Gov. Howard Dean

[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??

[MAS117]

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]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[agcatter]

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.

[Nolster]

The only "Dean" product I know of is Jimmy Dean sausage which you can either microwave or fry.

[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...

[© tweed]

He is, and I don't have a problem with it.

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

That's sad.

That really is sad.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jravnsbo]

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.

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.

[jravnsbo]

But as I said the administration did not allow us to win.  Heck they stopped the bombing and the press didn't help, we kicked the living cr*p out of them in the Tet offensive and the news said we lost, disgusting.

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.

[© tweed]

If the people don't want to fight it it isn't worth fighting for.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A relative of my was locked up for refusing to do bayonet practice in WW2(he was a pacifist and later ended up teaching soldiers from the Free Polish Army english)

[mtwhitney]

The good thing about Vietnam is that it taught us that a country should not try to finesse a war. Either go full bore, or not at all.

[© tweed]

The good thing about Vietnam is that it taught us that a country should not try to finesse a war. Either go full bore, or not at all.

Is that why you liked Goldwater?  LOL..

[DarthKosh]

If the people don't want to fight it it isn't worth fighting for.

The majority of the colonists did not want to fight the revolution.

[dazzleman]

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.

[mtwhitney]

Goldwater has been proven to be correct on so many issues. He was ahead of his time, and very misunderstood. For example:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

What he was saying here is absolutely correct. After all, what is more extreme than war? And have we not gone to war to defend our liberty? Many times. And should not justice be pursued top the fullest extent? Absolutely. That is why we have so many protections built into the justice system for the accused. Some people feel that we have too many protections for the accused…they want to moderate those protections. He did not.

[© tweed]

If the people don't want to fight it it isn't worth fighting for.

The majority of the colonists did not want to fight the revolution.

Where is the poll that you took your numbers from?

[mtwhitney]

Another great Goldwater quote:

After Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell said 'good Christians' should be worried about Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O’Connor of Arizona, Goldwater told reporters, "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

How can you not love that?