do you think howard dean is going to get the nomination?

[jefhatfield]

last year i heard a lot of buzz about edwards from north carolina

then much more recently, clark seemed like the great spoiler

but now that things are getting ready for the primaries in early to mid 2004, i think howard dean will be the man to beat...personally he is not my choice but he has the momentum at the right time and he is not in danger of running out of money too early like other candidates have in past primaries

now beating bush will be a harder task and november 2004 is a long ways away but what i think dean can use on his side are the lingering war, the sluggish economy of the greater part of W's presidential term, and the weak way the president came into the white house in the first place

i have always had a feeling that he was keeping his popularity by the skin of his teeth...assuming that he had any real popularity

with ronald reagan and bill clinton, both men seemed very popular with america through most of their terms and i just don't get the same type of feeling with mr. W:p

[IJ Reilly]

Interesting story in today's LA Times about Dean's resilience. I don't know if this bodes well for the Democrats in the general election, but it seems that Dean is unusually impervious to self-inflicted wounds, or from attacks from the competition.

Attacks on Dean Just Slide Right Off
The Democratic front-runner seems immune to criticism that would sink other candidates. Supporters admire his blunt talk.

By Mark Z. Barabak, Times Staff Writer

When Howard Dean appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press," the reviews were scathing, with most pundits calling the interview earlier this year a disaster. But others saw it differently. Traffic on Dean's Web site soared, and he collected more than $100,000 in the next 24 hours.

When Dean suggested America was no safer with Saddam Hussein in custody, rivals in the Democratic presidential contest seized on his comments as a major gaffe. But days later, more than 30 New Jersey lawmakers — joined by Gov. James E. McGreevey — elbowed onto a packed stage to endorse him.

The former Vermont governor has millions in the bank, more than any Democrat running, and a legion of followers, linked by the Internet, who crowd campaign events from Manchester, N.H., to Yuma, Ariz.

But there is one advantage that has proved even more valuable for the impulsive and irrepressible Dean: a Teflon coating.

For weeks, frustrated opponents have attacked the Democratic front-runner on everything from his skimpy defense and foreign policy credentials to the secrecy he slapped on his gubernatorial records. Nothing has stuck.

More... (
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-teflon27dec27,1,2337579.story)

[jefhatfield]

reagan seemed quite popular and teflon like and he escaped being in office for eight years without being hated by any large segment of society

many here may not remember, but he had this strange tendency to be blunt and put his foot in his mouth like howard dean...and like dean, he seemed to get away with it...some people can lead this way and constantly be forgiven

this tendency to be blunt works well with uneducated and/or unskilled voters who may also be very poor and frustrated with their personal situation, but it is not really the best way to lead a country as the commander in chief having to oversee so many sections of administration which runs our great and vast country

as much as i don't like george w bush, and as much as some republicans didn't like bill clinton, neither man was blunt and both were smart enough to keep their feet out of their mouths compared to loose cannons of their times, such as newt gingrich, and now howard dean

i do not believe our president to be a smart man, and i was waiting for the seasoned, very intelligent al gore to rip bush to shreds in the presidential debates of 2000, but after it was said and done, bush did not make any stupid or blunt statements and he was very careful and came across as a seasoned and wise politician...very few people thought that al gore beat bush in those debates and many thought that the bush held his own against an obviously much smarter and more experienced opponent

i think if howard dean wins the nomination, he will be able to say anything in a debate against bush and have large segments of the american society agree with him...it will be an interesting time next summer and fall

[IJ Reilly]

Bush may not be blunt, but he does have a bad habit of making poorly considered statements in unguarded moments, not to mention some howlingly nonsensical ones when he's not on script. That's why he's rarely off-script these days. Gore failed to mop the floor with Bush in the 2000 debates because Gore has always come across like an escapee from the Home for Career Politicians. The man just isn't very personable, and if he's got a human side, it's buried beneath a thick veneer of polished politician. People can read that a mile away, and rightly or wrongly, interpret it as phoniness.

This is why Dean is doing so well, I think. Just as a lot of people are willing to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt if only because his propensity for verbal gaffs make him look more human, Dean's supporters seem to find his shoot-from-the hip style a refreshing change from Gore's practiced slickness. It is so hard to predict how this would play outside of the Democratic party.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think Howard Dean will get the nomination but will loose in the election against George, this is the problem with the Democratic party, they want to elect a very left candidate( on most things) if you will for the parties nomination and then have to race & sell this left winger to mainstream America. Howard Dean is saying a lot of things and in the process is giving the GOP lots of ammo for the election. He has to move to the middle if he wants to be president and i dont see that happening. Time will tell.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this is the problem with the Democratic party, they want to elect a very left candidate( on most things)

Not trying to get on you too bad, but this is a personal pet peeve of mine:

Howard Dean may have signed a Civil Union bill, and may be very vocally opposed to the Iraq war, but he is in no way a leftist liberal. Dean is an incredibly moderate candidate - he's pro-death penalty (a big big no no in even the moderate left), anti-increased gun control, insanely occupied with balanced budgets (in contrast to the free wheeling tax and spend attitude stereotypical of my leftists), pro-increased defense spending, on and on. I think this is really why the Republicans need to be careful in hoping Dean wins the nomination: Dean has somehow earned a reputation as a left-winger, something which has propelled him through the pre-primary season, giving him enough momentum to most likely win the nomination, but his record shows that he is moderate enough to pose a serious threat to Bush with the large portion of independant voters. The true leftists in this debate - Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton - have already been marginalized, with the press pulling out reporters and the like, and that's to be expected.

If the Republicans are hoping to win, they need to be careful in labeling Dean a liberal and going after him from that standpoint, because his record shows an entirely different candidate - a compromising, fiscally conservative moderate, with an insanely rabid following. I'm still not sure where I'd put my money, but with Dean as the nom, I hardly think the election is in the bag.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the Democratic party, they want to elect a very left candidate( on most things) if you will for the parties nomination and then have to race & sell this left winger to mainstream America.

here's an exercise for you, to demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about. i suspect, however, that you'll ignore it, thus demonstrating that you're clueless, or fail, demonstrating the same thing.

the exercise:

examine dean's platform. for at least 5 positions, demonstrate how that position is 'very left'. contrast that to a centrist position and a rightist position.

good luck.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think Howard Dean will get the nomination but will loose in the election against George, this is the problem with the Democratic party, they want to elect a very left candidate( on most things) if you will for the parties nomination and then have to race & sell this left winger to mainstream America. Howard Dean is saying a lot of things and in the process is giving the GOP lots of ammo for the election. He has to move to the middle if he wants to be president and i dont see that happening. Time will tell.

you are absolutely correct...i believe dean would have to move to the middle more...but then again, i am a conservative democrat so my tastes are for a fiscal conservative to win the democratic nomination

i can see myself voting for a liberal, left on the dem party leaning, democrat, but i will do so very reluctantly...i don't like the idea of big government, except maybe in health care and a strong anti terrorist department in the intelligence community and the military, but i would find a traditional big government democrat the lesser of two evils if it was between him and george w bush

i much prefer a joe lieberman type of democrat who is fiscally conservative but strong on defense and willing to rout out terrorists...to some in the democratic party, he seems like a republican, but i have been accused of being a republican by many a liberal...i am former cia and dod, born again christian, went to mba school, and most importantly i was an entrepreneur from a family of entrepreneurs who adored nixon and ford...yet i am a democrat, but a conservative one who has felt that the neo conservatives have ditched us business types and gone off into the side dishes of racism, xenophobia, and false religion

i am not saying the democratic party is much better (look at byrd), but between the two choices, an ambitious self employed business person interested in long term economic growth (clinton holds the record in us history) is better off with the democratic party...at least these days

and i know things can change very fast as they have in my life...i too adored nixon and ford and when i saw reagan becoming more interested in social issues and less interested in the checkbook (he overspent on defense and put us in a defecit twice that of jimmy carter) then i realized the gop went off to different pastures to try and capture a different more religious and blue collar vote....but it was basically a ploy but in doing so, many educated business people moved to the left and voted clinton in...college educated business people voted for mondale and dukakis but they still didnt make a major difference at the polling places...college graduates still only consitute a quarter of the adult population and it was considerably less in mondale and dukakis' time

but the gop knew the biggest demographic was the blue collar worker and reagan, very brilliantly, spoke to them and got their vote yet still made the funds stay with the rich through personal and corporate tax cuts...it is the biggest instance of wool being pulled over the voters' eyes that i can recall and the worker got screwed:p

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i believe dean would have to move to the middle more


on which issues?


...but then again, i am a conservative democrat so my tastes are for a fiscal conservative to win the democratic nomination


where does dean fall on that scale?

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
on which issues?



where does dean fall on that scale?

Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Zim here. Jeff, if you're a fiscal conservative (and more power to you for that!) I highly suggest you take a closer look at Dean - he may be your man (even more so than a Lieberman).

PS - Zim, is that 'tar of yours a Duchamp Ready-Made?

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
on which issues?



where does dean fall on that scale?

personally i would like to sit down with the man and hear what he has to say in private...is he a blue dog democrat like me who is fiscally conservative?...clinton took republican ideas, who the republicans couldn't withold, called them his own and made a new type of democrat...fiscally conservative and socially moderate...aka blue dog democrat which includes many former republicans and independents that reagan captured in 80 and 84

dean is trying to make a stance and be very against the president on the war and he does appear to be as vocal as the barbara boxers of the democratic left as opposed to the liebermans of the democratic middle...the other democrats are taking a more moderate view towards the war and thus attacking dean as too liberal...but then again, this could be spin and dean could be the target of other dems calling dean too left because dean is the front runner...and the best way to take down a front runner is to call him too far left or too far right

if dean does not prove to be that far left and is really a moderate to conservative democrat, like clinton was, then i think george bush is in real big trouble:p

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Zim here. Jeff, if you're a fiscal conservative (and more power to you for that!) I highly suggest you take a closer look at Dean - he may be your man (even more so than a Lieberman).

PS - Zim, is that 'tar of yours a Duchamp Ready-Made?

i kind of see him as a left of leftist type of populist willing to say anything

but i will go to his website and do some searches on him

i do, in the end, want a democrat in the white house ;)

gwb has been a disaster and the only good thing he did, imho, was take out most of al qaeda in afganistran, take down the taliban who conspired to hide bin laden, and go after bin laden and continue to look for him...then gwb stunned me by going after saddam before he caught bin laden and the war in iraq seemed to be more of a diversion in order to try and up his popularity rating

but as the war drags on and americans are picked off day by day with no end in sight, i think overall the war has hurt bush more than it has helped him

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
is he a blue dog democrat like me who is fiscally conservative?


you be the judge. from his website, here (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy)


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.



the other democrats are taking a more moderate view towards the war and thus attacking dean as too liberal...but then again, this could be spin


i'd say that's a fair bet

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal

PS - Zim, is that 'tar of yours a Duchamp Ready-Made?

yes! well done.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
you be the judge. from his website, here (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy)





i'd say that's a fair bet

hey, zimv20, thanks for the link...i know my comments and beliefs tend to favor the more conservative posters in this section most of the time, but as a democrat (barely maybe as some may claim), i will try and look at howard dean fairly

i will read through it and i have already read the main home page

fiscal responsibility and returning jobs to the middle class does sound moderate
universal health care does sound liberal
new simplified tax system does sound conservative

those are just initial thoughts on first read...but i will bookmark dean's site

btw...the one really liberal stance i seem to have is universal health care but i do recognize that to "usually" be the domain of the lefter part of left ;)

[mactastic]

I just got to talk to my sister over Xmas, she flew back to Iowa last night where she is working for the Gephardt campaign. She was saying that Dean's campaign staff is using a lot of nasty, heavy handed tactics in Iowa, twisting a lot of arms and generally being obnoxious in their quest for an Iowa victory. There seems to be a good deal of animosity between the campaigns of Dean and everyone else. I suppose that's typical of a primary and they'll all kiss and make up later when it comes down to one candidate, but it seems Dean has the win-at-all-costs attitude that people seem to like in their leaders. Dean is the man to beat at the moment, but Iowa is only a small cog in the election machine. New Hampshire and SC will probably be more telling, and hopefully after Iowa the field of 9 will shrink a little further.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by zimv20
here's an exercise for you, to demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about. i suspect, however, that you'll ignore it, thus demonstrating that you're clueless, or fail, demonstrating the same thing.

the exercise:

examine dean's platform. for at least 5 positions, demonstrate how that position is 'very left'. contrast that to a centrist position and a rightist position.

good luck. I would rather not thank you, but here is some for you since you seem to be the quintessential democrat, show me how raising taxes will make me happy?this isnt left? afterall he said he would repeal bush's tax give back program?i work hard for my money id like to keep more, also show me how making the nuclear family Adam and Steve a legal marriage is going to help America?this isnt left? also i'd be interested on how leaving a mass murderer like Saddam who was paying people to blowthemselves up in Israel is going to be good for the U.S let alone the rest of the world? Universal Health care sounds good but who is going to pay for all that Govt waste? god i dont want Govt managing anything except war its the only thing they are good at and spending my tax dollars, lets see what else the Al gore thing was in very bad taste since he isnt the nominee yet and Lieberman who i like wasnt told though they were running mates last time??? also all the anti war stuff while we are at war makes me sick as a U.S. veteran so in other words i dont hear much coming out of his mouth that i like. Lieberman would be my choice but i dont think its going to happen. but i do still like to read your anti gop stuff zimv20.:)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I would rather not thank you, but here is some for you since you seem to be the quintessential democrat, show me how raising taxes will make me happy?this isnt left? afterall he said he would repeal bush's tax give back program?i work hard for my money id like to keep more, also show me how making the nuclear family Adam and Steve a legal marriage is going to help America?this isnt left? also i'd be interested on how leaving a mass murderer like Saddam who was paying people to blowthemselves up in Israel is going to be good for the U.S let alone the rest of the world? Universal Health care sounds good but who is going to pay for all that Govt waste? god i dont want Govt managing anything except war its the only thing they are good at and spending my tax dollars, lets see what else the Al gore thing was in very bad taste since he isnt the nominee yet and Lieberman who i like wasnt told though they were running mates last time??? also all the anti war stuff while we are at war makes me sick as a U.S. veteran so in other words i dont hear much coming out of his mouth that i like. Lieberman would be my choice but i dont think its going to happen. but i do still like to read your anti gop stuff zimv20.:)

i only got through the first third or so (i recommend punctuation and white space), but it's enough for me to declare that you've FAILED.

if you'd bothered to even look at dean's website, you'd see that he plans on shifting tax burden from individuals back to corporations.


In 1973, corporations paid 40% of federal income tax revenues. Last year, the corporate contribution was down to 16.8%. Experts estimate that corporate tax avoidance schemes are costing the US taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. Senator John McCain claims that even a modest effort to eliminate unnecessary special interest tax preferences and loopholes would raise nearly $50 billion a year in increased federal revenues.


link (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_economy_taxreform)

and just for you:

Education: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish
their lack of understanding. -Ambrose Bierce, writer (1842-1914)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I did check out his site, thanks to you and found something that interested me. The moving of all our factories to everywhere there is cheap labor. This is a situation that needs some balance. for example a family member is a cosultant for some BIG companies ( including Apple ) and all these guys are moving everything to elsewhere. So we have American companies leaving the U.S. Dean says he against all of this but really who is making this happen?? its the Democrats and the Republicans who are both selling us out. we are building China's military and dont think we are not. yeah i know we have a world economy but what ever happened for looking out for America? I dont see either party doing for Americans, i see 2 parties who cant stand the other and will stop at nothing when it dont suite their agenda even if its bad for America as a whole.
Tom Ridge wants to now legalize millions of illegals? Didnt those clowns just pass the Patriot act? looking for the mexican vote? what have both parties been doing about this while fighting one another?, Democrats want to change the meaning of marriage to suite their gay agenda? why not leave it alone and give gays some other legal union? thats why iam a independent because both parties suck and are running down America in their own selfish ways.
I know there are people that can only see Democrat( such as yourself) just as there are people that can only see Republican, what we need are people that can see America. How many millions and millions are going to be spent this election on spinning what the other side says. I say ban all of their damn parties. After all its the corporations who are running the show and they give to both so what they want gets passed and in the end a little more of America is lost. sorry for the rant and please no more comments on silly puctuation or spelling after all this is a rumor site not a spelling bee and Apple has given me this black keyboard and i have a dark room.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Can you really elect a man who wont stand in front of Bill O'rielly? all the other Democrats have but i have not seen Dean. why is that Zimv20

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
please no more comments on silly puctuation or spelling after all this is a rumor site not a spelling bee and Apple has given me this black keyboard and i have a dark room.

It's very difficult to read what you have to say. If you don't care if anyone can fight through what you type, then by all means don't change. But don't expect anyone to read your jumble either.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Can you really elect a man who wont stand in front of Bill O'rielly? all the other Democrats have but i have not seen Dean. why is that Zimv20

Why would he know?

I wouldn't go on O'Reilly's show either. I wouldn't pay him the honour or waste my time with the likes of his little show.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Come on Bill is fair and yeah he will drill em whats wrong with that? Rosie went on and i think she enjoyed it. Howard Dean is the only one who wont? again why? if he wants my vote he needs to stand up for whatever it is he thinks but if he cant do that with Bill then i dont want em as my president.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Come on Bill is fair and yeah he will drill em whats wrong with that? Rosie went on and i think she enjoyed it. Howard Dean is the only one who wont? again why? if he wants my vote he needs to stand up for whatever it is he thinks but if he cant do that with Bill then i dont want em as my president.

i much prefer crossfire and i really have not seen o'reilly enough to know exactly what he stands for other than that he tends to be right wing, but not as much as novak and carlson

but i think the crossfire guys take the more extreme right and left wing positions to have a very good debate which compares and contrasts the two sides for clarity, and yes, entertainment

i listen to crossfire's bill press on the radio and his stances are not as far left as when i hear him on crossfire

as far as o'reilly, i don't know of anybody i talk politics with in my town, and that is a lot of people, who ever listen to him...is he that important? and why would you judge a presidential candidate on someone like him and his show?...what about rush, dr. laura schlesinger, jim hightower, crossfire, cspan or any other much more well known political tv or radio entity?

[Dont Hurt Me]

he will ask him the tough questions and then we get to see the real Dean, the circus thats making the rounds right now is nothing more then that. id like to see him answer some good questions and see the real man. I dont go for the party crap either way but O'reilly is one of if not the highest rated news show. come on Dean step up to the plate. being President will be a lot lot tougher then a 1 hr news show. It would be a good opportunity for him to get out his views and what he thinks. National TV, Free publicity.

[jefhatfield]

i now have dean's bookmarked site on my computer so i will try and read his official line on things

i have only heard and read snippets of the man

it would be interesting to see the democratic debates and the whole whirlwind of the primaries and see how he holds up against more seasoned politicians like kerry and lieberman...i wonder if he will make an off the cuff "confederate flag on the pickup truck" type statement or rationally answer his fellow democratic opponents who seem to be gunning at him since he is the front runner

i don't care what o'reilly says but i want to see dean vs. the rest of the democratic field

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Can you really elect a man who wont stand in front of Bill O'rielly? all the other Democrats have but i have not seen Dean. why is that Zimv20

get me his phone # and i'll ask him

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
get me his phone # and i'll ask him

wait, wait, i got lost...i was eating dinner

is someone setting someone up on a blind date?:D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zimv20
get me his phone # and i'll ask him

wait, wait, i got lost...i was eating dinner

is someone setting someone up on a blind date?:D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
wait, wait, i got lost...i was eating dinner

is someone setting someone up on a blind date?:D

you _did_ say you wanted to sit down and talk with him...

[Sayhey]

My crystal ball says -- maybe! OK, it's a lousy crystal ball. It all depends on who the alternative candidate is who comes out of the South Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, etc. primaries on February 3rd. Somebody or bodies will still be around and if they are an effective alternative to Dean this could go far into the primary season before it is resolved. I think Clark will likely be that other candidate, but I would not rule out Kerry, Gephardt, or Edwards. I don't see Lieberman making a real push -- the man makes Al Gore look limber (which I think is the real reason Al asked him to join the ticket in 2000.)

Going through this very long and arduous process shows a lot about the political skills of the candidate and, just as importantly, the skills of the team he has assembled. When we see Dean and whomever is left by the time of the March California primary (I will say it looks like Dean is in it for the long haul), then I'll make a prediction.

One prediction I will make is that the pundits will make nonsensical predictions between now and the end of the selection process that will change from week to week. And one other little cliché to remember, a week in politics is the equivalent of a lifetime.

edit: I did this in another thread, but it is good to still give out the links to other campaigns:

Clark (http://www.clark04.com/)
Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com/)
Edwards (http://www.johnedwards2004.com/home.asp)
Gephardt (http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Welcome/*)
Lieberman (http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer)
Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us/index.php)
Moseley Braun (http://www.moseley-braun.org/content.php?page=home)
Sharpton (http://www.sharpton2004.org/)
and Dean (http://www.deanforamerica.com/) if you missed it in zim's post.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
also show me how making the nuclear family Adam and Steve a legal marriage is going to help America?

I'm sorry, I and many others like me must not seem very real to you for you to recognise that reality. Let me post back when I'm straight. Oh wait....

Democrats want to change the meaning of marriage to suite their gay agenda? why not leave it alone and give gays some other legal union?

Equal rights must be too much to ask for I guess.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I would rather not thank you, but here is some for you since you seem to be the quintessential democrat, show me how raising taxes will make me happy?this isnt left? afterall he said he would repeal bush's tax give back program?i work hard for my money id like to keep more, also show me how making the nuclear family Adam and Steve a legal marriage is going to help America?this isnt left? also i'd be interested on how leaving a mass murderer like Saddam who was paying people to blowthemselves up in Israel is going to be good for the U.S let alone the rest of the world? Universal Health care sounds good but who is going to pay for all that Govt waste? god i dont want Govt managing anything except war its the only thing they are good at and spending my tax dollars, lets see what else the Al gore thing was in very bad taste since he isnt the nominee yet and Lieberman who i like wasnt told though they were running mates last time??? also all the anti war stuff while we are at war makes me sick as a U.S. veteran so in other words i dont hear much coming out of his mouth that i like. Lieberman would be my choice but i dont think its going to happen. but i do still like to read your anti gop stuff zimv20.:)

One thing about actually reading someone's positions, you find out when you are ignorant of their real ideas and are only buying into the propaganda of their opponents. Dean is not for gay marriage. He is for civil unions. So not only is your little comment about "Adam and Steve" insulting it is also just wrong! Sorry, one should never let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a rant, should they?

If you actually listen to Dean as well as most of the other Democrats you would find that they all agree that Saddam was a menace. That does not translate that it was a good idea to, in the midst of a war on terrorism, attack Iraq and provide the terrorists with the biggest propaganda victory and recruiting tool they could have asked for.

As to universal health care, maybe we could afford it if we didn't give all those tax breaks to the richest 2% making over $200,000 per year and we didn't spend billions upon billions in unnecessary wars.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Everybody gets so testy over politics, Dean is for civil union between gays thats fine but dont call it marriage, civil union whatever is ok with me but dont try to force this civil union as marriage, marriage is and has allways been for a man and a woman and to create a family. This idea is very left and will be hard for middle america to swallow.
After reading a little more on Dean he does have some positions i like.
My wife and i were talking about the universal health care issue and agree we all need it. Right now a large part of that money ends up in the hands of the insurance industry. They will be donating to both campaigns to make sure it dont happen. just watch those dollars flow in to the campaigns. if Govt ran the health program do you think it would be cheaper? im not so sure that all that money wouldnt end up as govt waste, abuse and bureaucracy but perhaps it would still be better and worth a try.
Iam still open to the next election but please everyone lets stop the attacks and being critical on spelling and punctuation which many could care a less as long as the ideas are getting across. This is about Howard Dean.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Everybody gets so testy over politics, Dean is for civil union between gays thats fine but dont call it marriage, civil union whatever is ok with me but dont try to force this civil union as marriage, marriage is and has allways been for a man and a woman and to create a family. This idea is very left and will be hard for middle america to swallow.
After reading a little more on Dean he does have some positions i like.
My wife and i were talking about the universal health care issue and agree we all need it. Right now a large part of that money ends up in the hands of the insurance industry. They will be donating to both campaigns to make sure it dont happen. just watch those dollars flow in to the campaigns. if Govt ran the health program do you think it would be cheaper? im not so sure that all that money wouldnt end up as govt waste, abuse and bureaucracy but perhaps it would still be better and worth a try.
Iam still open to the next election but please everyone lets stop the attacks and being critical on spelling and punctuation which many could care a less as long as the ideas are getting across. This is about Howard Dean.

I'm not trying to turn this into another debate about gay marriage. If you are for civil unions that's your right. I don't agree with your or Dean's position on the issue, but as long as we are dealing with the right facts over what his positions are, I don't have a problem.

Glad to see that you are reading some of Dean's ideas. That's the basis for a healthy debate.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
he will ask him the tough questions and then we get to see the real Dean, the circus thats making the rounds right now is nothing more then that. id like to see him answer some good questions and see the real man.

Why doesn't Bush sit down with Al Franken and Michael Moore for a live, unscripted televised interview?

When will he answer the tough questions about his term that the media don't get to ask? Why does it take a lawsuit to get any tidbit of information out of this administration?

[Dont Hurt Me]

hey psuedorbrit, i guess when you are president you can do what you want but getting there is the problem. I think Deans focus is on the primaries, after thats all over we will see and here a lot more. who knows but iam betting he will get on the Factor before November. One thing i can say about Orielly is he isnt a blind Republican, while those guys you mention or so blinded by their party dogma they cant see straight. Thats the stuff i cant stand, their party could be marching off a cliff and those guys would want to be first in line.
Orielly thinks there should be some type of gay unions and he thinks weed should be legalized not exactly right wing republican ideas.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
hey psuedorbrit, i guess when you are president you can do what you want but getting there is the problem. I think Deans focus is on the primaries, after thats all over we will see and here a lot more. who knows but iam betting he will get on the Factor before November. One thing i can say about Orielly is he isnt a blind Republican, while those guys you mention or so blinded by their party dogma they cant see straight. Thats the stuff i cant stand, their party could be marching off a cliff and those guys would want to be first in line.
Orielly thinks there should be some type of gay unions and he thinks weed should be legalized not exactly right wing republican ideas.

Bill just bullies his guests. There's a difference between asking tough questions and beating someone about the head with a rhetorical rant made up to look like a tough question.

See Sean Hannity's attack on Ted Kennedy over the phone ("Mr. Senator, I have a question for you...[fill in two minutes of random, hateful attack without a single question involved]") to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

[Dont Hurt Me]

They are all only human but the main point iam trying to make for everyone is vote the man and our country not republican or democrat.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by vniow
I'm sorry, I and many others like me must not seem very real to you for you to recognise that reality. Let me post back when I'm straight. Oh wait....



Equal rights must be too much to ask for I guess.

Hey I have a friend who is male who says he won't marry his girlfriend until marriage is available to all. He feels the laws against same sex marriage corrupt the institution.

But you can't tell who will get the nomination until the nomination. It actually makes me mad that all political news on TV is about the horse-race and not about the positions. It's like they are incapable of presenting anything other than fluff. It is so high-school - "who is more popular now..."

[g5man]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/politics/campaigns/29DEAN.html?ei=5062&en=9ea1ffc64c5e720d&ex=1073365200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=





MES, Iowa, Dec. 28 — Complaining about the torrent of attacks raining down on him from his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean on Sunday criticized his party's national chairman, Terry McAuliffe, for not intervening to tone down the debate.


"If we had strong leadership in the Democratic Party, they would be calling those other candidates and saying, `Hey look, somebody's going to have to win here,' " Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, told reporters trailing him as he campaigned through central Iowa. Referring to one of Mr. McAuliffe's predecessors, he added, "If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening."


Dr. Dean also implied that many of his supporters, particularly young people, might stay home in November if another Democrat's name ends up on the ballot.


"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," he said.


Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything."


"Right now those guys think we're the front-runner, so they're saying all this stuff, `He can't win'," Dr. Dean said. "How are they going to win?


"What I'm saying is I think we're the best and most capable candidate of beating George Bush because we're the only one that is exciting the party," he said.


Mr. McAuliffe could not be reached for comment Sunday. Debra DeShong, the party's communications director, said Mr. McAuliffe would be "handing the nominee, whoever that person may be, a very strong" party organization.


"Democratic primaries over the past 20 years have been just as tough and just as vigorous," Ms. DeShong said. "All the Democratic candidates, including Governor Dean, have been vigorous about drawing distinctions among themselves."


In Ames, Dr. Dean repeated his promise to support whichever Democrat wins. "Any of them are better than what we've got right now," he said. But, he added, "you can't beat George Bush if you behave like the Democrats are behaving."

This my friends has made this campaign even more interesting. Dean will not go away unless he is nominated. So either he will lose to a landslide on his own or he will make sure who ever wins the nomination will lose to a landslide. Politics are so much fun.

Even I could not forsee this, although I have heard rumblings regarding it. So Bush will win a landslide either way.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/politics/campaigns/29DEAN.html?ei=5062&en=9ea1ffc64c5e720d&ex=1073365200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
This my friends has made this campaign even more interesting. Dean will not go away unless he is nominated. So either he will lose to a landslide on his own or he will make sure who ever wins the nomination will lose to a landslide. Politics are so much fun.

Even I could not forsee this, although I have heard rumblings regarding it. So Bush will win a landslide either way.

g5man,

you have to stop reading the news with those "Rove-colored" glasses! How in the heck did you get your conclusion about November about this little dust up in December? You haven't been following politics very long have you?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
g5man,

you have to stop reading the news with those "Rove-colored" glasses! How in the heck did you get your conclusion about November about this little dust up in December? You haven't been following politics very long have you?

OK, maybe I am wrong. So what are you saying? If Dean gets pushed aside by the DNC, then his supporters will all move automatically to who ever the candidate is?

I am sorry but I don't see it that way. I remember about 19 million voters back in 92 voting for Perot because they were pissed off at the GOP and Bush I.

I have suddenly become very interested in Mr. Dean. From what I see so far he does not seem like one to walk away quietly. This nomination appears now to be his to loose and his has assured his supporters he will fight. ( I am still not 100% of his nomination) Those who trully love him are very angry and that anger is not a political asset in this election.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
OK, maybe I am wrong. So what are you saying? If Dean gets pushed aside by the DNC, then his supporters will all move automatically to who ever the candidate is?

I am sorry but I don't see it that way. I remember about 19 million voters back in 92 voting for Perot because they were pissed off at the GOP and Bush I.

I have suddenly become very interested in Mr. Dean. From what I see so far he does not seem like one to walk away quietly. This nomination appears now to be his to loose and his has assured his supporters he will fight. ( I am still not 100% of his nomination) Those who trully love him are very angry and that anger is not a political asset in this election.

First, a candidate can never automatically transfer the support of voters to another candidate. That is not something new for Dean. Second, while Dean may not like McAuliffe (he is rightfully seen a Clinton man) the DNC will support whoever is nominated.

As to the anger of supporters of Dean's candidacy it is very much an asset. It means that they will work hard to get out the core vote against Bush. Is it enough to win? I don't think so unless more and more people become very disenchanted with Dubya over the next year. It will take bringing in people with a new message of a new direction. Dean is just now trying to do that. Will he or another Democrat build the kind of coalition needed to oust Bush? That is what the primaries are for -- to see which campaign best shows its capabilities to do just that. You need to wait and see how the next few months play out to have any real evaluation of that.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
One thing i can say about Orielly is he isnt a blind Republican, while those guys you mention or so blinded by their party dogma they cant see straight. Thats the stuff i cant stand, their party could be marching off a cliff and those guys would want to be first in line.
Orielly thinks there should be some type of gay unions and he thinks weed should be legalized not exactly right wing republican ideas.

Just a quick defense of Mike Moore - One, when you say "their party" in Moore's case, that Party isn't the Democratic party. Mike Moore was (and is) an unapologetic Green - a huge Nadar supporter, and someone who is very, very harsh towards the Democratic "weenies", as he tends to call them. Mike Moore does not think very highly of the Democratic party.

That being said, he is more interested in outing Bush than anything else, so I am sure he will endorse a Democrat in this race.

Also, if you read his new book "Dude, Where's My Country?", you'll see that 'blinded' Moore actually agrees with you about your man Bill O'Reilly, going so far as to say on page 192: "Bill O'Reilly makes a few good points. He's against the death penalty, he's an advocate for kids, and he opposes NAFTA. Okay, he's still a jerk, but a jerk can be right some of the time."

Moore also defends conservative psychopath Ann Coulter, saying "Why are you still bitching about right-wing Ann Coulter? Sure, she's crazy as a loon, but she's got more balls than the entire Democratic Leadership Council. You're just jealous because we [liberals] don't have an Ann Coulter".

I know this is off topic, but there are a lot of lies that get spread about Mike Moore on the internet and it kind of just pisses me off. I get frustrated when people paint Moore as this huge Democratic campainer, when really, if you read his books and watch him in interview, he essentially hates the Democratic party, and actually has a lot of respect for the ways in which most conservatives engage in debate (although he disagrees greatly with their stance on most issues). It's interesting to see the guy some people call "the Left's Ann Coulter" showing respect and admiration for Ms. Coulter, someone who would be quick to label him a "traitor" in an instant, and refuse to listen to any of his arguments, labeling them as "teason".

I think more people should read up on Mike Moore and try not to get blinded by how pissed off he made them when he made that Oscar speach. He's an oppionated, though fair minded, guy - someone who goes through incredible lengths to back up his assesrtions and oppinions with primary sources. (The first chapter of "Dude", all 40 pages of it, is annotated by 97 notes from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, to the New York Times, etc.).

Just thought I'd throw that in.

Davis

[wwworry]

I think that "Dean can not be trusted.." is straight out of the republican smear tactics handbook.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Just a quick defense of Mike Moore - One, when you say "their party" in Moore's case, that Party isn't the Democratic party. Mike Moore was (and is) an unapologetic Green - a huge Nadar supporter, and someone who is very, very harsh towards the Democratic "weenies", as he tends to call them. Mike Moore does not think very highly of the Democratic party.

That being said, he is more interested in outing Bush than anything else, so I am sure he will endorse a Democrat in this race.

Also, if you read his new book "Dude, Where's My Country?", you'll see that 'blinded' Moore actually agrees with you about your man Bill O'Reilly, going so far as to say on page 192: "Bill O'Reilly makes a few good points. He's against the death penalty, he's an advocate for kids, and he opposes NAFTA. Okay, he's still a jerk, but a jerk can be right some of the time."

Moore also defends conservative psychopath Ann Coulter, saying "Why are you still bitching about right-wing Ann Coulter? Sure, she's crazy as a loon, but she's got more balls than the entire Democratic Leadership Council. You're just jealous because we [liberals] don't have an Ann Coulter".

I know this is off topic, but there are a lot of lies that get spread about Mike Moore on the internet and it kind of just pisses me off. I get frustrated when people paint Moore as this huge Democratic campainer, when really, if you read his books and watch him in interview, he essentially hates the Democratic party, and actually has a lot of respect for the ways in which most conservatives engage in debate (although he disagrees greatly with their stance on most issues). It's interesting to see the guy some people call "the Left's Ann Coulter" showing respect and admiration for Ms. Coulter, someone who would be quick to label him a "traitor" in an instant, and refuse to listen to any of his arguments, labeling them as "teason".

I think more people should read up on Mike Moore and try not to get blinded by how pissed off he made them when he made that Oscar speach. He's an oppionated, though fair minded, guy - someone who goes through incredible lengths to back up his assesrtions and oppinions with primary sources. (The first chapter of "Dude", all 40 pages of it, is annotated by 97 notes from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, to the New York Times, etc.).

Just thought I'd throw that in.

Davis I apologize i wasnt thinking of moore i was thinking of that ball headed james guy on crossfire and the other guy their names escape me but they are the ones i was referring to about marching off a cliff. nice post davisbanimal

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I apologize i wasnt thinking of moore i was thinking of that ball headed james guy on crossfire and the other guy their names escape me but they are the ones i was referring to about marching off a cliff. nice post davisbanimal

Do you mean James Carville? He is recommended in only very small doses! Even for Clinton partisans he is very difficult to take at times. I don't know who the "other guy" would be unless you mean his old partner, Paul Begala. My own least favorite "talking head" has to be Robert Novak. I want to throw things at the TV when he is on. I think if they ever gave Anne Coulter a show she would be even worse.

[mactastic]

James Carville and Mary Matalin amaze me. How those two stay married is beyond me, but they genuinly seem to like each other.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Yep that was the two i was thinking about James Carville & Paul Begala. The Democratic party to those guys do no wrong at all,ever period. and how James and Mary stay together is amazing:confused: they must not ever talk politics

[mactastic]

But they do! I've seen them go head to head on national TV. Imagine going at it like we do around here with your spouse, then going out to dinner or trying to have a social life or not get pissy with each other in front of the kids over some lame attack the other made on your guy. Lol, I couldn't do it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Yep that was the two i was thinking about James Carville & Paul Begala. The Democratic party to those guys do no wrong at all,ever period. and how James and Mary stay together is amazing:confused: they must not ever talk politics

I agree that I like commentators that are more objective about their own party's problems. It seems we have brought about the world that Saturday Night Live used to satirize in their Point/Counterpoint skits ("Jane, you ignorant slut!") with no real discussion of issues on TV, only attempts to score points for your side.

As to James and Mary, either they never talk politics or they are the most cynical pair of political operatives going.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
But they do! I've seen them go head to head on national TV. Imagine going at it like we do around here with your spouse, then going out to dinner or trying to have a social life or not get pissy with each other in front of the kids over some lame attack the other made on your guy. Lol, I couldn't do it.

look at it the other way -- maybe they talk politics all the time, and realized they could make a career out of publicizing their discussions.

[mactastic]

I vote for cynical. Just more proof that the attacks are what is important for public discourse. Of course they are more polite in private, but they have an image to maintain and a party line to keep!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
I vote for cynical. Just more proof that the attacks are what is important for public discourse. Of course they are more polite in private, but they have an image to maintain and a party line to keep!

It's a job. Throw enough money at most people, and they'll pretend to believe just about anything.

Sorry, now that's really cynical. 'Tis the season.