just write/say things like \"Dean's pessimistic rhetoric...\" By the end no discussion or news story about Dean will see the light of day without the word \"pessimism.\"
Boy the Howard Dean file (and not just this thread) gets wackier by the minute. I just heard today that Dean says he "believes" in Jesus. I'm not sure what that means but neither can I quite fathom his support among Mormons. That support according to one quote on the site is predicated upon the fact that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve. So far Howard Dean has juggled a surprising number of balls without totally dropping any - a political trick that few manage.
[ December 27, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
[ December 27, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Sportinlife. Very, very interesting. Thank you for the info. Seems my guy Howard appeals to a pretty large variety of people for somebody who is painted to be so liberal.
QUOTE
puckman1:
Sportinlife. Very, very interesting. Thank you for the info. Seems my guy Howard appeals to a pretty large variety of people...
Indeed. There are bound to be quite a large variety of people on all those other planets that comprise the Dean universe. Sportinlife. Very, very interesting. Thank you for the info. Seems my guy Howard appeals to a pretty large variety of people...
Is Dean more liberal than W.Bush? Don't be so quick to answer that question.
For many of us conservatives/republicans, the central tenets that mark a conservative are 1)fiscal responsibility and 2)small government. (instead of where we stand on placement of a10 commandments monument in a courthouse.) So then how do Dean and W.Bush stack up?
During the years of governorship in Vermont, the words "Dean" and "liberal" were never spoken together and he reined in spending and delivered a balanced budget every time.
W.Bush has done anything but deliver balanced budgets. His enormous tax cuts delivered while increasing spending with the likes of the recent medicare overhaul guarantee that creditcard spending continues with no end in sight.
as for smaller gov't...... under W.Bush, the fed gov't has increased spending/appropriations 27%. you may say... "well.... that's because of military spending to fund the war on terror"
well...... if we take out the money allocated for the war on terror, the fed gov't still grew by 20%
those of you following closely the political landscape know that W.Bush has been repeatedly criticized BY CONSERVATIVES for his spending policies and the growth of gov't. Thay contend that, in fact, he is NOT a conservative. A religious zealot? perhaps. But a true political conservative? no.
[ December 28, 2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
For many of us conservatives/republicans, the central tenets that mark a conservative are 1)fiscal responsibility and 2)small government. (instead of where we stand on placement of a10 commandments monument in a courthouse.) So then how do Dean and W.Bush stack up?
During the years of governorship in Vermont, the words "Dean" and "liberal" were never spoken together and he reined in spending and delivered a balanced budget every time.
W.Bush has done anything but deliver balanced budgets. His enormous tax cuts delivered while increasing spending with the likes of the recent medicare overhaul guarantee that creditcard spending continues with no end in sight.
as for smaller gov't...... under W.Bush, the fed gov't has increased spending/appropriations 27%. you may say... "well.... that's because of military spending to fund the war on terror"
well...... if we take out the money allocated for the war on terror, the fed gov't still grew by 20%
those of you following closely the political landscape know that W.Bush has been repeatedly criticized BY CONSERVATIVES for his spending policies and the growth of gov't. Thay contend that, in fact, he is NOT a conservative. A religious zealot? perhaps. But a true political conservative? no.
[ December 28, 2003, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Happy New Year, or as they were saying in the Caribbean country full of gorgeous men that I just left, "Feliz Aņo Nuevo!"
Ung and Bill W, thank you. Calling Dean a liberal without qualification, as MIB did, with his overblown analogies ("Jesse Jackson" is not a Hispanic??? Joseph Lieberman is not an African-American??? etc.), is intellectually lazy, but it seems to be the route the media and its pundits have taken. And as Jim Allen noted, they're also tagging himi with "pessimism." What's next: "Commie"?
Ung and Bill W, thank you. Calling Dean a liberal without qualification, as MIB did, with his overblown analogies ("Jesse Jackson" is not a Hispanic??? Joseph Lieberman is not an African-American??? etc.), is intellectually lazy, but it seems to be the route the media and its pundits have taken. And as Jim Allen noted, they're also tagging himi with "pessimism." What's next: "Commie"?
I just can't understand why Dean's supporters, with a few, rare exceptions here, are so afraid to admit he's a liberal. Why not stand by your candidate and his ideology?
I am not blasting Dean for actually being a liberal; rather, I'm simply asking his supporters to stop the usual Democratic tactics, those being "oh, our candidate is a centrist," etc. when his record, his policies, and his speeches all prove otherwise.
It doesn't surprise me, however, to see such folks want to hide the truth, since they know a liberal isn't going to win the presidency in 2004. So, they've got to hide their candidate's true identity. (Talking about being in the closet. Sheesh.)
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[ January 01, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
I am not blasting Dean for actually being a liberal; rather, I'm simply asking his supporters to stop the usual Democratic tactics, those being "oh, our candidate is a centrist," etc. when his record, his policies, and his speeches all prove otherwise.
It doesn't surprise me, however, to see such folks want to hide the truth, since they know a liberal isn't going to win the presidency in 2004. So, they've got to hide their candidate's true identity. (Talking about being in the closet. Sheesh.)
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[ January 01, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Well, MIB, I wouldn't qualify under your liberal categorization since I'm not really a Dean "supporter"--unless you mean in the general election against W, in which case I admit I'd vote for any of the Democrats except for Sharpton or Lieberman, and with Lieberman I'd possibly make an exception if he had a LIBERAL as his VP running-mate.
Once again, Dean's statements are not unilaterally "liberal" (either under the classical liberal standard nor under the more commonly accepted American 20th century description), nor was his record as Vermont governor. At times he has presented himself as a "progressive," while his record was moderate to conservative in policy terms (as Ung pointed out above).
Again, unless the context is Tom DeLay (whom you cited earlier); there ARE liberal Democratic governors out there (and liberal Republicans with records to the left of Dean, like Lincoln Almond of Rhode Island and George Pataki of New York, to name two), so again, unless you're operating in the most general context, Dean is not a true liberal. There ARE liberals running--Kerry, Gephardt, Moseley Braun, etc., just so you know. But as I said, it's really moot, because by the ideological standards with which the media operate, Dean's an angry, liberal pessimist who's wishy-washy on religion and that's all there is to it.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Once again, Dean's statements are not unilaterally "liberal" (either under the classical liberal standard nor under the more commonly accepted American 20th century description), nor was his record as Vermont governor. At times he has presented himself as a "progressive," while his record was moderate to conservative in policy terms (as Ung pointed out above).
Again, unless the context is Tom DeLay (whom you cited earlier); there ARE liberal Democratic governors out there (and liberal Republicans with records to the left of Dean, like Lincoln Almond of Rhode Island and George Pataki of New York, to name two), so again, unless you're operating in the most general context, Dean is not a true liberal. There ARE liberals running--Kerry, Gephardt, Moseley Braun, etc., just so you know. But as I said, it's really moot, because by the ideological standards with which the media operate, Dean's an angry, liberal pessimist who's wishy-washy on religion and that's all there is to it.
[ January 01, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
fantomas:
...by the ideological standards with which the media operate, Dean's an angry, liberal pessimist who's wishy-washy on religion and that's all there is to it.
This is a sentiment shared by many, and one I find quite interesting....by the ideological standards with which the media operate, Dean's an angry, liberal pessimist who's wishy-washy on religion and that's all there is to it.
If Dean eventually wins the Democratic nomination, just what is the media then to do? The same media (quite liberal themselves) that is presently calling Dean wishy-washy and an angry, liberal pessimist will have to rally behind him. What a hypocritical about-face THAT is going to be!
I can't wait to see how a media who is liberal and almost 100% Democratic will embrace and support a candidate whom they are currently dissing so much.
[ January 01, 2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
posted by MIB:
Well, perhaps the New York Times will invite you to the secret confab where the "liberal media" will be deciding the party line.
Personally, I don't see the "media," which of course comprises literally thousands of newspapers, television and radio stations, television and radio networks, cable outlets, magazines, etc., as being some monolithic force that moves in lockstep. In the current media coverage, I see all the opinions about Dean being expressed, and if there is any theme to the coverage, it is the theme of cynicism that seems to flow throughout the media. They, like cops, spend a lot of time seeing the worst of people, which I guess tends to create cynicism.
As for Dean's positions, I don't know if you can call them "liberal" or not. Like the word "Christian," liberal has been taken and warped by the radical right, and that warping was largely embraced by the Republican party, to brand all non-conservatives as socialist traitors. The liberal philosophy of strong central government is a mainstay of American politics, no matter which party is in power, and has been for the better part of the last century.
QUOTE
I can't wait to see how a media who is liberal and almost 100% Democratic will embrace and support a candidate whom they are currently dissing so much.
:confused: Well, perhaps the New York Times will invite you to the secret confab where the "liberal media" will be deciding the party line.
Personally, I don't see the "media," which of course comprises literally thousands of newspapers, television and radio stations, television and radio networks, cable outlets, magazines, etc., as being some monolithic force that moves in lockstep. In the current media coverage, I see all the opinions about Dean being expressed, and if there is any theme to the coverage, it is the theme of cynicism that seems to flow throughout the media. They, like cops, spend a lot of time seeing the worst of people, which I guess tends to create cynicism.
As for Dean's positions, I don't know if you can call them "liberal" or not. Like the word "Christian," liberal has been taken and warped by the radical right, and that warping was largely embraced by the Republican party, to brand all non-conservatives as socialist traitors. The liberal philosophy of strong central government is a mainstay of American politics, no matter which party is in power, and has been for the better part of the last century.
QUOTE
MIB:
I can't wait to see how a media who is liberal and almost 100% Democratic will embrace and support a candidate whom they are currently dissing so much.
You mean like Fox News?
I can't wait to see how a media who is liberal and almost 100% Democratic will embrace and support a candidate whom they are currently dissing so much.
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
You mean like Fox News?
Maybe CNN can get the same deal with the DNC that they had with Sadaam?
You mean like Fox News?
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Was there a CNN camera down in his rat hole?
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
You mean like Fox News?
Maybe CNN can get the same deal with the DNC that they had with Sadaam? You mean like Fox News?
BillW - I saw that same cartoon the other day and was reading it to a freind -- a classic!
Bill Bradley endorsed Dean today -- his campaign is really rolling.
QUOTE
MIB:
If Dean eventually wins the Democratic nomination, just what is the media then to do? The same media (quite liberal themselves) that is presently calling Dean wishy-washy and an angry, liberal pessimist will have to rally behind him. What a hypocritical about-face THAT is going to be!
First, it's a myth that big media are liberal; check out Eric Alterman's and Mark Crispin Miller's recent books on this subject. They're very informative and well-researched (as oppose to being cris de coeur, like Ann whatever-her-name's works of fiction).If Dean eventually wins the Democratic nomination, just what is the media then to do? The same media (quite liberal themselves) that is presently calling Dean wishy-washy and an angry, liberal pessimist will have to rally behind him. What a hypocritical about-face THAT is going to be!
Second, what makes you think the media will rally around Dean? Gore was the Democratic candidate and the sitting Vice President, yet the major media outlets did not hesitate to rip him to shreds. They talked about his clothes, his "truthfulness," his supposed wealth, his fundraising "scandals," and so forth. They floated all kinds of nonsensical stories--or ran with them--about the man (such as denying to a hysterical degree his claims about the novel and movie "Love Story," which weren't so far fetched, as Erich Segal actually taught at Harvard and knew Gore and his roommate Tommy Lee Jones, etc., and DID base the male lead on them, etc.), while letting the DUI-convicted, AWOL-tagged, SEC-cited W off the hook AGAIN AND AGAIN. Hmmm....doesn't sound that liberal to me. And it's continued up through today. So I'm not sure what fantasy liberal media you're talking about.
[ January 06, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.