Gov. Howard Dean

[Gustaf]

I am probably a little bit ignorant of your system, but what is the difference between conervative and republican? Jvravnsbo seems to be saying, correct if I'm wrong, that he is not that republican, since he could vote for a democrat who thought like a republican. How would that be better?

[Gustaf]

Plus there are a lot more conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans.

Most of the South and a lot of the western Democrats are conservative and have real issues with their national parties positions.

I am probably a little bit ignorant of your system, but what is the difference between conervative and republican? Jvravnsbo seems to be saying, correct if I'm wrong, that he is not that republican, since he could vote for a democrat who thought like a republican. How would that be better?

But why be a democrat and have issues if you are conservative? Why not be GOP and not bother?

[Gustaf]

because the Democrats used to be conservate- then the national party got taken over by special interests.

Kennedy cut taxes and was strong on defense, 2 things that are now unthinkable in the Dem party.

Plus there are a lot more conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans.

Most of the South and a lot of the western Democrats are conservative and have real issues with their national parties positions.

I am probably a little bit ignorant of your system, but what is the difference between conervative and republican? Jvravnsbo seems to be saying, correct if I'm wrong, that he is not that republican, since he could vote for a democrat who thought like a republican. How would that be better?

But why be a democrat and have issues if you are conservative? Why not be GOP and not bother?

But aren't political parties supposed to represent different views? If the Dems mirror-image the GOP, now interesting would politics be?

[Gustaf]

My favorite Deanism is his latest - "dealing with race is about educating whites".

Yeah, this guy is going to sweep white voters right off their feet.  I can't wait to be "educated" by all knowing Howard Dean.  All us ignorant, unsophisticated, redneck whites in the South just can't wait for all knowing Howie to come down and "educate" us about race and probably a whole lot of other things as well.  Talk about your arrogant, condescending snob.  This guy is really going to get the nomination?

Thank you Lord.

The truth can be painful...

[Gustaf]

LOL! What comes next? "May the force be with you"?

Thank you my child

Ok lets compare Reagan in 1980 vs 2004 and Dean.

1.  Reagan had made 2 previous runs at the White hOuse in 1968, 1976 and had high name ID.  Dean does not, have the experience of running a campaign and that is more obvious each day.

2.  Reagan embraced his party and was spurred on by helping Goldwater in 1964.  Dean is ATTACKING his party.  Just the last few days Dean attacked Terry McAulliffe for not stopping Dean's opponents from attacking him.  HELLO your in a primary.  Also Dean just threatened and paraphrasing "My supporters might not vote for anyone else if I'm not the nominee"  Talk about blackmail politics.

3.  Reagan was the governor fo a major state, California, where he had to deal witha  large economy, in the turbulant 60's whereas Dean was governor of a state with the economy half the size of the city of Miami.  

4.  Both are running against incumbant Presidents, true.  However, under Carter inflation was exorbinant and the interest rates were around 20%, there were gas lines and a grain embargo.  Comparatively while the economy has taken hits from 9/11 and the corporate scandals, neither are Bush's fault and plus he gave all taxpayers a tax cut which is boosting the economy and it will be strong come election time.

5.  Carter let Afghanistan be invaded by the Soviets.  Carter then boycotted the Olympics and filed a protest at the UN.  Also Carter poorly managed the Iranian hostage crisis.   Reagan was seen as a I'm not going to take that BS kind of candidate on protecting Aemrica.

Today Bush has ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan and is putting in a democracy, Bush has ousted the murderous thug, Saddam-ended his supporting of terrorism in Palestine and in allowing training bases and terrorists safe haven; and through a show of force he has shown he is willing to remove terrorists from power and thus brought Libya to the diplomatic tables to turn in there WMDS.

Dean - would not have gone into Iraq and thus would not have had the standing to pressure Libya to give up its WMDS.  He seems to be like Carter and would have rather filed a strong protest and talk the issue out at the UN ( ie Chamberlain style).

6.  Reagan was an optimist and so is Bush thinking America will get better and its best days are ahead.  Carter said we should settle for what we have and that our best days were behind us.  Dean is angry at everything and is trying to tell us how everything is bad.  Talk about a contrast.

True, obviously there are differences, as no two elections or candidates are ever truly alike.
I don't think that people were necessarily disbelieving the polls in 1988. When Dukakis was 17 points ahead, people were surprised, but I don't think anyone was saying that Bush was definitely going to come back and win. Certainly that lead wasn't going to be sustained since it occured right after the Dem convention, but at that point things did look bleak for Bush.
Likewise, in 2000 Bush had about a 17 point lead or so over Gore after the GOP convention. No one expected that large of a lead to be sustained, but I know conservatives were awfully giddy about Bush's prospects at that point. Then when Gore went to the left during his acceptance speech, the Republicans were sure they had it in the bag, they figured he had handed the political middle to Bush...until the polls came out showing Bush's lead was gone and it was now a dead heat. Gore's most impressive performance of the whole campaign was the acceptance speech, in which he let his true self out. Yes, he actually was and probably always has been more of a liberal masquerading as a moderate, but his attempts to make himself look centrist hurt his credibility since he wasn't a skilled enough politican to make it seem believeable. He came across as phony.
I think that a good case can be made for a parallel between Dean and Reagan. Yes, of course there are many differences, but Reagan also spoke off the cuff a lot and made many miscues in his speech. And, he also was considered way too conservative to win, and was running against an incumbent candidate of the party that also controlled Congress, and thus was seeming to become the clear cut majority party in the US, and started out way behind in the polls. For that matter, Bush, like Dean, also makes verbal gaffes, was not a very good student at Yale, and got out of the draft under circumstances of questionable legitimacy.
The claim that Perot was hurting Bush is also at least somewhat undercut by the fact that Clinton was running 3rd, behind Perot, when both were in the race in the spring, with Clinton getting only 25% in the polls, and then when Perot dropped out, Clinton surged into the lead in the polls.

Exactly.  If you hadn't said it, I would have.  I'm glad your our God jravnsbo.

[Gustaf]

Whoever said that, that is sad.  My father is a Vietnam Vet and proud of it, he even earned the Bronze star.  He told me it never even occurred to himt o dodge the draft.  He couldn't turn his back on his country.

---

My father was a draft dodger, as were most of his friends.  the war was wrong, and the draft was even more wrong.

If my country invaded another nation for what I deemed to be unjust reasons, I would definitely try to avoid fighting in it.

[Gustaf]

I wasn't saying that Vietnam was unjust, I was establishing a principle. Though I am sceptical about it. Stopping communism? I'll allow, that's what people thought. The south was as bad as the north and the Communistic Vietnam actually overthrew the worse Communist government in Asia; Kampuchea. You have to choose your wars, and Vietnam was a bad choice. Especially considering the fact that you didn't win.

Unjust reasons, Vietnam?  We were stopping the sprea dof communism.  Or would have if LBJ would have let the generals run the war.

Whoever said that, that is sad.  My father is a Vietnam Vet and proud of it, he even earned the Bronze star.  He told me it never even occurred to himt o dodge the draft.  He couldn't turn his back on his country.

---

My father was a draft dodger, as were most of his friends.  the war was wrong, and the draft was even more wrong.

If my country invaded another nation for what I deemed to be unjust reasons, I would definitely try to avoid fighting in it.

[Gustaf]

I wasn't saying that Vietnam was unjust, I was establishing a principle. Though I am sceptical about it. Stopping communism? I'll allow, that's what people thought. The south was as bad as the north and the Communistic Vietnam actually overthrew the worse Communist government in Asia; Kampuchea. You have to choose your wars, and Vietnam was a bad choice. Especially considering the fact that you didn't win.

[

Gustaf, I don't agree with you that the south was as bad as the north.  Whatever the shortcomings of the government in the south, it did not lead to millions of people putting themselves on rickety boats in the South China Sea, with almost no chance of survival, just to get away from the hell on earth that the communists created.

Even during the terrible war, Vietnamese stayed in their own country, for the most part.  Not until conditions became so unbearable under the communists did they leave.

I agree that it was a poorly chosen war for the US, and also poorly administered by the Washington politicians, starting with LBJ.  But I can't say it was wrong to try to prevent such an awful group of people from expanding their power.

You don't go to war with all countries in the world b/c they're bad guys. So you pick your wars, and you shouldn't have picked Vietnam, for many reasons.

To jravnsbo: you killed a lot of Vietnamese civilians, in order to win you would have had to kill a lot, lot more. And a civilized country doesn't do that. They wouldn't have stopped b/c it was easy for the vietnamese to spin it as a liberation war, which it partly was, against a foreign invader. Even rouge states has a hard time winning these, a democracy could never do it. It was unwinnable.

[Gustaf]

yes.  but she did agree to lighten the standard in 1992 under Casey to an "undue burden" on the states instead of strict scrutiny, which is the law now.

O'Conner--well mixed reviews with her.  One of 4 I've never met personally.  But she is a bit flip floppy on some issues.  Very good on states rights though.

She is for Roe v. Wade right?

Why are these posts looking so weird?

[Gustaf]

gustaf started it!

WHAT! lol. Is the kind of rethoric we can expect from the GOP?

[Gustaf]

true though, gosh hard to fight the truth (dean's problem too)

that is where it changed on my screen.

gustaf started it!

Another cheap shot to a dem from an AFRNC activist.

Well, but then maybe something is wrong with your screen! (I'm not going to admit to the same fact being true of my screen...).

[Gustaf]

This is fun!  WEeeeeeeeeeee

You ruined it!

[Gustaf]

Hm, picking up endorsements from losers all over the place, are we? Why do so many people support Dean, aren't they the least bit worried about electability???

Bill Bradley Expected to Endorse Dean

DES MOINES, Iowa - Former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley (news - web sites), who lost the Democratic nomination for president to Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, is expected to endorse front-runner Howard Dean (news - web sites), party officials said Monday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Dean and Bradley planned to announce the endorsement this week.

Dean has changed his campaign schedule to appear Tuesday in New Hampshire for a surprise announcement, state campaign director Karen Hicks said Monday. Campaigning in Iowa, Dean said he could neither confirm nor deny the report.


Bradley gave Gore a scare early in the 2000 primary process but eventually lost both the Iowa caucuses and the follow-up New Hampshire primary to the sitting vice president.


Bradley was a favorite of higher-educated, higher-income Democrats, according to party polls, a constituency that has leaned toward Dean in this year's contest.


The endorsement is further evidence of Dean's transformation from a political asterisk 12 months ago to the party's leading candidate. Dean secured Gore's endorsement last month and already leads in fund raising and in most state and national polls.


Bradley, 60, served three terms as senator from New Jersey, from 1979 to 1996. He was a Rhodes Scholar and an All-American basketball player at Princeton and later a star with the New York Knicks.

[Gustaf]

Yes, but still...it's depressing...

Bradley was the left candidate int he last primary vs Gore.

Hm, picking up endorsements from losers all over the place, are we? Why do so many people support Dean, aren't they the least bit worried about electability???

Bill Bradley Expected to Endorse Dean

DES MOINES, Iowa - Former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley (news - web sites), who lost the Democratic nomination for president to Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, is expected to endorse front-runner Howard Dean (news - web sites), party officials said Monday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Dean and Bradley planned to announce the endorsement this week.

Dean has changed his campaign schedule to appear Tuesday in New Hampshire for a surprise announcement, state campaign director Karen Hicks said Monday. Campaigning in Iowa, Dean said he could neither confirm nor deny the report.


Bradley gave Gore a scare early in the 2000 primary process but eventually lost both the Iowa caucuses and the follow-up New Hampshire primary to the sitting vice president.


Bradley was a favorite of higher-educated, higher-income Democrats, according to party polls, a constituency that has leaned toward Dean in this year's contest.


The endorsement is further evidence of Dean's transformation from a political asterisk 12 months ago to the party's leading candidate. Dean secured Gore's endorsement last month and already leads in fund raising and in most state and national polls.


Bradley, 60, served three terms as senator from New Jersey, from 1979 to 1996. He was a Rhodes Scholar and an All-American basketball player at Princeton and later a star with the New York Knicks.

[Gustaf]

Hmpf! Just you wait, just you wait...sooner or later you're bound to lose!

Not to Republicans!

Yes, but still...it's depressing...

Bradley was the left candidate int he last primary vs Gore.

Hm, picking up endorsements from losers all over the place, are we? Why do so many people support Dean, aren't they the least bit worried about electability???

Bill Bradley Expected to Endorse Dean

DES MOINES, Iowa - Former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley (news - web sites), who lost the Democratic nomination for president to Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, is expected to endorse front-runner Howard Dean (news - web sites), party officials said Monday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Dean and Bradley planned to announce the endorsement this week.

Dean has changed his campaign schedule to appear Tuesday in New Hampshire for a surprise announcement, state campaign director Karen Hicks said Monday. Campaigning in Iowa, Dean said he could neither confirm nor deny the report.


Bradley gave Gore a scare early in the 2000 primary process but eventually lost both the Iowa caucuses and the follow-up New Hampshire primary to the sitting vice president.


Bradley was a favorite of higher-educated, higher-income Democrats, according to party polls, a constituency that has leaned toward Dean in this year's contest.


The endorsement is further evidence of Dean's transformation from a political asterisk 12 months ago to the party's leading candidate. Dean secured Gore's endorsement last month and already leads in fund raising and in most state and national polls.


Bradley, 60, served three terms as senator from New Jersey, from 1979 to 1996. He was a Rhodes Scholar and an All-American basketball player at Princeton and later a star with the New York Knicks.

[Gustaf]

At the risk of getting attacked myself....

Why does everyone always gang up on PD?

I guess none of you were ever 15.

I mean, it's one thing to disagree with his views on things.  If you don't like what he says, offer a productive counter-argument.  Better yet, ignore what he says if you don't like it.  Don't attack him.  Personal insults and name calling doesn't make you look too smart, you know.  Not to mention very friendly.

Just my $0.02.

I was 15 5 months ago, so I do remember it pretty well...

If you insult someone you shouldn't except much better in return, and even teenagers have to take responsibility. I don't like leaving offensive and partisan statements unanswered. But I will back down, it isn't interesting to debate with him the way it is with jmfcst, to name one.

[Gustaf]

I was 15 5 months ago, so I do remember it pretty well...

If you insult someone you shouldn't except much better in return, and even teenagers have to take responsibility. I don't like leaving offensive and partisan statements unanswered. But I will back down, it isn't interesting to debate with him the way it is with jmfcst, to name one.

lol  Okay...then I bet none of you BUT Gustaf remembers being 15.  Kidding......

Before you and PD and I thought I'd be the youngest here (I'm 20).  I dunno why I thought that really, I guess I just didn't think there were that many people younger than 20 who'd be interested in politics so much to write on a political message board constantly.  Looks like I was wrong.

Realpolitik claims to be under 20, and M I believe was 17. So there are a rather large number of young people on the board, I think only a few were actually over 30, when the subject was brought up.

[Gustaf]

Realpolitik claims to be under 20, and M I believe was 17. So there are a rather large number of young people on the board, I think only a few were actually over 30, when the subject was brought up.

Holy crap!  I'm so old!

Well, now I can call people "young'n" and tell stories about how when I was a kid I had to walk five miles to school - in the snow, barefoot.

Lol, have you seen the Monty Python sketch with four men talking about their miserable childhood? It's really funny! I think my dad has claimed to have walked barefoot to school, lol...

He and his friends did get chased away from a shed once by their teacher during a snow-storm, b/c she thought it embarassing to the nation that healthy young boys would seek cover...

[Gustaf]

Lol, have you seen the Monty Python sketch with four men talking about their miserable childhood? It's really funny! I think my dad has claimed to have walked barefoot to school, lol...

He and his friends did get chased away from a shed once by their teacher during a snow-storm, b/c she thought it embarassing to the nation that healthy young boys would seek cover...

I haven't seen that Monty Python sketch, no.  But sounds cool!

Here is link to the text of the sketch:

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/judidench/116/poor.html

I would really recommend watching it though, but I'm not sure about which film it is included in. It's called "Four Yorkshire Men", so you could try if you want. Highly recommendable!