Gov. Howard Dean

[jravnsbo]

NO!  he went in to the medical office with the military and brought them papers to get out of it.  he said so on "Hardball"

Plus being inthe military I can't believ ehe did that.  The military of today at least would laugh at you if you brought in documents like that.  Theyw ould still run you through all the tests.

[jravnsbo]

an article from washington times, esp note the end and Dean's lack of religion.

Dean's 'warning flag'
    "Talk to sensible Howard Dean supporters these days, and they'll tell you that the former governor's campaign to date has been a grand sleight of hand," Franklin Foer writes in the cover story for the latest issue of the New Republic.
    "Sure, it has harnessed Bush hatred and antiwar fervor. But the real Dean isn't a frothing lefty like his supporters; he's a closet centrist. Once he finishes exploiting the left's anger to seal the nomination, he will reveal his true self, elegantly pivoting to the middle. ...
    "After the primaries are over, Dean will be able to emphasize his commitment to fiscal discipline, his opposition to gun control, and even the hawkish streak in his foreign policy prior to 2002. (Dean was a rare Democratic supporter of the first Gulf war.) The problem is that, no matter how much he talks about these authentically centrist impulses, Dean will still have a hard time selling himself as a moderate," Mr. Foer said.
    "It's not just his opposition to the war — though that may pose more of a problem now that Saddam Hussein has been captured. No, the real reason Dean will not be able to escape a liberal caricature has little to do with policy and everything to do with a warning flag that will mark him as culturally alien to much of the country: Howard Dean is one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.
    "Dean himself is frank on this point, perhaps too frank. ' don't go to church very often,' the Episcopalian-turned-Congregationalist remarked in a debate last month. 'My religion doesn't inform my public policy.' When Dean talks about organized religion, it is often in a negative context. 'I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore,' he shouted at the California Democratic Convention in March."

[jravnsbo]

hard to argue with your last sentence demrepdan

[jravnsbo]

Some one who purposefully avoided the draft and/or military service especially in the Vietnam era as that is when we last had the draft.

Dean admitted he was hoping to avoid the draft and took in papers signed by a fellow doctor ( conveneient for a rich young doctor with plenty of medical connections) to the military when he was called in for service.  I still laugh at that after being int he military, today they'd have laughed him out of the office if he brought in papers like that.

Then add in that he was unfit because of his back, but then goes skiing in Aspen.

What is a draft dodger?

[jravnsbo]

The election is bush's to lose and unlike 1992, there is no Perot.  There may be a NAder though on left, but Dean keps surging left and Nader may stay out.

Plus in 1988 , no one could believe the polls, everone thought that Bush would win and he did.  remember that quite clearly.

And last brief point Dean is no Clinton.  Clinton was slicka nd polished and spoke well and with thought.  you may love or hate him, but he was slick.  Dean is not polished and talks off the cuff without thought and is running as a hard liberal unlike Clinton who ran as a Moderate member fo the DLC.

[jravnsbo]

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.

[jravnsbo]

-dean: "We are no safer than we were before 9/11"    Well here is the other side to that statement---


Safer now than we were a year ago

John C. Bersia

is on the editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel

Is the United States safer from nuclear attack on the eve of 2004 than it was a year ago?

Even critics of the Bush administration's handling of foreign policy would have to concede that the answer is yes.

Of course, global terrorists - who would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon - pose a perennial, unconventional threat. Still, the United States has made impressive strides toward restricting conventional nuclear wannabes and, thus, their potential as suppliers to other countries and groups.

At the beginning of 2003, three nations with a history of notoriously bad behavior and nuclear-weapons yearnings - Iraq, Libya and North Korea - loomed as persistent problems.

Today, a U.S.-led intervention force has neutralized Iraq and has a free hand to locate and secure any remnants of Baghdad's weapons of mass

destruction. Libya, thanks to diplomatic pressure from Britain and the United States, has agreed to end its WMD programs. And North Korea has engaged in a historic series of meetings with the United States and others to address security concerns, including Pyongyang's nuclear weapons.

Some critics argue that the United States is only marginally safer as a result of those steps. Iraq, they insist, posed a greater threat a decade ago, which justified the first Persian Gulf war. However, they say, that war essentially took care of the danger and persuaded Baghdad to modify its ways, which helps explain the meager findings of U.S. inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.

My response?

Perhaps, but we really don't know at this point. It is equally possible that evidence of nuclear-weapons research and components remains hidden, as was Saddam Hussein until recently.

In Libya's case, the critics either minimize Tripoli's apparent change of heart, suggesting that it's consistent with earlier gestures by that country to improve its international standing, or offer the reminder that Libya has yet to prove its intentions.

My response?

The latest indications of Libya's willingness to act properly warrant a little more enthusiasm. Indeed, Tripoli has begun pressuring various neighboring countries to emulate its stance on weapons of mass destruction. As to verifying Libya's compliance with its new commitments, the United States and Britain have the incentive and the means to hold Tripoli to the highest standards and put it to the test.

And then there's North Korea. Naysayers feel déjÀ vu with today's diplomatic maneuvers, and suggest that it's 1994 all over again, only with Bush coddling the North Koreans instead of Clinton.

My response?

That's a pessimistic and unhelpful perspective, especially in light of the peninsula's volatility and concentration of firepower. Renewed war there could shut down northeast Asia and shake up the rest of the world. I would rather see the Bush administration attempt a dozen diplomatic approaches than prematurely resort to force.    Although the world gained two new nuclear-weapons states - India and Pakistan - in recent years, what strikes me as even more remarkable is that, a half-century into the nuclear age, only eight countries clearly possess such weapons.

By building on its anti-proliferation efforts, particularly with diplomatic initiatives, the Bush administration can aim to keep that number small and the nation safer.

[jravnsbo]

do you meana  state pic?  if so Once again I'm in MN and will move to SD, i guess I could have one but then it will change and I'd just have to answer a number of questions again.  So I didn't bother yet.

Why don't you have an avatar jravnsbo?

[jravnsbo]

and if i went without one, what would it matter.

Can't I enter the arena of political ideas without being affiliated with a party?

[jravnsbo]

Well I am a conservative first.  I like and would vote for some democrats, but they are adying breed int eh Democarat party, such as Zell Miller, and John Breuax

and if i went without one, what would it matter.

Can't I enter the arena of political ideas without being affiliated with a party?

But you're a republican, everybody knows that.

[jravnsbo]

I would consider it vs another Republican.  But I am a big fan of our President as he is doing a great job!


  No way in 2000, b/c Gore was there though.  But i did think Lieberman in 2000 was a smart VP pick.

Well I am a conservative first.  I like and would vote for some democrats, but they are adying breed int eh Democarat party, such as Zell Miller, and John Breuax

and if i went without one, what would it matter.

Can't I enter the arena of political ideas without being affiliated with a party?

But you're a republican, everybody knows that.

Would you vote for Lieberman?

[jravnsbo]

He had Edwards and Gephardt on his short list, or maybe go for Jean Shaheen in NH for woman effect also.

Lieberman helped make Florida close with Jewish vote.

I would consider it vs another Republican.  But I am a big fan of our President as he is doing a great job!


  No way in 2000, b/c Gore was there though.  But i did think Lieberman in 2000 was a smart VP pick.

Well I am a conservative first.  I like and would vote for some democrats, but they are adying breed int eh Democarat party, such as Zell Miller, and John Breuax

and if i went without one, what would it matter.

Can't I enter the arena of political ideas without being affiliated with a party?

But you're a republican, everybody knows that.

Would you vote for Lieberman?

Gore really didn't have much of a choice with his VP nod, there was nobody out there.

[jravnsbo]

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?

[jravnsbo]

I know that's the point, that's why I made it!

couldn't resist.

That's the point.  Deans leftism will turn off a major party of his 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?

[jravnsbo]

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?

[jravnsbo]

Ask Senator Zell Miller (d-GA), John Breaux (D-LA); former US Circuit Ct Judge and Carter AG Griffin Bell what they think of the national Democrat party.  To name just a few.  Many congressional Democrats are scared to death of having to run with Dean and Pelosi as their national party leaders.

Check out Zell Miller's book

"A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat"  

It is far from just about social issues.

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

Absolute Bullsh**t I'm afraid.

conservative Democrat usually means Socially conservative, which is a different thing to conservative.

[jravnsbo]

thanks.  Like I said I'm a conservative but fair, and call them as they are not how them as I want them to be, like Realpolitick.

The NE is very Dem on presidential elections but a lot of liberal to moderate GOPers are winnig there int he Senate and Governors.

I plan on discussing in detail Miller's book.  It is a great one, been very impressed and learning a lot about Democrats too.

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?

GOOD ANSWER

Nice analysis, jravnsbo.

[jravnsbo]

he MAY HAVE BEEN a moderate but he is defintely taking very liberal positions now.

[jravnsbo]

true but some of these positions are so out there, there isn't much pivot room.

Plus this isn't the 1920's where you could tell the party people one thing and the rest of the public something new.  Int he media age all he has said is recorded and able to be played again and again.

he MAY HAVE BEEN a moderate but he is defintely taking very liberal positions now.

He is talking liberal to get the nomination.

[jravnsbo]

Did you see his latest gaff.  Talking about how VT had more Farming than the states of all of his opponents?

Then Gephardt said , HELLO and produced stats how Missouri has 110,000 farms to the 6,600 of VT.

As soon as he said it I was like what?  before Gephardt replied even.  Then it turned out VT is 7th in states of the 9 contenders running.  I would think NC and AR would also have high farm numbers.

[jravnsbo]

I have listed them many times, but tax increases on the middle class, anti-war, civil unions, more gov't regulations    -- all f which in polls are widely unpopular positions.  Wouldn't be bad if just one but he has them all.

true but some of these positions are so out there, there isn't much pivot room.

Plus this isn't the 1920's where you could tell the party people one thing and the rest of the public something new.  Int he media age all he has said is recorded and able to be played again and again.

he MAY HAVE BEEN a moderate but he is defintely taking very liberal positions now.

He is talking liberal to get the nomination.

What are the positions that he is "so out there" on??

[jravnsbo]

Me too and that is a replay so maybe that's his position as he hasn't pivoted on it  YET!

It's about 11:15 and I'm watching Gov. Howard Dean on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews. He was asked boldy, "Did you go into the doctor hoping to be defered?" Dean stated, "YES." That's enough for me.

[jravnsbo]

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.

[jravnsbo]

I heard that just yesterday and about fell off my chair.  What is dean doing?  I mean, maybe God is a republican  If they nominate this guy its like a gift from above.  

How arrogant and demeaning to white people.  We'll educate you b/c your too damn stupid , is essentially what he was saying.  My lord that is not the right approach at all!  

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.

[jravnsbo]

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.