I caught the Governor of Vermont yesterday on a Sunday morning talk show, and I was really impressed. I didn't get it all, but what I heard I liked, alot. I would say this guy is the brightest hope for the Demos, at least thus far. I heard him say the Iraq war is wrong, unless Bush starts handing over some proof positive about his weapons of mass destruction. He also said the deficits must be stopped. Did you know that there hasn't been a Republican President who balanced the budget in 33 years??? Thats pathetic!
He is also for universal health care paid for in part by a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Right on..
Mr. Dean is very strong on the environment, and from what I understand quite pro-gay...
I simply can't wait for the Republicans to start attacking this bright light. He has my interest and support so far, and I look forward to hearing much more about him.

I'm a fan of Howard Dean too & will vote for him in the Democratic primary. He offers a combination of fiscal discipline and liberal social values that should appeal to a broad base of voters. I for one appreciate what he has done for us: it's hard to find office-holders in either party who are willing to go out on a limb politically in behalf of us--Dean, Parris Glendenning, & Bill Weld come to mind, but there aren't many others. Conservation issues are important to me also, & Dean passes the test here as well.

But let's face facts: in a nationwide vote, Howard Dean is unelectable for having signed the civil unions law in 2000. If he is on the ticket, the 2004 election will be about values--the place of gay people in American society--& we would go down hard.

Go to his website to read about his views.

As I stated in another thread recently, not only is Dean the only Dem out there even remotely interesting for 2004, he's a guilt-free primary vote:

The actual dem nominee in 2004 is a sacrificial lamb, so the fact that Dean has no chance of winning the nomination doesn't matter. And if he has a better-than-expected showing, it can alter the intra-party debate for the good in the run-up to our near certain victory in 2008 (Bush's run of good luck will have to have petered out by then).

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Man, Ump. Spit out the lemon, you are bitter!

I knew you would chime in before too long ump. Sorry, but your "socialized medicine" label is tired...tired..tired. Just what do you propose we do about our health care crisis? Or do you even think we have one???

[quote]Originally posted by puckman1:
I knew you would chime in before too long ump. Sorry, but your "socialized medicine" label is tired...tired..tired. Just what do you propose we do about our health care crisis? Or do you even think we have one???

---

I imagine the answer might be something like this....

[quote] "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink. and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population..."

---

Dean is really smart, progressive, has a positive vision for the future that is quite different from nearly every other Democratic presidential candidate, and would make an excellent president. Also, like Bill Frist, he's physician. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

His policies are superb--but politically he's problematic, at least in terms of electability. Truthfully, he is unelectable as a presidential candidate in the United States right now. I hate--HATE--to say it, but he simply would not win enough states to win the presidency. He Seriously, people, outside of several New England states (with Massachusetts having the motherlode--12 votes--of these), possibly New York and New Jersey, Hawaii, and California (not a bad haul, actually), do you think he'd win any other states? The Republicans would NOT hesitate to use the civil unions support and the gay issue across the midwest and south, on top of demagoguing on taxes, socialized medicine, taxes, national security, taxes, and taxes. They'd paint Dean as out of the "mainstream," which he thankfully is.

Gore didn't win a Southern state (except Florida, but that's another story); he lost not only his home state but those that Clinton had won, like Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. But Gore did win key eastern states like Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, and midwestern states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, and he also won Washington state and Oregon. Again, only one more state--like New Hampshire or West Virginia, which Clinton won, would have pushed Gore over. Dean would lose badly in many of these states, and his showing might be worse than McGovern's or Mondale's.

Of course, from a broader standpoint, one might argue that it would benefit the Democrats to put forward a progressive candidate like Dean to give voters a striking choice and a sense of what policies would be possible under different leadership, even if he lost, rather than focusing, as Clinton did, on winning elections. But the danger, which is likely rather than hypothetical, would be four more years of George W. Bush. W. is vulnerable, especially if the economy remains soft or worsens. War or no war, a Democrat could defeat him. Exceptional as he and his views are, I don't think Dean is the person to do it.

I think the best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for Howard Dean to head the national Democratic ticket. A few of his stances deserve further examination, but his views on socialized medicine (sorry, but that's exactly what it is), and his dangerously naive, if not un-American, views on national defense, would guarantee a victory comparable to the big Reagan electoral margins in '80 and '84. As upsetting as I often find some of the more kooky left-leaning viewpoints on these P & R threads, it's always reassuring to remember that it's not at all representative of the general public's viewpoints.

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
As upsetting as I often find some of the more kooky left-leaning viewpoints on these P & R threads

---

What are these "kooky left-leaning viewpoints"? I'm curious to hear you detail them. Opposing American entry into World War I and II sounds pretty "kooky" to me. [Cf. the Frist thread for this comment, from a Right-leaning viewpoint.]

Universal health care, improving education through better funding, raising the minimum wage and finding ways to bolster employment, protecting the environment from destruction and conserving our public lands, supporting arts and the intellectual and cultural life of our nation, progressive taxation and using moderate tax cuts to stimulate the economy, managing and reducing deficits, cutting gross corporate welfare and giveaways while advocating sensible business incentives, pushing for multilateral diplomacy and not rushing into unnecessary wars, denouncing racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimation, maintaining the traditional separation between the state and any one religion, limiting the federal government's attempts to spy on private citizens: these are hardly "kooky" and sound damned positive to me.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Right on fantomas! I am with you boy!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ January 24, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Regarding a government run health care system, news flash, we already have one. Ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid? They are enormous and getting bigger by the second. They are imploding in some part due to the dueling systems in place now in which doctors and hospitals can say we won't take Medicare or Medicaid patients, they don't pay eoungh, thereby helping to trash those programs. If they didn't have the option to deny those patients the programs wouldn't be in such a state. They need to make improvements to both programs, but at some point I don't think there will be any choice but to totally overhaul the whole thing. The ridiculous part is that when it finally there will be a large chunk of people wondering why something wasn't done before it came to such a grave point in time. All we can say is that it wasn't for a lack of trying.

For health care, the free market system just doesn't work. God knows how many elderly in this country are forced to sell their houses and whatnot to pay for doctors and insurance if they get sick because Medicare won't cover it. To pay for universal health care, I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes, if I was getting something for it. Hell, if we cut our foreign aid and defense budgets by 10% each, we'd probably be able to pay for universal health care without raising taxes, but of course, that would never happen.

And of course, the motto of the Republican Party: Limited government everywhere but the bedroom.

[ January 24, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

How typical. Disagree with the Bushies and you're either a moron or a traitor. How typical.

[ January 24, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Exactly Joe: isn't it so typical of the Right, that when somebody has questions, they are called anti-American. How sad and pathetic!!

from cubsfan 1982:

For health care, the free market system just doesn't work. God knows how many elderly in this country are forced to sell their houses and whatnot to pay for doctors and insurance if they get sick because Medicare won't cover it. To pay for universal health care, I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes, if I was getting something for it

Well said; it's not just seniors facing the financial medical crunch. Many middle class, working people have to sacrifice their homes to pay for health care because their insurance doesn't cover their needs. For what it's worth, my partner Kyle & I both have good insurance, but for the 2001 calendar year, we had to pay more than $9,000 out of pocket to cover things insurance wouldn't for his pancreatic cancer. Fortunately, we could afford to pay it. This year's out-of-pocket expenses wil be far higher and how I am to pay them weighs heavily on the mind.

We are moving--slowly, steadily--towards a single payer system. One more sign: GWB, who campaigned against extending prescription drug coverage for Medicare saying it would bankrupt the system, has accepted that the coverage is necessary. Granted, he's only supporting it to prevent seniors from voting for a Democratic opponent, but it's still the right thing.

~Adam

I think it's just something that as a first world country we should be entitled to, as much as a public education. There should be a public health system just like there are public schools, and they should be good. And then if someone wants to go private on top of that, to like get a facelift or liposuction or something then they can pay for it. Doesn't really seem like a very revolutionary idea to me. Sorta more like common sense and common decency.

Originally posted by Skiguy:

The actual dem nominee in 2004 is a sacrificial lamb, so the fact that Dean has no chance of winning the nomination doesn't matter.

Sorta like Bill Clinton was the sacrificial lamb in '96?

[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:

The actual dem nominee in 2004 is a sacrificial lamb, so the fact that Dean has no chance of winning the nomination doesn't matter.

Sorta like Bill Clinton was the sacrificial lamb in '96?

---

Um, no. Really a piss poor analogy, since Clinton in '96 was an incumbent. Those who, after the '94 mid-terms, predicted Clinton's demise failed to take account of that fact, and the fact that a booming economy would have people happy as clams.

Bush in 2004 will be running as an incumbent, with a war against Iraq either in progress or having just been decisively won. The economy will be in the crapper, to be sure, and Bush's fiscal policies will dig us into a deep budget crisis that will hamstring policy makers for years, but the war card will trump that.

No, the Democrat in '04 will be a sacrifical lamb in the same way that Mondale in '84 was a sacrifical lamb, and in the same way that anyone the party nominated that year would have been.

It may be a sign of this country's decline, but Dubya is wildly popular, and his open lack of and disdain for intellect is among his most popular qualities with the electorate.

I'd like nothing more than for the Dems to take back both houses of Congress and the White House in 2 years' time, but it ain't gonna happen.

[ December 27, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

i believe the analogy was supposed to have been clinton in 92. everything you say about bush fils was true of bush pere, and mere months before the election, it was certain that poppy would ride his war-based wave of popularity to certain re-election. thus was born, "it's the economy, stupid." and truer words have never been spoken. in 2004, it is still the economy, stupid, and dubya's re-election is anything but a fait accompli.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:

I am so sick of such government involvement! Let the free market, capitalist society handle things itself...

---

Do you always feel this way, or just when it's convenient?

It's nice that we can all discuss this in a civil way over the internet (which was developed by government/Department of Defense funding of university research) on a site that sprung up from our mutual interest in sports that are, more often than not, played in publicly-funded stadiums.

Other than that, we're all for a 100% free-market economy, right?

Woops, meant Clinton in 92!

[ January 24, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Woops, meant Clinton in 92!

---

That, Razorback, is a much better analogy, but I still don't buy it. The Bushies have learned a thing or two from the '92 debacle.

For starters, 43 is a different animal, style-wise, from 41. I'll never forget 41's amazement at supermarket scanner technology that had already been part of everday life for the rest of us for years. His reaction completely defeated the entire purpose of his stunt visit to the store -- to show that he was "just plain folks".

43, despite being born into the same aristocratic legacy, is perceived as much more genuine in his attempt to be JPF.

Moreover, this war, coming Post-9/11, has a decidedly different feel to it from the Gulf War. then, the country had a plain need, never having fully exorcised the ghosts of Vietnam, for a decisive military victory that the public could support as a just war. So we had lots of parades, tied a lot of yellow ribbons, and tried to expiate our guilt for unjustly taking out our opposition to the Vietnam War on the brave men who fought it, rather than on the criminals who ordered it.

This war, though, stands on its own as a righteous cause. 9/11 is a unique casus belli. The pretext for the Gulf War (which I supported wholheartedly and have no regrets about) was slimmer (though not fictional, either). The invasion of one dictatorship (for that's what Kuwait was, and is) by another half a world away was not really a present threat to U.S. interests at the time. The war itself probably caused more disruption to world oil supplies and prices than did the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The war was still justifiable for the same reason that the French should have mobilized in 1938 when Hitler occupied the Rhineland -- stop 'em easy early, or stop 'em later hard. But that strategic consideration aside, the Gulf War did not spring out of the righteous indignation of the whole people the way this war does. And for that reason too, Bush 43 will be a much stronger incumbent than his fazhah (an Austin Powers allusion).

While Howard Dean may be a stretch for 2004, it is refreshing to see someone on the national political front discussing real issues. The thing I consistently find striking in our (and other offline) discussions these days, is the lack of focus on people and humanity issues. The economy, national safety, etc. These are all very important issues. But they are important because they all impact the people of our country (and the world). Taken in their own context, they really are not important. Except to people who are looking to make money and obtain power.

And, therein, lies one of the fundamental issues we face today. When an issue comes down to a question of economics/power versus what is best for the majority of people, very few issues are being decided in favor of the majority of people.

Therefore, it is great to see someone trying to shift the focus to the people of this country. Is socialized medicine a successful venture in other countries? No it is not. When it comes to more complex medical situations, it is very inefficient. However, it does make sure that people in those countries get basic healthcare and do not have private companies determining whether or not they can be treated for the most basic illnesses and problems.

I always find it interesting when people who earn their living from organizations that receive an incredible amount of funding from taxpayers and are under the control of a small number of wealthy, white men tell us that we are the ones with a skewed perspective of the world. Perhaps if we all revolted and refused to fund public ballparks and pay exorbitant ticket prices, there would be fewer professional sports franchises and less need for ancilliary employees. Then, perhaps it would not be as easy to dismiss people who are actually concerned with the welfare of people in general.

I have to agree with an earlier poster that the Democratic Presidential candidate may essentially be a sacrificial lamb. Although I do believe that in 1992 Bill Clinton was also set up to be a sacrificial candidate initially... I believe the young vote in 1992 helped Bill Clinton win that election.

I think the Democratic candidate in 2004 will unfortunately face a very nervous US electorate... we will probably be at war and the country will be made to fear whatever the Democratic candidates "inexperience" with war might be...

Personally I do not feel that Joe Liebermann should be a candidate because I don't feel he is strong enough in image to be a candidate... I feel that he would be awesome as another VP candidate. I think if the country is at war, the Democratic party should look to get Senator Carl Levin from Michigan as a potential Vice Presidential candidate... he has been on the Arms committe forever and seems to have his hand in their for quite some years... that may sway the country to be less fearful of a less experienced Presidential candidate...

I think we could see some surprising things from Dr. Dean, not so much because of his views (which truthfully I find a little conservative) but because of his understanding of what he is facing in the electorate. In 1991, SNL ran one of the funniest skits ever - a mock debate by Democrats desperately trying NOT to be the 1992 candidate because GeorgeI was unstoppable. That feeling was a lot of the reason behind Clinton's success - he realized he was a long shot, and took the chance on running during a seeming "unwinnable" election. Clinton understood (or at least guessed rightly) that the American people found GeorgeI distant, so Clinton played up his charm and hominess. GeorgeI also had a weakness on the economy (which was in a still-unexplained recession), so Clinton played that up.

My point is that Dean seems to uderstand where his strengths and weaknesses already are, and he has formulated a plan, at least from what I've read/hear, to work with them in order to achieve success. I am not saying Dean will beat Bush, but I do think he has the ability to create a real upstart campaign, especially with Al Gore no longer running. I'm sorry, but neither John Kerry or John Edwards (his first name is John, right?) are that interesting to me as candidates.

The fact that Howard Dean is a virtual unknown makes him a very promising candidate to me, and unfortunately unelectable. But I still like to see him try.

As for "socialized" medicine, though, I don't how it is working in other nations, but it seems like the more the U.S. government gets involved with health care, the more the costs skyrocket. I'm afraid, however, I don't have a clue as to what the solution is.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: pat125 ]

I like Dean. I hear he is also pro-gun rights though. Hopefully he could reevaluate that in office. Personal protection requires more than just toting personal arms. It requires a belief in social good and fairness.

I think he could win with things going the direction they are now. By the end of 2003 circumstances in the USA and the world may be right.

Just my guess.

[ March 05, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

[quote] As for "socialized" medicine, though, I don't how it is working in other nations, but it seems like the more the U.S. government gets involved with health care, the more the costs skyrocket. I'm afraid, however, I don't have a clue as to what the solution is.

---

According to Dr. Dean's website, he is not in favor of "socialized medicine," which I am defining as a government funded and run health care plan, but rather a mix of public programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS) and the present employer-based system for working adults. The distinction is, Dr. Dean talks about "universal coverage"; socialized medicine is one method of achieving universal coverage, but it is not the only one. Even if Dr. Dean's solution(s) are not workable, at least he wants to open a dialogue.

At least he is talking about the health care crisis. Lots of health crisis stuff in the news lately. What with the Doctors walking off their jobs in West Virginia, and threatening to do so in Pennsylvania. Then "60 Minutes" reran a story last Sunday about the crisis the the nusrsing shortage in this country. Things aren't going to fix themselves no matter how much the Republicans want to ignore this problem. You can either fix it now, or it will cost an unbelievable amount later. Socialized, smocialized, this is the term applied to someone who fears something being done about the health care problem in this country.

Exactly. Dean has the balls to address the issue which puts him one up on everyone else in the field, including Bush.

matt: doesn't he though? He is the only candidate talking about this mess.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Well, the whiney liberal Republican, I mean Democrat--Joe Lieberman--from the Constitution (or is the Nutmeg?) State has entered the race, and I think he's got the jump in terms of fundraising on his competitors, though he broached the issue of one key Democratic base, Hollywood, that he's gone after like an attack dog. He is too politically conservative to win enough primaries, I think, and, in combat terms, too weak at times to go head-to-head with the likes of W., who plays for keeps. He just rolled over and Blaired for Cheney in 2000.

Fom today's NY Times's article on Lieberman, a quote by him:

"'Today, unfortunately, that American dream is in jeopardy, threatened by hate-filled terrorists and tyrants from abroad, and a weak economy that makes it harder for people to live a better life here at home,' he said. 'For too many Americans, the middle class of which I've spoken is drifting out of reach.'" Yet he's "intrigued" by the dividends cut. Joe, take a pass now and do us all a favor....

I think Lieberman would be qualified to run, but for me, I think he is from the conservative wing of the Demos, and I don't find enough about him to like at this point.

Lieberman is too conservative for my tastes so I doubt he'll be able to attract the hard-core Democratic primary voters, though he will have a solid fundraising base. It seems to me the wrong Connecticut Senator entered the race--Christopher Dodd is smart, a good orator (Lieberman drones,) a bit more liberal, and can be a firebrand.

Am very concerned that Lieberman has said one of the problems with the Gore/Lieberman 2000 run for office was that it was too "liberal." Many left-leaning voters opted for Nader because Gore was too centrist and, if Lieberman is aiming towards the right of Gore, we might be able to call him a "compassionate conservative," too.

~Adam

But isn't Dodd single? I thought he was a womanizer, and the last thing the Democrats need is a gray-haired, liberal Catholic northeastern playa to be at the top of the ticket. I like Dodd's politics and his record, though. Maybe if he did leap into the race, he could hook up with that wacky liberal songbird Barbara Streisand--or maybe Catherine Deneuve--or Bianca Jagger--or Julie Christie--or Lauren Hutton--or the now devout Christian Jane Fonda. Dodd would really make the White House lively again....

Lieberman, by the way, is quite compassionate. He's been known to burst into song and/or tears depending on the moment. He has displayed a more liberal side at times, but I think his fundamental orientation is towards conservatism, which plays out in every aspect of his life. He, like Reagan, is also a divorcé, which surprised me when I first heard it.

Since we already have threads on Dean (this one) and Edwards, how about discussing Lieberman in his own thread?

For anyone wanting to read a different profile on Howard Dean, check out this link. Governing magazine featured him in 2002 as one of their Public Officials of the Year.
Governing.com

Fantomas - agree with you regarding cry baby Leiberman (who probably cost us big time in the last election) - a right winger in disguise. Disagree with you on Dean - if he can somehow win the Iowa caucus (the polls show him ahead there NOW)and edge out Kerry in New Hampshire (currently second in the polls there) he could catch on -- with a centrist southern or western running mate he could pull a Jimmy Carter.

I hate to say this, on OUTSPORTS no less, but Dean's act of signing the civil unions bill makes him unelectable in major parts of this country. He would not win one Southern state (Clinton won several, don't forget; Gore won none [I'm not going to include Florida]) and he'd lose major parts of the midwest. While a Dean ticket might not incur a Mondale or McGovern-style loss, it very well might ONLY win parts of the northeast, California, Hawaii, and Illinois among the midwestern states. Would he even win Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Oregon, all state that have swung Democratic at least in the last three presidential election?

I'm not saying this to denigrate him, but in recognition of where we stand in this country. I mean, don't forget, very few U.S. states have complete legislated or constitutional protections for gays and lesbians, and homosexual sex is still criminalized in too many.

I would LOVE to see Dean get the nomination and compete in a society that would look up his brilliance, his progressiveness, his courage, and his moral strength as assets. But given how tendentious and reductive our media are, he'd be roasted--and I don't mean in the Friars' manner.

But let's see what happens.

we will see what happens with Dean. If he can come out of the caucauses and get better name recognition, an dkeep hammering away on the issues, I would say alot would then depend on who he would select for his V.P. I am sooo ready for a Dem. to pick and name a woman!!!

Fantomas,

You're exactly right. Bush would crush Dean if the minions played up the gay civil unions thing.

If Dean got the nomination, I think that too many people would think of him as another sacrificial lamb thrown to a popular Republican president.

People would stay home and not vote, especially in states that don't have important races in 2004. He'd bring down the entire ticket in some of the traditional Democratic states.

UNLESS, he gets the bucks to compete. Unfortunately, to be considered a serious candidate, you have to have the bankroll.

I'm curious to see how Gary Locke performs in the Democratic response to the State of the Union. Might have a VP candidate in the making there.

If enough people open their eyes to what a wreck W. has made of things, both foreign & domestic, it might be hard to find a candidate (beyond Sharpton) who could lose in '04. Of course, that's a big if, but his presidency so far seems to be following the same trajectory as his father's.

You still got to get the bucks to get the message out. You know that Baby Bush is going to raise at least $35 million for the 2004 election, not to mention tie ins with other Republican candidates, plus the free publicity he gets as the sitting president.

Martin Sheen endorsed him within the past few days.

Billy - he is indeed following his Daddy's footsteps - he will no doubt "win" a war in Iraq which really turns out to be a loss, the economy is going down the tubes and there can be no doubt that this President (born again for sure) is the most conservative President in many years - including Reagan. I also sadly agree with the most recent posts about the probable unelectability of Dean. That said, there was a credible school of thought in the 70's that Reagan could not win because he was too extreme. It should be interesting. I am going to the HRC dinner in Philly on March 1 - Dean is speaking. It will be interesting to see whether he has charisma and presence. Anyway, he is already elevating the level of discourse and that is refreshing after these last few years of dumb and dumber.

interesting article in today's nytimes. it seems tom delay took umbrage with a speech howard dean gave the other night wherein he described the perils of going it alone in iraq, and reiterated his previously stated stand against a war.

to delay, this decried a lack of understanding of the situation (does this mean those who disagree with the administration have been promoted from unpatriotic to merely stupid?), and is therefore not qualified to be president.

reading between the lines, is this an indication of who the administration might be most worried about facing in the election, if he was singled out?

anyway, if tom delay doesn't like him, he's got to be doing something right!

[ February 26, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]

Not to take up for Bush's stupidity in his family tree, but supermarket scanners didnt come into heavy use until the mid 1980s. I doubt Daddy Bush did much grocery shopping while he was the VP and President of the country. So maybe he did see it for the first time and thought it was neato!

There are no federal politicians who are just plain folks. They dont have time to be. And to act like theyre like every Joe Blow is just idiotic. I dont know many every day people who turn million dollar profits on their law firms and pork futures and whatnot, or create laws that affect an entire nation. I for one, wouldnt want any of my neighbors doing that. They cant even run a Homeowners Association much less a country.

Last night, while channel surfing I ended up on CNBC, and a show called "Capitol Report", which I have never watched before. Last night they had on Howard Dean for an interview in the last half hour.
He wasted no time attacking Shrub at every opportunity. Once again he was very forthright and upfront about the priority skew taking place under our current administration. Its Mr. Deans' opinion that Al Queda and North Korea are far more immmediate threats to the U.S. than Saddam. I agree. He said we need to be talking to North Korea, and are not. He also said Shrubs new Medicare overhaul proposal is doomed to fail and that Bush knows this. He pointed out a similiar overhaul was tried in Nevada and failed miserably.
He also mentioned his strong support for civil unions as well, and said he was proud that Vermont has taken the position it has. Bravo Mr. Dean!! I hope he continues to speak out like this.

Suppose Florida's Bob Graham is a VP candidate on the ticket with him? It worked for Kennedy/Johnson.

A summary of some of Dean's official views appear on a link to his campaign from his official website which I overheard him say that he had forgotten to even mention during his speech at the recent Philaelphia HRC meeting.

There is also an explanation and justification of his support for gun rights:



[ March 05, 2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]