PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives say Dean is unelectable. I say they're afraid of him.


Avalonian
01-06-2004, 09:57 AM
... and further, their fear is evident in every complaint they make about him. For example, from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=233122):

Originally posted by Shodan
Dean is another fuzzy-headed, weak-tea liberal with big talk, no experience, a fatuously ill-informed approach to world politics, and the conviction that if he could just get a hold of my paycheck, the federal government can make it all better. Fortunately, to date his chances of doing so are slim.

This is prime stuff, and this sort of screeching can be heard from every conservative talk show host or pundit from sea to shining sea. It's almost like a script they're reading from at this point. See, for another example, our perennial favorite Bill O'Reilly's comments (http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=298) on Dean:

The man who has benefited the most from the ideological wars of 2003 has to be Howard Dean. Here's a guy who has found fame and power simply by intensely disliking President Bush. I mean, come on, this time last year Howard Dean was wandering around the Green Mountains, and even Ben and Jerry wouldn't talk to him. Now, he's the Democratic front-runner.

I love this stuff... the conservative line on Dean is consistent these days. Dean is a weak candidate, Dean is unelectable, Dean is an extremist, yadda yadda yadda. Can't you just smell the fear motivating these words?

And need I remind you that this was the same sort of thing many said about Bush before he was elected? Just replace "liberal" with "conservative" in Shodan's little temper tantrum above, and you would have heard it often in the 2000 campaign season, from the other side of the political coin. And we all know what happened then...

Tom Tomorrow summed it up well is his last strip of 2003 (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16208) (published on my birthday even!).

Keep it up, lads! The more you rant and rave about Dean being a weak candidate, the more you reveal your fear that he is not only electable, but that he can give your precious man from Texas a real run for his money. I, for one, am looking forward to it.

And I'm predicting that the conservatives trying so hard to convince us of Dean's inelectabilty today will be standing gape-jawed and speechless at the election results in November.

hypnoboth
01-06-2004, 10:05 AM
Absolutely. As a conservative, I am terrrifed of Dean. Nominate him, and show me how effective he is. Terrify me more. Send me running for cover. Horrify me. Make me scream. Shake the boogyman at me. Please, please don't scare me so much. I am so afraid.

Please don't throw me in the briar patch. Please. Please.

Lord Ashtar
01-06-2004, 10:06 AM
Is it at all possible that there are people who really think he's unelectable and are not afraid of him?

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Is it at all possible that there are people who really think he's unelectable and are not afraid of him?

Certainly. However, I would say that those people are (at best) ill-informed, and are buying into the propaganda campaign that has already begun against Dean.

Al Sharpton is unelectable. Given Dean's popularity and fast rise, there are many things you can say about him, but "unelectable" pretty clearly is not one of them. Especially not after the 2000 elections.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-06-2004, 10:15 AM
They're scared because Dean is the only one who seems to want to make Bush's lies about Iraq a major campaign issue. The Bushies don't want to talk about Iraq unless it's patriotic glurge. Their response right now is to whine about negative campaigning and that's ironic coming from a party that villified a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam as unpatriotic and ran campaign ads that showed him in league with with bin Laden and Hussein.

Let's also not forget Shrub's own vicious tactics aginst John McCain during the 2000 primaries.

The last thing the GOP wants this elction to be about is a real examination of GWB. An awful lot of people hate Governor Bush. I have a brother-in-law who who works for a private company that does surveys and opinion polls. he does a lot of political polling and he says that the vehemence of those who hate Bush is even more intense than the ant-Clinton hatred of the 90's.

There is a huge groundswell of anti-Bush resentment out there and Dean is the one who seems most willing to tap into it. This will not be a landslide for Bush no matter how much whistling past the graveyard you hear from GOP shills on televison.

Evil Captor
01-06-2004, 10:20 AM
Conservative pundits say whatever the NRP line is, and right now the talking points about Dean are that he's unelectable. They are strangely silent on Wes Clark, which to my mind means they aren't worried about him.

My feeling is, Dean is about the only real Dem running for the Presidency who has a shot in hell at getting the nomination. Gephart Edwards and Kerry are career pols who aren't all that principled, the D after their names is just their current label, Lieberman is a Republican at heart, and the rest are just also-rans, however admirable they might be as people.

If Gephart (sp?) Kerry or Edwards get the nod, watch for more ineffectual, Republican-lite campaigning that will leave the Democratic faithful uninspired. If Lieberman gets the nod, look for a race to the right, leaving even the Repub centrists wondering who the hell is going to represent them.

Dean's our best hope, the Pubbies clearly intend to split the Dem vote by discouraging the DLC types if Dean wins. My personal feeling is that Bush has governed so badly, that he'll be running not so much against a candidate, but a Coalition of the Outraged who will vote for just about ANYBODY who can beat him.

Bricker
01-06-2004, 10:37 AM
I'd love to see Dean get the Democratic nomination. I may send him a $25 check myself, just to help the process along.

- Rick

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-06-2004, 10:37 AM
I suspect it's a combination of things. Ultimately, Dean represents both more of and less of a risk to conservatives than Gephardt, Kerry, et al.

He's more of a risk because if he gets elected, he can pretty easily claim an anti-conservative mandate; if he does well, he could have significant anti-conservative coattails. He's not approaching this election in a traditional manner; he's not playing it safe; he's making anti-conservatism chic. If he gets into office, he may well push a progressive/liberal agenda and push it hard.

He's less of a risk precisely because he's not approaching the election in a traditional manner. He's approaching it in a very confrontational, risky manner.

So conservatives focus on the latter part to say that he's unelectable. They think the chances of his being elected are very small. But they fear what will happen if he actually is elected.

I think they're off-base on both counts. Dean is both more electable than Shodan et al think, and less radical than they fear. Dean is going to be the Democratic candidate, but the election is nowhere near decided at that point. The performance of the economy, the progress of the Iraq war, the progress of the war against terrorism, the debates, the unfolding of various scandals in both campaigns, and (allow me a moment of idealism) the candidates' stances on issues will determine this election.

Daniel

Bricker
01-06-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
Dean's our best hope, the Pubbies clearly intend to split the Dem vote by discouraging the DLC types if Dean wins. My personal feeling is that Bush has governed so badly, that he'll be running not so much against a candidate, but a Coalition of the Outraged who will vote for just about ANYBODY who can beat him.

I don't doubt for a second that that is your personal feeling. But given Bush's high approval ratings, do you understand that there's a sizeable chunk of the country that doesn't see it that way?

- Rick

John Mace
01-06-2004, 10:47 AM
I've posted this several times before, but it bears repeating here. (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm) There actually is some data showing significant problems for Dean because of 2 of his main campaign stances.

Don't confuse "can get the Democractic nomination" with "can be elected by the general population". Dean certainly can do the former. Whether he can do the latter is anyone's guess.

Brutus
01-06-2004, 10:48 AM
I am scared poopless by a candidate that will run on a anti-war/raise taxes platform. Yep, terrified. Heck, such a platform lead Mcgovern to a landslide victory!

As far as rants go, Avalonian, the OP is pretty lame.

Lord Ashtar
01-06-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Their response right now is to whine about negative campaigning and that's ironic coming from a party that villified a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam as unpatriotic and ran campaign ads that showed him in league with with bin Laden and Hussein.

Boy, am I going to sound ignorant for this hijack, but who are you talking about here?

Mehitabel
01-06-2004, 10:56 AM
hypnoboth, you are Bill Safire (http://www.iht.com/articles/122765.html) and I claim my fifty bucks.

I don't know what's going to happen; I'll vote for Dean if it's him but he's not my choice of Dem. Most of the Dems I know who are following the race (which is not most of the Dems I know yet) feel roughly the same way; not a strong Dean supporter among them yet.

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bricker
I'd love to see Dean get the Democratic nomination. I may send him a $25 check myself, just to help the process along.

Thanks for proving my point. That's a schtick I've heard too often lately.

But given Bush's high approval ratings, do you understand that there's a sizeable chunk of the country that doesn't see it that way?

There's also a sizable chunk of the country that does... and approval ratings at this stage are a poor indicator for November.

Brutus gives another predictable response, complete with McGovern reference. How very Ann Coulter of him!

Originally posted by John Mace
Don't confuse "can get the Democractic nomination" with "can be elected by the general population". Dean certainly can do the former. Whether he can do the latter is anyone's guess.

True enough. In spite of my confidence that Dean can win, the November elections are really anyone's game. However, to state that Dean is "unelectable" is (to me) simply a break with reality. I like what Left Hand of Dorkness had to say about it, actually. Dean is far from the radical the conservatives like to portray him as, and he's certainly electable. Whether he will be elected remains in question.

John Mace
01-06-2004, 11:05 AM
to state that Dean is "unelectable" is (to me) simply a break with reality.
These people are confusing Dean with Kucinich. He's the unelectable one (although he had a great one-liner response to that in Sunday's debate).:)

and approval ratings at this stage are a poor indicator for November.
True as far as it goes. Would you spout that line if Bush's approval rating was 40%? The fact is, it is still better to have a high approval rating than a low one. What is driving that rating is some success in Iraq and an improving economy. Unless you can predict that either of those things is going to change for the worse, it is unlikely that Bush's approval rating will tank.

stolichnaya
01-06-2004, 11:06 AM
The OP makes good points. If they think he'll lose in a landslide, why are they focusing on him as a target? Is it an "any pub is good pub" thing? Why not target the guy whom they perceive to be the big threat, whoever that is?

One answer is that the conservatives who have power in the media are trying to predetermine a Bush/Dean outcome by acting like Dean already has the nomination. That seems improbably nuanced to me.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-06-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Boy, am I going to sound ignorant for this hijack, but who are you talking about here?
Senator Max Cleland of Georgia (http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20021016/opinion/297860.html)

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by John Mace
True as far as it goes. Would you spout that line if Bush's approval rating was 40%?

Being a realist, I'd have to say the same thing. I'd certainly be encouraged if Bush's approval rating were lower, but I'd still say it was too early to be a good indicator.

Originally posted by John Mace
The fact is, it is still better to have a high approval rating than a low one. What is driving that rating is some success in Iraq and an improving economy. Unless you can predict that either of those things is going to change for the worse, it is unlikely that Bush's approval rating will tank.

I'd say that a lot of things can change in 10 months. At the very least, it should be an interesting campaign year.

Debaser
01-06-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by stolichnaya
The OP makes good points. If they think he'll lose in a landslide, why are they focusing on him as a target? Is it an "any pub is good pub" thing? Why not target the guy whom they perceive to be the big threat, whoever that is?


Who are they? The OP mentions "every conservative talk show host or pundit" Stoli refers to "the conservatives who have power in the media".

Do you guys seriously think that there is some sort of conservative groupthink nationwide strategy at work in the US today? Do you have any proof for this outragious claim?

At the very least, do tell us who the participants are in this vast conspiracy. I'm curious.

Shodan
01-06-2004, 11:30 AM
The OP makes good points. If they think he'll lose in a landslide, why are they focusing on him as a target? Because he is the likely nominee.

Dean has been getting a free ride from the other side so far, letting him expend his campaign funds in the race for the Democratic nomination. Now, as the putative nominee, the real campaign is about to begin.

Nice little try at a spin, there, Avalonian, in the "anything bad that you say about Dean means you're scared of him" stuff. You would probably have better luck with a better candidate.
And I'm predicting that the conservatives trying so hard to convince us of Dean's inelectabilty today will be standing gape-jawed and speechless at the election results in November. And my prediction in return is that you better hope those words taste good come next November.

But I guess we will see, won't we?

Regards,
Shodan

PS - Please cite anywhere where I said Dean is "unelectable". He should not be elected, as he is another liberal idiot, but this is different from cannot be elected. Carter, Dukakis, and Mondale were also liberals, but not all of them lost. Dean could win and Bush could lose. But they won't.

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
Do you guys seriously think that there is some sort of conservative groupthink nationwide strategy at work in the US today? Do you have any proof for this outragious claim?

Do you have any proof that I made such a claim? Didn't think so.

To clarify, just in case others are leaping over logic to the conclusion Debaser made, my comment about conservative talk show hosts and pundits was very simple. Every example of such that I've heard recently, from those with nationwide audiences (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the above-quoted Bill O'Reilly, etc.) to those with only local appeal (Seattle's Brian "No Baloney" Maloney (http://www.kiro710.com/show_details.jsp?iShowId=24126), for example), are all parroting pretty much the same line.

Do I think this is a "Groupthink" phenomenon? No, and I didn't say so. I do, however, think that these folks have picked up on a clever tactic and are running with it. A little reverse psychology, a little paranoia, a little snake-oil. I don't know who started it, but that doesn't matter. It's spreading fast. I'm thinking it's probably just the flavor of the month for these guys, but if they really believe everything they're saying, then it only speaks to their own ignorance.

To sum up: not "Groupthink"... just one pundit picking up on the ideas of another, ad nauseam.

Jackmannii
01-06-2004, 11:37 AM
It sounds like a sizable chunk of GOP/conservative pundits would, in fact, be pleased if Dean won the nomination. That doesn't mean he'll be immune to pre-convention attacks to chop him down to size (normal operating procedure).

Kerry and Clark have had some of this treatment already, when it looked more hopeful for their campaigns.

If Dean is nominated and if you use the traditional standard of 55% of the vote as a "landslide", then yes, I think GWB will win in a landslide. Not a happy prospect.

Bricker
01-06-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Avalonian
Thanks for proving my point. That's a schtick I've heard too often lately.

My comments don't prove your point.

They would prove your point if they were motivated by a fear of a Dean candidacy, but since my comments were motivated by a honest desire to see Dean as the Democratic nominee, based on my conviction that he's quite unlikely to beat Bush, they in fact refute your point.

- Rick

stolichnaya
01-06-2004, 11:47 AM
Who are they? The OP mentions "every conservative talk show host or pundit" Stoli refers to "the conservatives who have power in the media".

Do you guys seriously think that there is some sort of conservative groupthink nationwide strategy at work in the US today? Do you have any proof for this outragious claim?

At the very least, do tell us who the participants are in this vast conspiracy. I'm curious.

I thought I'd have trouble with that phrasing on preview. I am in no way alleging that the media is conservative. But there are conservatives who are powerful in the media. These people seem to be moving in lockstep against Dean. Examples I've personally heard: Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage.

There is certainly strategy behind all of their actions, as there is behind any politically influenced speech. I'm not saying they're getting shortwave broadcasts from the RNC telling them to torpedo Dean, but their interests are in line with each other on this issue.

Don't take this as a political salvo. I am genuinely curious as to why Republican mouthpieces would attack Dean pre-primary if they actually want him to be the Democratic condidate. If someone can provide a reasonable reason, I'd be happy to hear it.

From my perception, all Dem candidates are weak v. Bush at this time. It seems unusual to give Dean all of the negative attention, unless the intent is to rally Dem support behind him simply b/c the right hates him. Which is entirely possible, but seems convoluted.

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Shodan
Nice little try at a spin, there, Avalonian, in the "anything bad that you say about Dean means you're scared of him" stuff. You would probably have better luck with a better candidate.

No, you're hedging the issue. My point is that I see very few of the conservative pundits (including you) making valid criticisms of Dean. Rather, they opt for broad insults and meaningless labels. There are certainly valid criticisms of Dean to be made (none of which make him a bad candidate, in my book), but y'all focus on the fluff instead.

I look at it this way: there were many in the 2000 campaign that called Bush an idiot and a fool and said he'd never get elected. I was not one of them. Though Bush is lacking in many other departments, I saw (and still see) that he is very smart poltically, and is possessed of a certain frat-boy charm. I don't personally find it appealing, but obviously, many do. I hoped he wouldn't get elected, but I never said he couldn't be.

The Dean critics (like yourself) are making the same mistake as many liberals made in 2000. You're criticising a Dean that doesn't exist, and missing the boat on the one that does. Your loss.

Originally posted by Shodan
Please cite anywhere where I said Dean is "unelectable". He should not be elected, as he is another liberal idiot, but this is different from cannot be elected.

Well, "liberal idiot" is a good example of what I'm saying. Also, this:

Dean is another fuzzy-headed, weak-tea liberal with big talk, no experience, a fatuously ill-informed approach to world politics, and the conviction that if he could just get a hold of my paycheck, the federal government can make it all better.

Are you saying such a person (if they existed) could be elected?

Dean could win and Bush could lose. But they won't.

Yeah, nice distinction. Try again.

But I guess we will see, won't we?

Yep. Very observant of you.

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Bricker
My comments don't prove your point.

They would prove your point if they were motivated by a fear of a Dean candidacy, but since my comments were motivated by a honest desire to see Dean as the Democratic nominee, based on my conviction that he's quite unlikely to beat Bush, they in fact refute your point.

Interesting.

elucidator
01-06-2004, 12:02 PM
A while ago I posted a link which I am too lazy to go searching for. But the upshot: it was an article about a year before the Clinton/Bush election, to the effect that the hick Governor had no chance against the War Hero Prez, the Dems were in disarray after a brutal internecine primary campaign, yadda blah yadda blah.

A few months ago, Dean was the favorite candidate of the RNC. But that has changed, and changed drasticly.

First, the "grass roots" effect. The Dean campaign has energized a portion of the Apathy Party, long the single most dominant force in our politics. Just like mcGovern, young college types are enthused. But with McGovern, it was easy for the Forces of Darkness to portray them as wildly radical hippy types, hitting America right square in the prejudices. Not this time.

As well, the fundraising. A massive fundraising from small individual donor is a terrifying spectacle for Mr. Rove. You can bet your bippy that everybody who sent Dean $20 is going to vote for him, is going to get off his butt and go to the polls, and take two or three friends with them. And the "get off yer butt" factor is crucial, IMO (I won't add "humble", you guys know me better than that...)

The Troglodyte Right: These are the people that make the honest conservatives cringe with dismay, the Apocalyptic nutbars whose theology is mixture of Cotton Mather and Stephen King. The FoD have had them in thier pockets for years, and they have a very strong "off yer butt" factor: they are motivated, even fanatical.

But the FoD has been unable to deliver. They want and demand a return to the Golden Age of OzzienHarriet, picket fences, and freshly scrubbed children without any illicit thoughts. But no political party can turn back the clock, social change has happened. The FoD has been keeping them in line with promises, soon, they say, soon. But it never happens. It is hard to claim that the dastardly liberals are thwarting God's Will when you have all the reins of power and still can't deliver.

The Patriots: A major bastion of FoD strength, but eroding. These are people who are instinctively uncomfortable with criticizing a "wartime President". The FoD have squeezed every last drop out of this, wrapping themselves in Old Glory at every opportunity, hinting darkly at the disloyalty of, well, me. They are, by and large, working class folks. It is thier children in harms way, thier spouses, thier friends, who aren't coming home bathed in glory as promised. They aren't even coming home, in far too many cases. As of now, I think they're still largely on board, they are loathe to voice an opinion that could be unconsidered as not "supporting our troops".

But doubt is creeping in. At the diner, at the beauty shop, at the workplace, there is somebody who's respectability is impeccable, who has a child or a spouse or a friend serving, and who is voicing his doubt. This makes such thoughts respectable, you can't trump thier bona fides with slurs to thier patriotism, they are most definitely "supporting our troops", but they don't support GeeDubya with the same enthusiasm as they did. Erosion.

This is precisely why GeeDub is so desperate to turn over Iraq to anybody, right now, at once. He cravenly needs those soldiers returning in time for the Support Our President and Re-Elect Our Troops Rally, so that he can bask in thier glory.

Is Dean electable? Yes, but barely. I would still prefer a more attractive candidate, perhaps Clark. And then, of course, there is the money. Towers of money, mountains of money, enough to buy hours and hours of insinuations and innuendos.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all that money was for naught?

John Corrado
01-06-2004, 12:23 PM
Add me to the list of the "don't throw me in that there briar patch, B'rer Fox"ers.

Dean is against a war that Americans support by a 3-2 margin. By landslide numbers.

Bush has a near-60% approval rating as the economy still continues to grow, and as the fighting in Iraq slows down to a halt. Over the course of 2004, the U.S. will pull troops out (by the schedule already set), leaving Dr. Dean to fulminate about how he is against a war that everyone else supports and that is pretty much over.

There may be record levels of anger among Democrats, but what you've got is "more-pissed-off Democrats" rather than "more pissed off Democrats".

Merijeek
01-06-2004, 12:30 PM
How does any of that make them afraid of him?

elucidator has already guessed that sometime after the next inauguration it will be discovered that Republicans were funneling money to the Dean campaign.

That may be going a bit far, but I'll bet that Bush, Rove, and the like are coming in their pants over Dean getting the nomination.

Dean is a big fucking Nothing. Kind of like Al Gore, but at least Gore had the incumbent inertia that give his Nothing a chance of being elected.

If Dean becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee, and I'm not sure that can be prevented short of accidental death, Bush will win*. And the world will be in for another four years of this insanity.

Someone who thinks that the Republicans are afraid of Dean is just in the land of wishful thinking.

-Joe, who will be proven right in ten months, unfortunately

*Barring something huge like Dubya being caught sodomizing young boys on live TV, of course.

elucidator
01-06-2004, 12:43 PM
Dean is against a war that Americans support by a 3-2 margin. By landslide numbers.

Do you Support Our President and Our Troops, or are you a craven, unpatriotic coward?

Ask the right question, you get the right answer.

And yes, the economy appears to be stirring. At least, for the investor class, the Wall Street numbers are going up. But the unemployment numbers are only less dismal, not rosy. To dramaticly impact employment numbers in time to matter, the economy doesn't need to improve, it needs to take off like a skyrocket bat out of Hell, zoom! to the moon!

We'll see.

John Mace
01-06-2004, 12:44 PM
Elucidator:
I would be glad to say that you spin an intersting tale if it was, in fact, intersting. I honestly can't tell what the hell you're talking about, where you get the statistics to back up your ideas*, and what an "FoD" is.

I do remember the Clinton link, though, and just about the only thing missing to make the parallel complete would be Saddam still in power (oops, that's not gonna happen) and an economy that tanks (possible, but unlikely).

*giving you the benefit of the doubt (BotD) by using that word

Spoke
01-06-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by stolichnaya
I am genuinely curious as to why Republican mouthpieces would attack Dean pre-primary if they actually want him to be the Democratic condidate. If someone can provide a reasonable reason, I'd be happy to hear it.

To depress his fundraising ability.

And to diminish the enthusiasm of his grass-roots support.

(Not enough to prevent him from getting the Democratic nomination, mind you. Just enough to dampen his momentum emerging from the nomination process.)

XT
01-06-2004, 12:57 PM
Not going to jump into the middle of the various rants going on. Just going to answer the OP from my perspective.

I think that hard line conservatives (what 'luci fondly refers to as "The Troglodyte Right" and what I think of as the Dinosaur Republicans) ARE in fact afraid of Dean. Mostly because his policies are a direct threat to them should he be elected, and it scares them to death. However, the more moderate Republicans I think are quite pleased (atm) about the prospects of Dean running against Bush because they don't really don't think Dean matches up well against Bush in a general election...and neither do I.

I think someone like Liberman or Kerry are more of a threat in a general election against Bush than Dean is, simply because Dean does not appeal to the middle at all and they both do...especially Liberman IMO. I know several people (myself included) who absolutely will not vote for Dean, even to the point of voting for Bush if Dean runs against him...though they can't stand Bush either. Lesser of two evils from their perspective. From my own, nothing will make me vote Bush, but if Dean runs then I'll probably vote some third party alternative.

Time will tell, but IMO, Dean will lose to Bush unless something radically changes in America in the next few months. Thats a far cry of course from saying that Dean is 'unelectable' of course, but I don't see his chances against Bush as being very good.

-XT

John Mace
01-06-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
Do you Support Our President and Our Troops, or are you a craven, unpatriotic coward?

Ask the right question, you get the right answer.
(my bolding) Make up crap and you can prove anything. But if you look at actual poll questions, (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) you'll see that you are incorrect. For example:

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
Did right thing: 62%
Dec '03

more from 'luci:
And yes, the economy appears to be stirring. At least, for the investor class, the Wall Street numbers are going up. But the unemployment numbers are only less dismal, not rosy. To dramaticly impact employment numbers in time to matter, the economy doesn't need to improve, it needs to take off like a skyrocket bat out of Hell, zoom! to the moon!
Umm, like 8.2% GDP growth? Zoom-zoom!

Once again I guess you need to be reminded that 6% unemployment is just about average for the last 20 yrs. I guess it's been "dismal" all that time, right?

We'll see.
Got that one right. One out of three ain't bad!

John Corrado
01-06-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
[B]Do you Support Our President and Our Troops, or are you a craven, unpatriotic coward?

Ask the right question, you get the right answer.


The specific question, is "Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supported going to war with Iraq, or for a candidate who opposed going to war with Iraq?" (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm)

Seems pretty damned straight-forward to me. I realize that all your friends might be saying, "Oh, man, no, dude, that war was a bigger drag than anything we did against the WTO, dude", but that doesn't mean the country agrees.

And yes, the economy appears to be stirring. At least, for the investor class, the Wall Street numbers are going up. But the unemployment numbers are only less dismal, not rosy. To dramaticly impact employment numbers in time to matter, the economy doesn't need to improve, it needs to take off like a skyrocket bat out of Hell, zoom! to the moon!

We'll see.

Ah, yes, the "investor class", made up of fat cats who light their stogies with penny-ante stocks while plotting the doom of the benighted poor in this country.

Or, it could be that a majority of Americans own stock in some form, and Wall Street numbers going up means good tiding for a majority of Americans, not some elitist circle that hasn't existed in years.

You can talk up unemployment all you want- even all of the jobs lost affect less than 5% of Americans. The stock market, inflation, economic growth- all of those things affect a great many more, and with 91% consumer confidence and an over 50% approval rating for Bush's handling of the economy, the Democrats are going to have to secretly pray for a nose-dive to get any traction whatsoever.

Sterra
01-06-2004, 01:15 PM
Personally I'd agree with the idea that conservatives think that Dean is unelectable and I think that that will be a great boon on election day.

Because the main thing that that does is depress turnout among conservatives.

So, this is one arguement where I will just agree to dissagree.

elucidator
01-06-2004, 01:27 PM
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Predicting the American electorate is like predicting the moods of a diva with PMS and bi-polar disorder.

In a nutshell: the vast majority of Americans belong to the Apathy Party, they don't vote. Dean is energizing a segment of that vote: as I said, everybody who sent him $20 will vote for him, you can bet on that.

Sure, its an uphill struggle. Especially when the other side has a gazillion bucks at its disposal and can shamelessly exploit its "patriotism". But there is hope. I like hope.

(PS: FoD is "Forces of Darkness" Referenced in first sentence. Naturally, I am deeply hurt by your contempt for my "ideas". Alas, once again I shall have to cry myself to sleep clutching my banky! So it goes....)

elucidator
01-06-2004, 01:44 PM
PS to John C.

...I realize that all your friends might be saying, "Oh, man, no, dude, that war was a bigger drag than anything we did against the WTO, dude", but that doesn't mean the country agrees....

This kind of characterization ought to be beneath you. Work on it, won't you?

John Mace
01-06-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
In a nutshell: the vast majority of Americans belong to the Apathy Party, they don't vote. Dean is energizing a segment of that vote: as I said, everybody who sent him $20 will vote for him, you can bet on that.
I dunno. I've given hookers more than $20 and failed to call them later. Do you actually have data showing that these "energized" people are those who would not normally vote? Seriously. I've never seen this anywhere.

Sure, its an uphill struggle. Especially when the other side has a gazillion bucks at its disposal and can shamelessly exploit its "patriotism". But there is hope. I like hope.
We all like hope. It's just that some of us actually use facts to formulate our opinions. Try it sometime. You might find a refreshing reduction in that amount of cognitive dissonance you experience.:)

elucidator
01-06-2004, 02:10 PM
Said before, say again: I have yet to meet a cynic who didn't regard himself as a hard-headed realist.

Patty O'Furniture
01-06-2004, 02:11 PM
Umm, like 8.2% GDP growth? Zoom-zoom!

And in other news, rubber ball thrown into the Grand Canyon results in highest bounceback ever!

rjung
01-06-2004, 02:33 PM
GDP points don't vote. Unemployed workers do.

Sterra
01-06-2004, 02:57 PM
It turns out someone did a poll on Dean's liberal and unelectableness.

Indeed, only 31% of Americans in the TIME/CNN poll consider Dean to be a liberal, and among registered Democrats, just 18% say he is too liberal to be President.

I guess I was wrong when I said that conservatives think that Dean is unelectable. Its the only really hardcore partisans like the ones in this thread that do.

Shodan
01-06-2004, 03:45 PM
Dean is another fuzzy-headed, weak-tea liberal with big talk, no experience, a fatuously ill-informed approach to world politics, and the conviction that if he could just get a hold of my paycheck, the federal government can make it all better.

Are you saying such a person (if they existed) could be elected?
Yes, one was - Jimmy Carter.
Indeed, only 31% of Americans in the TIME/CNN poll consider Dean to be a liberal, and among registered Democrats, just 18% say he is too liberal to be President.You really think this means something?
My point is that I see very few of the conservative pundits (including you) making valid criticisms of Dean. Rather, they opt for broad insults and meaningless labels. Sorry, but you are just wrong here.

Or perhaps I should say you are mostly wrong here. As I mentioned, the campaign is starting, and the free ride from the Republicans is at an end. Dean is now going to experience what is like to run for President against a popular incumbent. Certainly there is going to be discussion of substantive issues, but if you think the insults, mud-slinging, partisan smears, and mockery are going to issue only from the liberals, prepare to be disappointed.

Part of the process, and if you claim that the liberals on the SDMB and elsewhere have focused so far entirely on the issues in a fair-minded way, I am going to laugh at you. They haven't, and they won't. And it would be unwise for Republicans to fight this campaign with one hand tied behind their backs.

What goes around comes around. If you think Dean has been put thru the wringer so far, I assure you that it was no more than a rinse.

Regards,
Shodan

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by John Mace
Umm, like 8.2% GDP growth? Zoom-zoom!

The GDP did not grow 8.2%. It grew at such a rate that if it continued for the whole year it would grow 8.2%.

from CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/gdp/)
gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate

So granted, it did grow quite a bit, and much more than it had been, but it didn't grow 8.2%, either.

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by John Mace
Umm, like 8.2% GDP growth? Zoom-zoom!

The GDP did not grow 8.2%. It grew at such a rate that if it continued for the whole year it would grow 8.2%.

from CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/gdp/)
gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate

So granted, it did grow quite a bit, and much more than it had been, but it didn't grow 8.2%, either.

Tom Ames
01-06-2004, 05:19 PM
I'd really like to see Dean win.

But consider: a lot of the things that the conservatives are saying about him I and other democratic types were saying about Bush before the 2000 primary.

I didn't think Bush could be elected street-sweeper, much less get his party's nomination. (Of course I should've known better, coming from Texas.)

My guess is that the conservatives feel about Dean the way I felt about Bush: that he's unelectable [i]and[/] that they're afraid of him anyway.

Jackmannii
01-06-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
The Dean campaign has energized a portion of the Apathy Party, long the single most dominant force in our politics. Just like mcGovern, young college types are enthused.
Not to sound a discouraging note - but history doesn't hold promising parallels for Dean. Even though young voter turnout hit an historic high in the Nixon-McGovern race of '72, it didn't help McG much (they turned away from him in the later stages of the campaign). According to this site (http://www.presidentelect.org/art_cooper_e1972an.html) "After the (1972) GOP Convention, voters under thirty had switched from approving McGovern by a 48 percent to 31 percent margin, to approving of Nixon by a 61 percent to 36 percent margin. Without the youth vote McGovern's chances of winning had been markedly reduced and Nixon's chances of a landslide had received another boost."

Voter turnout has been crappy in that age group for quite awhile. And while it would be nice to see a huge turnaround in '04 I wouldn't bet the farm on it, or on the likelihood that it'll go heavily for Dean. Or to whichever Dem emerges gasping from the pile of bodies.

CyberPundit
01-06-2004, 06:31 PM
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Interestingly enough Dean does the best among the Democratic candidates against Bush in the latest CNN poll. 51-46. The five point gap is barely outside margin of error and is peanuts compared to likely swings during the actual campaign. Basically polls at this early point are dubious because the majority of respondents barely know who Dean is. However they are somewhat useful in determining trends and making comparisons. If Dean is too liberal to be elected certainly his numbers should be a lot lower than,say, Lieberman but they are not. And this is before the general campaign where he is likely to stress his moderate record in Vermont.

As for the Iraq the polls are positive only for the plain-vanilla question about support for the war. If you ask whether the war was worth the costs incurred, generally you only get minority support. For instance 42 to 47 against in the latest CBS poll. Unfortunately for Bush, the Dean campaign is certainly going to hammer the cost of the war during the campaign repeatedly: especially the 87 billion dollars that Bush requested for the year. So the majority support for the war in the abstract is going to be trumped by the fact that many people hate the huge cost of the war.
http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Overall I think Dean has a good chance of winning. I think his biggest weakness might be his tax plan. I think the tax plans of Lieberman,Clark and ironically Kucinich are both more politically effective and better economically (and more progressive in that they reduce the tax burden for the middle class).

I still think that Wesley Clark has a better chance of beating Bush. He will be really effective attacking Bush's national security failures. And IMO his tax plan will be political dynamite:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

Hail Ants
01-06-2004, 07:17 PM
It's going to be 1988 all over again. A moderate republican vs. a liberal New England governor.

And especially so this year, because even if nothing bad or good happens between now and Nov, the 2004 presidential election is essentially going to be a referendum on Sept 11th. And the anti-Bush crowd is going to have a rude awakening when they see how many people still unabashedly vote America first.

Dean's "Did Bush know about it" comment is going to be his 'riding in a tank looking like an incompetent boob' moment.

Tejota
01-06-2004, 07:34 PM
I disagree. Conservatives aren't smart enough (or clued in enough?) to be afraid of Dean. They OUGHT to be afraid, but they aren't.

Instead. They think all kinds of things that have no basis in reality. Like Hail Ants who think Bush is actually a moderate. (Hint Ants, he only plays one on TV... badly).

or John who thinks: <i>Or, it could be that a majority of Americans own stock in some form, and Wall Street numbers going up means good tiding for a majority of Americans, not some elitist circle that hasn't existed in years. </i> Hint, John. There's a huge difference between owning a bit of stock, (the majority), and owning enough to make voting decisions based on that fact (a tiny minority). The vast majority of American stock owners have their stock tied up in retirement accounts that they can't touch for years or even decades, and which are substantially underwater from where they were before Bush was selected. The notion that the majority of Americans vote their stock portfolio is pure wishful thinking.

Dean's "Did Bush know about it" comment is going to continue to resonate and prey on people's minds more and more over the course of the next year. People want to believe that he didn't know. But the fact that he's stonewalling the investigation, and that he has failed to hold anyone accountable for the massive failure that was 9/11 suggests that the people who are guilt of neglegence for 9/11 are too close to him to be fired. Perhaps even himself. If he can't erase the doubts that are building on that score, it's going to come back and bite him in the ass.

Shodan
01-06-2004, 07:55 PM
The notion that the majority of Americans vote their stock portfolio is pure wishful thinking.
Which fully accounts for the two crushing defeats suffered by Ronald Reagan, no doubt.
Dean's "Did Bush know about it" comment is going to continue to resonate and prey on people's minds more and more over the course of the next year. Only if you have paranoid tendencies already.

There is a difference between "resonating" and having a head so empty that things echo. Dean's comment is an unfortunate pandering to the tin-foil hat wing of the Loony Left. I am sure it will go over big with Ramsey Clark and his Band of Renown, but normal folk? I kind of doubt it.

The fact that Dean would try it, and that it would find some kind of traction even on the SDMB, says far more than you want revealed about the nature of the more fervent of Dean's Fiends.

YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

John Mace
01-06-2004, 08:27 PM
elucidator wrote:
Said before, say again: I have yet to meet a cynic who didn't regard himself as a hard-headed realist.
Hard-headed, yes.:)

Don't get me wrong. I think Dean can beat Bush. I'm not buying the "Dean is a liberal" line. Paul Wellstone was a liberal. Dennis Kucinich is a liberal. Carol M-B is a liberal. Dean is a fairly centrist Democrat. There's a lot about Dean that I like, too. I just don't think the facts, as we know them now, support a win by him in Nov. But a lot could change between now and then.

Sam Stone
01-06-2004, 08:31 PM
The hard-core dems on this board are in denial. While it's true that anything can change, and that 10 months is a long, long time in presidential campaigns, we're trying to base our estimates on the numbers today, because that's the best we can do.

And today, the numbers favor Bush over Dean by a staggering margin. The economy is going up, Bush is the incumbent, the shifting electoral map due to the census of 2000 gives Bush a further 7 vote margin in the electoral college, Bush's popularity rating is higher than any other President at this point in his first term in over 30 years, and the country has moved towards the Republicans overall by 5-7 percentage points.

Add in the fact Republicans have a natural advantage over Democrats when it comes to security and the increase of conservatives in the young population and among women, and you set the stage for a potential Bush landslide.

Dean is at a much bigger advantage than Clinton was. First, Clinton was far more conservative than Dean. And second, Clinton came along at a time when the public was tired of 12 years of Republicans, plus everyone thought it was the 'end of history', peace in our time, and the 'peace dividend' was the only military issue anyone wanted to talk about. Plus, the economy was on the downswing under Bush I, and he ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. All of this worked heavily in Clinton's favor, and all of these trends are now reversed and work against Dean.

Can Dean win? Sure. A major Bush scandal, a large terrorist attack that highlights incompetence in Homeland Security, a stalled recovery leading to a 'double dip' (very unlikely now), or any number of other events could change things around. Also, I expect Dean to race to the center as soon as he has the nomination locked up, and it remains to be seen how he comes across once he starts talking about fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, his support for gun rights, etc. He may yet turn out to be an appealing candidate.

But there is no evidence of any of this, so the best we can do is judge the man based on what he's shown us so far, and predict the results of the election based on the trends we can observe today. And based on that, if I were a betting man (and I've been known to place a bet or two), I'd give you 2-1 odds for Bush over Dean.

Sam Stone
01-06-2004, 08:32 PM
Dean is at a much bigger advantage than Clinton was.

I meant DISadvantage.

Avalonian
01-06-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
There is a difference between "resonating" and having a head so empty that things echo. Dean's comment is an unfortunate pandering to the tin-foil hat wing of the Loony Left. I am sure it will go over big with Ramsey Clark and his Band of Renown, but normal folk? I kind of doubt it.

The fact that Dean would try it, and that it would find some kind of traction even on the SDMB, says far more than you want revealed about the nature of the more fervent of Dean's Fiends.

Way to address the issues there yet again. :rolleyes:

Part of the process, and if you claim that the liberals on the SDMB and elsewhere have focused so far entirely on the issues in a fair-minded way, I am going to laugh at you. They haven't, and they won't. And it would be unwise for Republicans to fight this campaign with one hand tied behind their backs.

I didn't claim that liberals aren't/won't be doing that... and if you look, you'll find that I criticize them for the same behavior. Generally speaking, it's what I despise most about modern American politics -- the instinctive lunge for the bottom of the barrel, the scandal, the personal insult. I see you seem to enjoy it there. So be it.

What goes around comes around. If you think Dean has been put thru the wringer so far, I assure you that it was no more than a rinse.

On the contrary, my friend... I encourage you and those like you to continue down the path of the lowest common denominator. If all you can do against Dean is sling shallow, meaningless insults, then I'm even more confident that Dean could win the day.

pkbites
01-06-2004, 08:38 PM
I wouldn't vote for Dean if you had a gun to my head! (and if Dean supporters have their way, nobody will have any guns to put to my head!:rolleyes: )
Dean is making the classic mistake of running to the left. Dukakis made this mistake, as did McGovern, and even Gore.
Clinton ran to the right. Remember the "no more tax and spend philosophy, we reject it" ads Clinton ran? That's as anti-left of an ad you'll ever get out of a Dem.

One of the wisest political statements ever came from, of all people, Nixon: "Run to the right, govern from the middle" (or something like that). In 21st century america, running to the left is not going to get you elected President.

Reeder
01-06-2004, 08:53 PM
Of course they are afraid of him. He is raising enough money to run without using matching funds. Which IMHO is dead after this election. But he's raising his money from the common man. Not from 2k a plate fund raisers. How many common people could afford that?

Just as an aside. Y'all notice how well he has handled the attacks from most of the dem candidates? He will handle the attacks from the RNC even better.


Brutus, Shodan, Sam. Save the tax dollars Bush has given you. It's the last out of treasury you will get.


Dean/Edwards in '04

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by pkbites
(and if Dean supporters have their way, nobody will have any guns to put to my head!:rolleyes: )

Which kinda makes you wonder why he was endorsed by the NRA for governor (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/elec04.prez.kerry.dean.guns.ap/), huh?

Evil Captor
01-06-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by John Corrado
Ah, yes, the "investor class", made up of fat cats who light their stogies with penny-ante stocks while plotting the doom of the benighted poor in this country. Or, it could be that a majority of Americans own stock in some form, and Wall Street numbers going up means good tiding for a majority of Americans, not some elitist circle that hasn't existed in years.

It's kind of obvious that the "majority" of Americans who own stock "in some form" own it in the form of pension plan funds and stock in the company they work for. Fluctuations in the stock market mean very little to them. Only the poor souls who have all their money invested in a single criminal corporation like Enron or Adelphia are totally at risk. As far as being deeply concerned in the stock market, that's still a game for fat cats ... who are not at ALL interested in plotting the doom of the U.S. ... but who are pretty much indifferent to anything but their own personal wealth. Nice try, though.

You can talk up unemployment all you want- even all of the jobs lost affect less than 5% of Americans.[b]

Absolutely untrue. When American are unemployed, a LOT of people are affected. Their families, whom they borrow money from. Their friends, whom they borrow money from. Their former coworkers, whom they borrow money from. Everybody hates it when somebody they know loses a job. And a lot of people have been losing their jobs and not getting them back, or getting jobs back that are so piss-poor that they barely constitute employment.

[b]The stock market, inflation, economic growth- all of those things affect a great many more, and with 91% consumer confidence and an over 50% approval rating for Bush's handling of the economy, the Democrats are going to have to secretly pray for a nose-dive to get any traction whatsoever.

91 percent consumer confidence? In what? Jesus? Where did that come from.

And yea, the Dems hope the numbers will change, but they dont' have to hpe for any particular mechanism for that change. I just hope a lot of people come to their senses.

Brutus
01-06-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
91 percent consumer confidence? In what? Jesus? Where did that come from.

And yea, the Dems hope the numbers will change, but they dont' have to hpe for any particular mechanism for that change. I just hope a lot of people come to their senses.


Are you attempting to be witty and/or sarcastic, or have you never actually heard of the Consumer Confidence Index? (http://www.conference-board.org/) It is a rather important figure, you know. Or don't know.

John Mace
01-06-2004, 09:34 PM
EC wrote:
91 percent consumer confidence? In what? Jesus? Where did that come from.
Here. (http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm)

Actually, it's down from 92% in Nov. I guess you can hope that is a trend...

FriarTed
01-06-2004, 09:52 PM
I will agree the guns comment was inaccurate & a ...wait for it... cheap shot (HA HA! I KILL MYSELF!)

Anyway I don't think it'll be a total blowout in favor of Bush (& lots of stuff can happen in the meantime to hurt him) but right now, if nothing major happens, I think we'll see a Bush-Dean race end up about at 55-45%.

The Triumph the Insult Comic Dog in me says "Ohhhh, Howard Dean- a fine candidate, the best hope for a moderate-liberal Presidency, a great representative of the Democratic Party....

FOR BUSH TO POOP ON!!!

But I keed! I keed!"

No I don't *L*

John Mace
01-06-2004, 10:18 PM
Tejota wrote:
Conservatives aren't smart enough (or clued in enough?) to be afraid of Dean.
Well, how can anyone argue with an indisputable, scientific fact like that? :rolleyes:

squeegee
01-06-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
A while ago I posted a link which I am too lazy to go searching for. But the upshot: it was an article about a year before the Clinton/Bush election, to the effect that the hick Governor had no chance against the War Hero Prez, the Dems were in disarray after a brutal internecine primary campaign, yadda blah yadda blah.Here you go. It's a pretty good article, and well worth reading, whichever way you lean.

Can Clinton Save his Candidacy? (http://www.worldandi.com/public/1992/june/cr6.cfm)

pkbites
01-06-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by St. Urho
Which kinda makes you wonder why he was endorsed by the NRA for governor (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/elec04.prez.kerry.dean.guns.ap/), huh?


No. It makes me wonder why people trust pols who flip flop on issues. Your own Cite said:

Dean assures voters on the campaign trail this year that he supports the federal assaults weapons ban enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Know your facts before you write a smart ass post.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-06-2004, 10:53 PM
How is that a flip-flop? Does supporting gun rights mean that you can't support any regulation at all?

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 10:55 PM
And Bush has said that he supports the assault weapon ban, too. Also, a ban on assault weapons is a far cry from wanting to completely end private gun ownership.

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 10:59 PM
Sorry, I meant to put this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.gunban/) in there.


"The president said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable," Fleischer said. "He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today."

pkbites
01-06-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by St. Urho
And Bush has said that he supports the assault weapon ban, too. Also, a ban on assault weapons is a far cry from wanting to completely end private gun ownership.

A ban is a ban. It's just a beggining. First it's "assault" weapons, then handguns, then any gun.
I've attacked Bush several times on these boards in regards to this, and have pointed out that he is not the friend to gun owners he tries to appear to be.
I live by the motto that those not with me are against me. The "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ban is a crock of shit anyway, as the weapons banned are nothing more than common rifles that "looked" evil. Many rifles that did the same thing the banned weapons did (a great example is the Ruger mini-14) were not banned because they did not look evil. The Ruger fires the same ammo as the Colt AR-15, accepts a 30 round mag, is a semi-auto, etc., yet it wasn't specifically named in the ban because it didn't "look" like a military weapon.

But forget about all this, as it was not the main point of my original post. My main point is that Dean cannot win because he's running too hard to the left. When the general election comes around and all the voters see what he is, he'll be lucky to get anything besides Vermonts electoral votes. Extremists on either side (like Dean & Buchannan) are populists, and only recieve a fraction of a minority of the total vote. My cite is American history.

St. Urho
01-06-2004, 11:50 PM
Fair enough. My point was that Dean isn't running as far to the left as some would like to make him out to be, particularly on the issue of gun control. In addition he's fairly fiscally conservative, especially in regards to balancing the budget. He is farther to the left on social issues and health care, so I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-06-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by pkbites
A ban is a ban. It's just a beggining. First it's "assault" weapons, then handguns, then any gun.
I've attacked Bush several times on these boards in regards to this, and have pointed out that he is not the friend to gun owners he tries to appear to be.
I live by the motto that those not with me are against me. The "ASSAULT WEAPONS" ban is a crock of shit anyway, as the weapons banned are nothing more than common rifles that "looked" evil. Many rifles that did the same thing the banned weapons did (a great example is the Ruger mini-14) were not banned because they did not look evil. The Ruger fires the same ammo as the Colt AR-15, accepts a 30 round mag, is a semi-auto, etc., yet it wasn't specifically named in the ban because it didn't "look" like a military weapon.

But forget about all this, as it was not the main point of my original post. My main point is that Dean cannot win because he's running too hard to the left. When the general election comes around and all the voters see what he is, he'll be lucky to get anything besides Vermonts electoral votes. Extremists on either side (like Dean & Buchannan) are populists, and only recieve a fraction of a minority of the total vote. My cite is American history.
Watch your step, folks. It's a slippery slope (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).

pkbites
01-07-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Watch your step, folks. It's a slippery slope (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).

Uh-huh. Interesting.

Tell me about all the Dodge City style shoot-outs that are happening up in Minnesota (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=187024) because of CCW, DIO.:D

You're just as guilty as believing in the slippery slope theory as everyone else is, only the issues are different.

But sometimes the slope really is slippery: let's see what comes first: more gun bans, or carnage in the streets by permit holders.

elucidator
01-07-2004, 12:52 AM
Well, lets not forget the people factor here. Minnesotans are just as fuckin' weird as the stories say. But they are comparatively relaxing to live amongst. I entirely suspect that there will be more accidental injuries due to concealed carry laws here than any other kind. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

But when I was a wee lad, "studying for the gallows", the Waco Tribune had a special section of the paper, lower right hand side of the comics page, where they ran the stories of who got shot at the Dew Drop Dead Inn last night. It wasn't till I moved away that I found out that not every city the size of Waco, TX, has somebody getting shot every few days or so.

Of course, in those days it was only concealed weapons that were regulated, and no more than 2 concealed weapons at any given time. Gotta draw the line somewhere. And, of course, the law did not specify that only white folks could carry concealed guns. But if you think otherwise you're dumber than you look.

Minnesotans, for the most part, are smart enough to "conceal carry" a handgun responsibly. They're just not dumb enough to want to.

Evil Captor
01-07-2004, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by St. Urho
Fair enough. My point was that Dean isn't running as far to the left as some would like to make him out to be, particularly on the issue of gun control. In addition he's fairly fiscally conservative, especially in regards to balancing the budget. He is farther to the left on social issues and health care, so I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.

He's not nearly as far to the left as the conservatives would like to paint him, and of course should he get the Dem nomination, he'll move to the center very very quickly. He just knows who his constituency is, which is more than I can say for the other Dem candidates.

Shodan
01-07-2004, 07:08 AM
On the contrary, my friend... I encourage you and those like you to continue down the path of the lowest common denominator. If all you can do against Dean is sling shallow, meaningless insults, then I'm even more confident that Dean could win the day. Oh yes, high-minded debate is the order of the day amongst Dean supporters. Apart from the MoveOn websites posting ads comparing Bush to Hitler, paranoid accusations that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and so forth.

So you think Republicans are the ones slinging "shallow, meaningless insults"? Pardon me while I wet my pants laughing. Read practically anything the far left has ever posted about Bush on the SDMB. Then, by all means, continue to whistle past the graveyard of the upcoming election.

This reminds me of Pauline Kael's famous line after 1972. She couldn't understand how Nixon got re-elected, since "nobody I know voted for him". You guys are starting to convince yourselves of your own rhetoric. Fine with me, of course, just as it was fine with me when the Sandinistas convinced themselves they could win genuine elections in Nicaragua back in the 80s. It's a bad mistake to confuse the orthodoxy of the Left with reality.

Although it will be interesting to hear what you have to say when Bush wins, and the Florida Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.

Anything can happen, of course, and Dean is likely to run as fast as he can back to the middle now that the nomination is his to lose. He is trying to do so now with his religious references. On the other hand, the campaign is starting in earnest, and already the Dems have had to back-peddle furiously on the Bush-Hitler thing. There will be other gaffes forthcoming shortly, no doubt.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes the Cynic
01-07-2004, 09:23 AM
There is no "Bush-Hitler thing," and the "Dems" have no back-pedalling to do since they never pedalled that way in the first place.

Neither the DNC nor Moveon had nothing to do with the production of the ad, it was submitted with over a thousand other entries as part of a contest. All the ads were initially posted unedited on the site to be voted on. It was soundly rejected by the voters and removed by the site along with a repudiation and an apology.

If Moveon was guilty of anything it was of posting raw submissions on its site without reviewing them. To try to generalize the ad as a tactic of the Democrat Party is dishonest, disingenuous and offensive.



Personally, I liked the ad but I'm not a Democrat.

Neurotik
01-07-2004, 09:50 AM
In Time's latest issue, if the election were held today, with Bush as the Rep candidate and Dean as the Dem, 51% said they would vote for Bush and 46% for Dean. That's hardly unsurmountable by Dean in one year and hardly makes him unelectable.

Shodan
01-07-2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
There is no "Bush-Hitler thing,"...

If by this you mean that the ad was a nasty lie, you are correct.
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Neither the DNC nor Moveon had nothing to do with the production of the ad...
So soliciting the thing and posting on your website means "having nothing to do with it"? I do not think these words mean what you wish them to mean.

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It was soundly rejected by the voters and removed by the site along with a repudiation and an apology. Actually, according to what I heard on the radio this morning, MoveOn first lied about having it on their website. The RNC was able to document that this was, in fact, untrue, and showed the ad on their website to forestall further prevarication. Both parties have subsequently removed the offensive ad.
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
To try to generalize the ad as a tactic of the Democrat Party is dishonest, disingenuous and offensive. In other words, Homebrew and others are being dishonest and offensive in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=233494), because they are blaming a whole political party for one ad. Right? Or are your standards as flexible as they often tend to be?

Regards,
Shodan

elucidator
01-07-2004, 10:13 AM
...when the Sandinistas convinced themselves they could win genuine elections in Nicaragua back in the 80s. It's a bad mistake to confuse the orthodoxy of the Left with reality....

Interesting you should bring that up, Shodan. Remember, if you can, that these were the same people depicted by the Reagan regime as being totalitarian Commies, bent on establishing an iron autocracy of the Left. Your spin is, like, totally awesome, dude.

They held the elections. They lost to a center-right coalition and, with the dastardly cunning so prevalent to the Left, handed over the governance of Nicaragua to the winners.

You think we'd do the same? Do you think that if every indication is that popular elections in Iraq will legitimize a regime hostile to America and its "interests".....do you think such an election will be permitted to go forward?

And if you don't, then which of the two....Sandanistas or America....most truly represents the principles of democracy?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-07-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Shodan
If by this you mean that the ad was a nasty lie, you are correct.

What did it say that was a lie? It just expressed a subjective opinion that some (not me) found offensive.
So soliciting the thing and posting on your website means "having nothing to do with it"? I do not think these words mean what you wish them to mean.
They didn't solicit Hitler-Bush comparisons they solicited anti-Bush ads in general.
Actually, according to what I heard on the radio this morning, MoveOn first lied about having it on their website. The RNC was able to document that this was, in fact, untrue, and showed the ad on their website to forestall further prevarication. Both parties have subsequently removed the offensive ad.
Well if you heard it on the radio it must be true. :rolleyes:

I don't suppose you have an objective cite?
In other words, Homebrew and others are being dishonest and offensive in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=233494), because they are blaming a whole political party for one ad. Right? Or are your standards as flexible as they often tend to be?
tu quoque, Shodan?

The Max Cleland ad was actually run by a Republican candidate for the Senate in an actual campaign. The Bush-Hitler ad has no affiliation with any candidate, any party or any campaign.

Even if Homebrew was a hypocrite it still wouldn't make your generalizations in this thread any more valid.

Weird_AL_Einstein
01-07-2004, 11:04 AM
Avalonian: A question, if I may. What could Republicans, or Bush supporters, say or do that could disprove the thesis you put forth in your OP?

Mehitabel
01-07-2004, 11:40 AM
Hmmm...it's just the NY Post and some Australian rag, but here's an article saying that the foe Bush fears most is....drum roll...Joe Lieberman! (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072004/news/nationalnews/5105.htm)

"Newspapers report that George Bush told the prime minister who he thinks would be the toughest Democrat for him to run against. What do you think he said? Howard Dean? No way. George Bush said that Joe Lieberman would be the toughest Democrat to beat," the ad continues.

Maybe because Joe is, in some ways, 'closest' to Bush? The attacks he'll make against Dean won't hold as much water against Joe.

And I'd love to see the anti-Dean ad mentioned at the end :D

Avalonian
01-07-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein
Avalonian: A question, if I may. What could Republicans, or Bush supporters, say or do that could disprove the thesis you put forth in your OP?

Very simple, really... substantive, issue-based criticism of Dean. I've seen some, but frankly, most of the valid criticisms I've seen of Dean have come from the left, not the right (though much of the criticism from the left amounts to Dean not being liberal enough (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/DVNS_Howard-Dean.htm), which is amusing, considering what conservatives say about him). The right continues to bleat about Dean as an extremist, etc, but fails to come up with much in the way of substantive criticism.

I'd love to see someone point out why Dean is wrong about... well, apparently about everything. People say he's wrong to criticize the war in Iraq. Why are his criticisms wrong? People say he's wrong to say he would pursue the due process of law against Osama bin Laden. Why is that wrong? People say he's wrong to pursue reversal of the Bush tax cuts. Why is that wrong?

Basically, I'd like to see discussion of the issues regarding Dean... not whether he's "too liberal" or "not liberal enough" or "too extreme." Rather than using meaningless labels, I'd like to see some actual thought go into criticism of Dean, and why he's so much less appealing than (for example) Lieberman. Of course, I can see why Lieberman is appealing... to conservatives.

But no... I'm disappointed to find that most of the conservatives here, as elsewhere, are satisfied with using the most simplistic and least meaningful terms possible to "criticize" Dean. Now, they've tried to bring in the MoveOn.org "Bush-Hitler" ad issue into this discussion, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with Howard Dean or his campaign. Of course, Dean's guilty even by the thinnest of associations to these simple-minded folk. All liberals are apparently guilty of sanctioning those ads because one made it.

Thanks, by the way, to Shodan for continuing to prove my point by bringing up that particular hijack.

That's the level of dicussion I guess we can expect from conservatives in the coming year. Still more pandering to the very lowest common denominator. I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised.

Shodan
01-07-2004, 02:45 PM
But no... I'm disappointed to find that most of the conservatives here, as elsewhere, are satisfied with using the most simplistic and least meaningful terms possible to "criticize" Dean. This immediately preceding an attempt to dismiss one of the most blatant Godwin-izing it is possible to imagine.

I like you. You're funny.

Regards,
Shodan

Bricker
01-07-2004, 02:53 PM
On the day that Saddam Hussein was captured, Dean announced that America was "no safer." We can certainly debate the truth of that statement; the general reaction from middle America at the capture was positive. Dean's comment was ill-timed.

Dean told the Concord Monitor that he did not want to prejudge the guilt or innocence of bin Laden. In defending that point, he ended up making a legalistic distinction that was lost on many, especially as he conceded that there was no real doubt as to bin Laden's role in the 9-11 attacks. Again, while his comment was perhaps technically defensible, it was something that opponents can use to good effect to suggest he's wishy-washy. Not helping matters, Dean later said that a death sentence would be a just punishment for bin Laden, when he ultimately is found.

These illustrate what I mean when I say that I would love for Dean to be the Democratic candidate -- he will give the Republican ad writers plenty to attack.

I gather you're looking, Avalonian, for more substantive discussion of Dean's actual stands on issues. While those are certainly debatable, I agree that Dean on issues isn't paritcularly deadly. Dean on off-the-cuff comments is what makes Dean deadly, and why I'd love to see him end up running -- his verbal gaffes will be an easy distraction from any attempts he'll make to focus on issues.

Avalonian
01-07-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
This immediately preceding an attempt to dismiss one of the most blatant Godwin-izing it is possible to imagine.

I dismissed it because it has nothing to do with Dean, which is what we're discussing here.

If you wish to discuss the "Bush-Hitler" ads, take it to the Pit thread where it's being discussed at length. I repeat, it has nothing to do with Dean. Is that such a difficult concept? Or are you actually trying to associate the two, rather than just sneakily implying an association?

stolichnaya
01-07-2004, 03:02 PM
...I agree that Dean on issues isn't paritcularly deadly. Dean on off-the-cuff comments is what makes Dean deadly, and why I'd love to see him end up running -- his verbal gaffes will be an easy distraction from any attempts he'll make to focus on issues.

This is why a Bush/Dean debate will be something to clean out the TiVo for. I am drooling in anticipation. Two guys who scare the shit out of their handlers under the hot lights.

Avalonian
01-07-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Bricker
On the day that Saddam Hussein was captured, Dean announced that America was "no safer." We can certainly debate the truth of that statement; the general reaction from middle America at the capture was positive. Dean's comment was ill-timed.

Perhaps it was ill-timed... but was it wrong? Are we indeed safer just because one man was captured? I don't think so... these days, I hear most people don't think so either.

Dean told the Concord Monitor that he did not want to prejudge the guilt or innocence of bin Laden. In defending that point, he ended up making a legalistic distinction that was lost on many, especially as he conceded that there was no real doubt as to bin Laden's role in the 9-11 attacks. Again, while his comment was perhaps technically defensible, it was something that opponents can use to good effect to suggest he's wishy-washy. Not helping matters, Dean later said that a death sentence would be a just punishment for bin Laden, when he ultimately is found.

I found Dean's stance to be entirely consistent, and frankly, the most appealing. But again, was it actually wishy-washy, ir was it just portrayed that way? My feeling was that it was consistent with Dean's views in general, and that he didn't "waffle" for a moment on it. However, his opponents certainly leapt to portray the comments that way.

My point is, conservatives are criticizing a Howard Dean who does not exist, which is a mistake many liberals made in 2000 with GW. I'm not trying to advise them on how they should be criticising him, but I find the parallels absolutely fascinating.

Dean on off-the-cuff comments is what makes Dean deadly, and why I'd love to see him end up running -- his verbal gaffes will be an easy distraction from any attempts he'll make to focus on issues.

You could say exactly the same thing about Bush, both during 2000 and now... and many have said exactly that. Bush "off-the-cuff" is often a dubious prospect at best... and yet he won in 2000, and enjoys high approval ratings at the moment.

Perhaps, with Bush and Dean both in the race, the only thing left to focus on is the issues. ;)

(on preview) heh... or what stolichnaya said.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-07-2004, 03:30 PM
Bricker, if elections were decided on verbal gaffes, would we really have the president we've got?

Daniel

elucidator
01-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Hubris may describe it best. This may just be an intuitive take, but I see the Pubbies as having lost contact with any sense of vulnerability. They have finally gotten to the Promised Land, all the effective reins of governance in hand. And so shall it be, forever and ever, amen,....

Or maybe not. The "maybe not" part is pretty clear to a lot of us, but maybe not to them. They seem perfectly willing to brazen out the whole question of the justification for war. probably because the think they can count on American's natural reluctance to criticize someone who presents himself as a Wartime Leader.

When they started pushing for Dean, they didn't think anybody could beat them. Probably still don't. Which is good. Because they're wrong.

Stoli, you've pointed out a very cheerful prospect, one which I hadn't considered! That would be one hell of a debate. None of the handlers of either of these men will be able to unpucker thier assholes enough to shit for a week! If they need an enema, if it will have to be accomplished by hypodermic needle!

I can hardly wait! What is the earliest date such a thing might be scheduled?

jayjay
01-07-2004, 04:16 PM
Hehe...the thought of Karl Rove living on Tums for the entire campaign...I like it!

Brutus
01-07-2004, 06:06 PM
Who plays Dean on SNL?

Evil Captor
01-07-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Bricker
Dean on off-the-cuff comments is what makes Dean deadly, and why I'd love to see him end up running -- his verbal gaffes will be an easy distraction from any attempts he'll make to focus on issues.

Well, you seem to be saying that the Bush administration must seek to distract voters from any campaign that focusses on the issues. So, you admit that the Bush administration is weak on the issues. Progress at last!

I knew you had it in you.

SnoopyFan
01-07-2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
Dean's Fiends.

Deanie Babies

:D

Sam Stone
01-07-2004, 07:18 PM
You want substantive criticism of Dean? Fine. Here you go:

First, Dean says he wants to 'Re-regulate' business. Not just financial shenanigans like Enron, but he wants to implement whole reams of new regulations on businesses of all kinds. He particularly mentioned big media, telecom, utilities, the airlines, and ANY business that offers stock options. That is a LOT of businesses. Taken at his word, Dean wants government to interfere in business to an extent not seen since the early 1970's. This would be extremely damaging to the economy. We need less regulation, not more.

Dean also wants to repeal the Bush tax cut. Not just on the rich, but the whole package. That would throw a big wrench into the current economic recovery.

Dean's position on the war on terror is unfathomable. He says he's not sure if Bin Laden is guilty. He opposed the war in Iraq. Just what in hell would Dean do? It's not clear. Seeing as this is the most important issue in the election, you'd think he'd actually have, you know, a plan. If he does, he sure hasn't articulated it well. Can anyone explain Dean's comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror?

John Mace
01-07-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by CyberPundit
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Interestingly enough Dean does the best among the Democratic candidates against Bush in the latest CNN poll. 51-46.
You misread the link. The latest CNN poll show it 59-37.

squeegee
01-07-2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Sam Stone
Dean's position on the war on terror is unfathomable. He says he's not sure if Bin Laden is guilty.Sam, Dean said that OBL probably is guilty. Stop spinning.

I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials.

squeegee
01-07-2004, 07:43 PM
Or, as Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_atrios_archive.html#107352001749561822), points out, Bush agrees with Dean on this point:
QUESTION: Mr. President, you said earlier this morning that in a trial that all of Saddam's atrocities need to be brought out. He was in power more than 30 years. It probably would make for a long rap sheet.

Bush: You're not supposed to pre-judge.

capacitor
01-07-2004, 07:46 PM
The polls shows the Sadaam capture pushed the popularity for Bush upward, as well it should.

But it is still ten months to go, and the media are still giving Bush a free ride. Sooner or later that ride has to be over. It has to be over.

squeegee
01-07-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Sam StoneDean says he wants to 'Re-regulate' business[...]he wants to implement whole reams of new regulations on businesses of all kinds[...]Taken at his word, Dean wants government to interfere in business to an extent not seen since the early 1970's.Sam, I'm not a Howie Dean afficianado, but I'm not finding anything on HD's web site (http://www.deanforamerica.com) that says anything close to your assertion. Can you point me at some specific proposal or set of proposals that Dean has made that are equivalent to what you say above? Thank you.

Sam Stone
01-07-2004, 11:48 PM
Squeegiee: Here are some relevant quotes from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm):


BROOKLINE, Mass. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark criticized rival Howard Dean on Wednesday, arguing that the front-runner's business proposal is a throwback to failed Republican policies and abandons the success of former President Clinton.
The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."


Here's another: Dean Calls For Reversal of Deregulation (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/19/dean_calls_for_reversal_of_deregulation/)


In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "reregulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "reregulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would mandate new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Oxley-Sarbanes law.

"In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation," Dean said.


Sounds like a New Industrial Policy to me.

Sam Stone
01-07-2004, 11:55 PM
In reading the rest of the article, it appears that Dean is also a protectionist:


Dean said that "reregulation" is a key tool for restoring trust. In doing so, he drew a sharp distinction with Bush, an outspoken advocate of free markets.

Dean also continued his clear break from Clinton's "New Democrat" philosophy of trying to appease both business and workers with centrist policies. Earlier in the campaign, Dean reversed his prior support for Clinton's free-trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, and China.


Isn't that rather, unilateralist of him? Withdrawing from NAFTA would be an economic disaster. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

squeegee
01-08-2004, 12:43 AM
Sam, it's late and I'll have to research your quotes a bit tomorrow. But I'm a bit disappointed, especially in your second post -- your cite mostly isn't HD's words, it's somebody's spun summary of some comments he made. I'll try to find some cites to things HD actually proposed and comments he really said and try to make up my own mind. Maybe you should as well.

John Mace
01-08-2004, 01:57 AM
Well, you just have to go to Dean's Web Page (http://beta.deanforamerica.com/) to hear it from the horse's mouth. Once you get past all the huge ads asking for money, there's a list of issues:


Agriculture
Campaign Financing
Cities
Civil Rights & Justice
Economy
Education
Environment
Health
Labor
Native Americans
Security/Foreign Policy
Women

The list itself tells you about his priorities. Some of the more significant (in my mind) programs, ie things he says he actually is planning to do:


To help put people back to work, I will create a $100 billion Fund To Restore America, aimed at adding at least a million jobs in the first two years. Cities and regions will use these funds to create jobs in education, health care, homeland security, and other critical areas.

To help families live and thrive off their wages, I will press Congress to move toward increasing the minimum wage to $7.00 per hour...[it's $5.15 now]
Interestingly, he put both of these in his "cities" section. I guess the min wage isn't part of the economy in his view. Under "economy" he calls for a balanced budget and universal health care. The latter issue pops up in several different places.

The min wage proposal alone (increasing it 36%) would likely cost him my vote. Although I'm not exactly sure what to expect from the statement "press Congress to move towards..." Is that suppose to make me (fiscal, economic conservative) think he doesn't really mean it?

squeegee
01-08-2004, 08:34 AM
John: sure, I'm already looking at Howie's Web Page, but it doesn't say anything even close to what Sam is claiming Howie Says. Instead I'm getting articles from Sam that Say what Howie Says without him Saying it.

OTOH, I agree his issues list on that site is a bit obfuscated -- somewhere under Native Americans may be the "reregulate everything bwuhahaha!" section. :)

Bricker
01-08-2004, 09:15 AM
All kidding aside, I just donated $25 to Howard Dean's campaign.

Go Dean! Beat Clark! Beat Lieberman!

elucidator
01-08-2004, 09:33 AM
Well, as our Australian cousins have it: "Good at you, mutt!"

Sam Stone
01-08-2004, 09:58 AM
Squeegie: Here's another article describing this: Dean Calls For New Business Controls (http://www.msnbc.com/news/995462.asp?0cl=c3)


HOUSTON, Nov. 18 — After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive “re-regulation” of U.S. businesses.
...
In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his “re-regulation” campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out “re-regulating” the telecommunications industry, too.


The reason you don't find this on his web site is probably simple: Dean is spouting this crap on the campaign trail, to help with his nomination, but he'll probably shut up about it after he wins the nomination and has to move back to the center, and so he's not going to make it an 'offical' part of his platform or something.

At least, one can hope that he's not really serious. Because if he is, this guy is a disaster. A comprehensive 're-regulation' of business, coupled with his desire to raise business taxes and repeal all the Bush tax cuts, would to tremendous harm to the American economy. And if you think outsourcing jobs is a problem now, wait 'till Dean starts enacting all these regulations. Oh, wait: He's going to end free trade, too, and slap tariffs on companies that outsource jobs. So that means capital flight from the U.S. Smooth moves, Howie.

jayjay
01-08-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Bricker
All kidding aside, I just donated $25 to Howard Dean's campaign.

Go Dean! Beat Clark! Beat Lieberman!

Beat Bush! Beat Bush! Pleeeeeasassseee beat Bush!

Seriously? I'd vote for Michael Jackson if he were running against Bush and looked like he had a chance.

stolichnaya
01-08-2004, 11:29 AM
A comprehensive 're-regulation' of business

Sam, I can't see even in your quotes where he says this. He mentions utilities, media companies, and "companies that issue stock opions".

Now if you take the latter to mean wholesale regulation of all companies that issue stock options, then yes that's a good deal of businesses and a frighteningly vague amount of re-regulation.

If you take it to mean what it likely does, that he intends to tighten the regulations surrounding the issuing, exchange, and tax treatment of stock options in general, then it's regulation that is already under high demand, already occurring, and affecting a small and only recently significant slice of the operating horizon of your average business.

Sam Stone
01-08-2004, 11:44 AM
Except that in the same breath he mentions telecom, media, and utilities.

Also, he says that he is against free trade and for 'fair' trade - he wants all trading partners to have the same environmental and labor standards as the U.S., or he'll slap tariffs on companies that do business with them. This is breathtaking in its economic ignorance. Poor countries can not have the same environmental and labor standards as rich countries like the U.S., because these things are very expensive.

He also wants to 'close business tax loopholes', and stop companies from outsourcing labor. That requires yet more regulation.

He also wants to raise the minimum wage to $7/hr.

And he wants a $100 billion 'job creation' fund, which necessarily requires the government to start picking companies and selectively subsidizing them (or setting up government-run businesses, I guess).

Also, he wants universal health care insurance, forcing all companies to provide health insurance to their employees (or, I suppose, directly paying for everyone's health coverage).

Oh yeah, and he's going to balance the budget, too. He's a miracle worker.

Let's face it - the guy's a meddler. He wants government to micro-manage business. He wants reams of new regulations. He wants to tell businesses who they can trade with, who they can hire and for how much. He wants the government to roll back the deregulation of the Clinton era, and re-regulate energy, media, and telecom. He wants the U.S. to move to a more European model of industrial and economic policy. What a great idea - you too can have even bigger deficits, 11% unemployment, and 1% economic growth!

squeegee
01-08-2004, 12:17 PM
Let's face it - the guy's a meddler. He wants government to micro-manage business. He wants reams of new regulations. He wants to tell businesses who they can trade with, who they can hire and for how much. He wants the government to roll back the deregulation of the Clinton era, and re-regulate energy, media, and telecom. He wants the U.S. to move to a more European model of industrial and economic policy. What a great idea - you too can have even bigger deficits, 11% unemployment, and 1% economic growth!Sam, it's amazing that you get all of that from the dribs and drabs of quotes in that interview. It's impossible to say exactly what Dean means, if anything, from what was presented in that article. And here you are coming to these amazing conclusions out of thin air. Applause -- I wish I could read sheep entrails so well!

Merijeek
01-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Sam Stone
Except that in the same breath he mentions telecom, media, and utilities.

Shit, that's sleazy.

It's almost like someone mentioning Iraq, Al Queda, and 9/11 in the same breath, and then claiming that a connection between the three was never intended.

Remember, when your guy does it, there's nothing wrong with it. But when mine does it, it's totally unacceptable.

-Joe, who just summarized politics in the good old USA

stolichnaya
01-08-2004, 12:35 PM
Okay, raising the minimum wage is silly. And the "job creation fund" sounds very hazy in my limited poking around. The fair trade seems like pure spin, would never get passed. That doesn't help my opinion of Dean, but it is an example of politics as usual.

I do happen to believe that media and untilities require some meddling to work in a geographically-distributed economy. And that the tax code requires simplification. Reducing the complexity of the tax code would bring in new revenues and reduce expenses at the same time.

In short, I want whoever is elected to meddle some. Can I assume that Bush's plan is "more of the same?".

Pábitel
01-08-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Who are they? The OP mentions "every conservative talk show host or pundit" Stoli refers to "the conservatives who have power in the media".

Do you guys seriously think that there is some sort of conservative groupthink nationwide strategy at work in the US today? Do you have any proof for this outragious claim?

At the very least, do tell us who the participants are in this vast conspiracy. I'm curious. What?!?!
Do you actually live in the us? Do you watch TV? Do you read the papers? The conservative talking heads quote each other in their rants daily. Often they even cite one another. That is the most inbred, self-referencial group going. None of them say anything without checking the transcripts to see what all the others have said in the last 24 hours.

In fact it is a misnomer to call them conservative. I don't think you could name one who is a true conservative. They are all George Bush Republicans and they all spout the party line 24-7.

John Mace
01-08-2004, 12:54 PM
Sam:
To be fair, it's hard to nail Dean with every fuzzy promise he makes. Kind of like a typical president in his State of the Union speech-- promise a bunch of crap that sounds nice, but he knows will never get off the ground.

The $100B jobs fund and $7/hr min wage are things I posted because they are concrete proposals that I think it is fair to nail him on. But if he talks about the need to "reign in big business", it's really hard to figure out what that really means. Makes it tough to wade thru all the BS, and I have to believe (hope) that Dean (or whoever) puts more flesh on their proposals as the election draws nearer.

His plan for Iraq stands in stark contradistinction to what the adminstration is planning to do, and his pledge to erase the recent tax cuts is also key. But while he might, if he wins, be able to execute on the former, he'd never get the latter thru congress, even if the Dems picked up a majority. And it looks much more likely that the Pubs will increase their majority in both houses. Of course just because he can't actually do something is no reason not to vote against him if you think the policy is the wrong way to go. Can anyone remember when the last time a candidate got elected on the promise to raise* taxes?

*And don't give me the BS that it's not a tax increase, just eliminating a cut. By that logic, the current cut is not a "cut", but simply an elimination of a tax increase. I can easily go back in time (not even that far) and find a period when taxes were lower than they are right now.

stolichnaya
01-08-2004, 12:58 PM
I can easily go back in time

This is probably another tread, but that's pretty cool.

Knorf
01-08-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Merijeek
Barring something huge like Dubya being caught sodomizing young boys on live TV, of course.
Even if that happened, my guess is that most G.W.Bush-supporters still would not abandon supporting him.
:(

jayjay
01-08-2004, 08:22 PM
He was probing for weapons of mass destruction in Uranus?

elucidator
01-08-2004, 08:31 PM
Drag him out and shoot him, I'll file for the warrant later.

Sam Stone
01-08-2004, 08:43 PM
Sam, it's amazing that you get all of that from the dribs and drabs of quotes in that interview. It's impossible to say exactly what Dean means, if anything, from what was presented in that article. And here you are coming to these amazing conclusions out of thin air. Applause -- I wish I could read sheep entrails so well!


Not just from the interview. Sorry, I piled up stuff that I got from the interview, plus the debates, plus his own web site.

John: Oh, he's pretty specific about the trade stuff too. Not just, "I want fairer, not freer trade" or any of that politico-speak.

Here, from Issues2000.org (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Free_Trade.htm):


Q: What about free trade?
A: We've gone the first mile. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. But we need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements.

Q: What if they say no?

A: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

Q: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

A: Yes.

Q: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

A: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen.


Got that? If workers in Indonesia don't get time and a half for overtime, and OSHA-style safety controls, and their factories don't meet U.S. environmental standards, then President Dean is going to slap tariffs on them.

Awfully unilateral of him, imposing American overtime rules on other countries and all.

Then there's this howler:


Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards.


He's got it exactly backwards: If other countries ruin their environments by running dirty factories, and pay they employees very little, THEY are subsidizing YOU. I think Dean is economically illiterate.

John Mace
01-08-2004, 08:51 PM
Sam wrote:
He's got it exactly backwards: If other countries ruin their environments by running dirty factories, and pay they employees very little, THEY are subsidizing YOU. I think Dean is economically illiterate.
Yeah. The trick is communicating that to the voters. It's a hard sell, and we shouldn't underestimate that.

BTW, you can find pretty much the same stuff on his web site.

Evil Captor
01-08-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Sam Stone
And if you think outsourcing jobs is a problem now, wait 'till Dean starts enacting all these regulations. Oh, wait: He's going to end free trade, too, and slap tariffs on companies that outsource jobs. So that means capital flight from the U.S. Smooth moves, Howie.

Gee, and I thought outsourcing was a form of capital flight from the U.S. Oh wait ... it is! Guess you free-market types don't care about capital flight so long as it's the kind that just costs ordinary people their jobs.

Evil Captor
01-08-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by John Mace
Can anyone remember when the last time a candidate got elected on the promise to raise* taxes? *And don't give me the BS that it's not a tax increase, just eliminating a cut. By that logic, the current cut is not a "cut", but simply an elimination of a tax increase. I can easily go back in time (not even that far) and find a period when taxes were lower than they are right now.

Yes, Dean is planning to rescind Bush's big tax break for the wealthy. This will have the effect of raising taxes for the wealthy, and will have little or no effect on anyone else. Wealthy people for whom this is an issue should not vote for Dean.

Everyone else SHOULD vote for Dean.

Evil Captor
01-08-2004, 09:48 PM
Q: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

A: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen.


> Got that? If workers in Indonesia don't get time and a half for overtime,
> and OSHA-style safety controls, and their factories don't meet U.S.
> environmental standards, then President Dean is going to slap tariffs on
> them.

I love the way that Dean's term "kids" becomes "workers" in your response. I suppose that's not QUITE lying, but it's certainly misleading.

> Awfully unilateral of him, imposing American overtime rules on other
> countries and all.

Beats sending troops in to conquer the country for no particular reason.

Sam Stone
01-08-2004, 11:28 PM
I love the way that Dean's term "kids" becomes "workers" in your response. I suppose that's not QUITE lying, but it's certainly misleading.


No, it's not. The kids are the ones who aren't supposed to work overtime at all. I was referencing the time-and-a-half part that applies to adults. You should read my messages more carefully before throwing around accusations of not-quite-lying.

Apos
01-08-2004, 11:34 PM
No OP, he is pretty much unelectable.

elucidator
01-09-2004, 12:49 AM
http://www.madkane.com/musichumor.html

A lefty humor site that Scylla recommended. (No, really!)
She has a song parody of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable"

"Dean's electable. Dean worries Karl.
So electable, Rove's nails are gnarled.
It's the fear of Rove that Bush he'll beat,
That he'll send George Dub a huge defeat..."

Joe Bob elucidator says "Check it out!"

John Mace
01-09-2004, 04:13 PM
Dean's latest gaffs* which have come to light point out a weakness that could be his undoing. Yes, these are things he said 4 yrs ago, and can reasonably be downplayed becuase of that. But they point out a flaw that Dean has: He thinks he's a lot smarter than he is, and is prone to making strongly declaritive remarks about things he actually knows little, or nothing, about. Unless he recognizes that he has some big gaps in his knowledge, and begins speaking accordingly, we can probably expect these types of gaffs to continue throughout the campaign.

*can't find a link, but it's what is being reported on CNN, etc. about his comments concerning Hamas, the Iowa caucus and other issues.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-09-2004, 04:26 PM
As I said in the other thread, I think this comment might hurt Dean in the caucus but help him in the long run.

Gephardt has said (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/09/elec04.prez.dean.iowa/index.html), "I can't understand his comments about the special interests dominating the Iowa caucuses." Is he shitting us?

EVERYBODY knows that special interests dominate the caucuses. That's not even debatable. Everybody knows that candidates play to the special interests during the primaries and then to a general audience during the general election. That's uncontroversial. How stupid does Gephardt think we are?

So sure, some members of the Iowa caucus might be deluding themselves, and get offended. But your average voter, assuming he gets the nomination, will be gratified to hear someone saying what's plainly true.

Let's look at what he said, exactly, from the same link:

If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by special interests on both sides and both parties. Special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They tend to represent the extremes. ... Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids. On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours? I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.

Do you see something in there that isn't 1) completely obvious and 2) completely nonoffensive to the average voter?

Daniel

John Mace
01-09-2004, 04:59 PM
LHoD:
I don't think the Iowa "gaff" has any legs. The Hamas one, might. But my point was not about any particular comment, but his propensity to throw new ones out there all the time. I am theorizing (call it an educated guess) that the cause of this is, as I said above, the fact he thinks he's smarter than he actually is. That's not a positive trait in politics.

Cervaise
01-09-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by jayjay
I'd vote for Michael Jackson if he were running against Bush and looked like he had a chance. I bet "No Child Left Behind" would get an overhaul.

John Mace
01-09-2004, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Cervaise
I bet "No Child Left Behind" would get an overhaul.
:D, :D, :D

ElvisL1ves
01-09-2004, 06:43 PM
John, what has he said in particular that makes you think he's not that smart? Has he said anything notably wrong, or just things that piss you off by being forced to face them, or are you referring only to his political campaign sense? If the latter, this "habit" hasn't hurt him yet in any measurable way, or he wouldn't be the bleedin' front-runner, would he? Isn't it conceivable that the blunt habit you decry can look to the less-partisan as plain, honest. speaking, and that that just might be part of his attractiveness to a cynical electorate?

This comment is not a "new one" as you describe it, but an interview from four fuckin' years ago. Get real. And, before you predict his doom, ponder if Iowans will be more affected by it or by Harkins' endorsement. I'd bet on the latter.

Since you haven't asked, I'm undecided yet between Dean, Clark, and Edwards, each of whom has his own strong and weak points, but I'd be happy to vote for any of them in November.

elucidator
01-09-2004, 07:12 PM
Just so. Part of the problem is an embarassment of riches. Any of those candidates, and Gephardt as well, would make a good President. When there is one good candidate and a posse of stinkers, the issue is quickly clarified. Well, except for Dukakis, God only knows how......but I digress.

It makes me wish there were a nation-wide primary option, or at least some sort of non-binding referendum, just so we could get a better idea what other people think. I'm not so interested in supporting the best candidate, I want to pick the most electable candidate.

Kucinich is a splendid fellow, but he looks like he represents Monty Python's Very Silly Party. I am a long time admirer of Kerry, but he looks like a bi-polar basset hound with his cycle stuck on somber. Shouldn't matter, but it does, and I know it does.

If GeeDubya wins, even if by the flimsiest of margins, he will regard himself as a Leader of Men with a solid Mandate to Lead. Trouble is, he is a profoundly mediocre man with delusions of Churchill. Privilege is seldom kind to character. I don't know how much the prospect of four more years scares you, and I haven't the words to express how much it scares me!

John Mace
01-09-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
It makes me wish there were a nation-wide primary option, or at least some sort of non-binding referendum, just so we could get a better idea what other people think. I'm not so interested in supporting the best candidate, I want to pick the most electable candidate.
Exactamundo.

Kucinich is a splendid fellow, but he looks like he represents Monty Python's Very Silly Party. I am a long time admirer of Kerry, but he looks like a bi-polar basset hound with his cycle stuck on somber. Shouldn't matter, but it does, and I know it does.
Bill Maher said Kerry looks like the talking tree in the Wizard of Oz.

Elvis:
Didn't say he wasn't smart (I think he is), but that he overestimates it. And please read my post. I specifically said the Iowa comment was old (the newness is it coming out in the press) and that I thought it wouldn't harm him. Gotta go do some drinking right now-- I'll come back later and expand on the "smartness" issue.

ElvisL1ves
01-09-2004, 08:24 PM
The White House line is that Kerry "looks French" (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050103.shtml). No worse insult than that for some people, huh?

Whatever. I can't see Kerry as Presidential material because he hasn't done a damn thing as Senator. Gephardt I dismiss because of his protectionism. Kucinich I dismiss because of the circus that was his Cleveland mayoral tenure (which I do remember personally). But they'd still all do a more responsible job than the current officeholder. And Dukakis' inability to forever hide that he was running only because Kitty wanted to be First Lady is why the GOP's unbroken losing streak in Presidential elections only goes back to 1988, not 1984.

John, I was swayed by your referring to Dean's "latest gaffes", although your discussion was of the caucus comment specifically even though it is neither late nor a gaffe. The timing of it is, of course, purely a coincidence only in Cloud Cuckoo Land, but its spreaders remain mysteriously unidentified AFAIK. But, if you want to discuss someone's behavior pattern, your examples had better add up to that or it would be better not to try, of course.

adaher
01-10-2004, 06:30 AM
Afraid of Dean? That's laughable.

Rove is a lot more afraid of Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman than Dean.

Clark specifically is the last person Rove wants to have to campaign against.

Dean's easy prey. Rove is going to eat him for lunch.

Shodan
01-10-2004, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Left Hand of Dorkness
Let's look at what he said, exactly, from the same link:
If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by special interests on both sides and both parties. Special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They tend to represent the extremes. ... Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids. On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours? I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.
Do you see something in there that isn't 1) completely obvious and 2) completely nonoffensive to the average voter?

Daniel Well, considering how upset you seem to get when I point out how out of touch the lefties on the SDMB are, you may not be the best judge of what is offensive to "the average voter".

Regards,
Shodan

Beagle
01-10-2004, 09:05 AM
I don't have a cite -- yet -- but Dean is into NASCAR now. Yes, that NASCAR. I don't think the Dean equation is as simple as some think. He's not the out-of-touch lefty some portray him as. OTOH, he's not Bubba Clinton.

Dean needs to come to the South as soon as possible. His tactics are garnering more laughs than applause at this point. His statements concerning the South on the record, so far, should provide Bush & Co. plenty of ammo for the general election. Dean has developed foot-in-mouth disease lately on other issues as well.

"Capture of Saddam makes us no safer"?

Um, but the day before that you...

Beagle
01-10-2004, 09:18 AM
Here's a handy guide to help you out, (http://www.snoozebuttondreams.com/archives/006338.html) Howie.

Shodan
01-10-2004, 01:13 PM
NASCAR, now? Is Dean really that stupid, or is he hoping the South is that stupid? This is the moral equivalent of the Dukakis gopher head popping up out of the tank.

It sounds more and more like Dean is getting desperate. Is Clark breathing down his neck that badly?

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 02:15 PM
"Capture of Saddam makes us no safer"?
Cite that it has made us safer?

The inbred, hillbilly, toothless, redneck fundie vote will go to Bush, regardless. Dean needs to focus on the more swayable elements in the bigger southern cities and college towns.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-10-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
Do you see something in there that isn't 1) completely obvious and 2) completely nonoffensive to the average voter?

Daniel Well, considering how upset you seem to get when I point out how out of touch the lefties on the SDMB are, you may not be the best judge of what is offensive to "the average voter".
[/B][/QUOTE]
1) Let's not dissemble. It's not what you "point out" that pisses me off; it's your patronizing contempt for folks with whom you're engaging in serious discussion that pisses me off. I can disagree with someone and still treat them with respect; were you capable of doing so, I wouldn't scold you for your petty sneering.
2) Maybe, just maybe, I know I'm not the best judge of what's offensive to the average voter. Maybe that's why I freakin' asked. So do YOU see something there that isn't completely obvious? Do YOU see something there that you think the average voter would find offensive?

Or would you prefer to dodge the question by subtle ad hominems?

Daniel

jayjay
01-10-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The inbred, hillbilly, toothless, redneck fundie vote

Diogenes, while I'm usually foursquare in your corner on the issues, at least, this made me cringe. There really are reasons that the conservative jibe of "liberal elite" has teeth, and the above rant is one of them. Can we please tone down the ad hominems on people that aren't even on this board? Please?

I know quite a few NASCAR fans who aren't any of the above.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-10-2004, 02:47 PM
I agree with jayjay on this, Dio: you REALLY need to get over your hatred of the South. And help some fellow Yankees get over theirs: it's not fun being treated with contempt by your allies.

Daniel

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 02:48 PM
I know quite a few NASCAR fans who aren't any of the above.
I didn't say they were. I didn't say that all southerners were like that (and I am originally from Louisiana), just that the ones who are will vote for Bush.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 02:55 PM
That doesn't help much. Calling all the people who may vote for Bush redneck toothless inbred hillbillies is pretty much the definition of elitist. Political disagreement does not translate into superior/inferior or excuse stereotyping. From either side.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Left Hand of Dorkness
I agree with jayjay on this, Dio: you REALLY need to get over your hatred of the South. And help some fellow Yankees get over theirs: it's not fun being treated with contempt by your allies.

Daniel
It wasn't a swipe at the south, just at rednecks. There are plenty of them up here as well, especially over the border in Wisconsin.

I'm sorry for any offense. All I meant to say was that the Bubbas are going to vote for Bush no matter what Dean says, so Dean might as well focus on the southern demographics that are actually in play, like minorities and the younger vote.

Once again, I am from the south. I have relatives who are the sterotypical rednecks. My vitriol comes from a long acquaintance with real people. I'm sorry I overstated it or that I seemed to be generalizing about the south.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 02:57 PM
Or maybe I just get tired of arguing against the "liberal elite" charge and then turning around and finding some of the most outspoken liberal posters painting their opposition as uneducated hicks who shtup their cousins.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by jayjay
That doesn't help much. Calling all the people who may vote for Bush redneck toothless inbred hillbillies is pretty much the definition of elitist. Political disagreement does not translate into superior/inferior or excuse stereotyping. From either side.
I didn't say that veryone who votes for Bush is a redneck, I said that everyone is a redneck will vote for Bush. Do you get the difference. If I said that X will get the black vote, would that be the same as saying that everyone votes for X will be black?

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 02:59 PM
I said that everyone is a redneck will vote for Bush.
That should be, "evryone who is a redneck will vote for Bush."

jayjay
01-10-2004, 03:11 PM
Diogenes, I'll accept that I read that wrong. But can I just note (in the way of advice from an ally) that I read that sort of statement from you the wrong way an awful lot. So, apparently do a fair number of other people in the "left-of-moderate" camp. Maybe it's not just us?

XT
01-10-2004, 03:23 PM
Was going to blast DtC for his 'hillbillies' comment, but see others beat me to the punch. Man...that was harsh. Its no wonder you like Dean...you seem to have the same foot in mouth problem he does. Maybe you could go to work on his campaign.

Why are these kinds of slurs acceptable on this board? "I didn't say that veryone who votes for Bush is a redneck, I said that everyone is a redneck will vote for Bush." Isn't this like saying anyone who is a niggah will vote for so and so, or every one who is a spic will vote for thus and thus, or everyone who is a kike will vote for...?

Not only is it offensive, but its just wrong. NOT all the folks who YOU categorize as 'redneck' shitkicker types will vote for Bush...though at a guess, most won't vote for Dean as he has put them down too (though in less harsh language than you used DtC).

-XT

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 03:25 PM
To add on to my previous apology, I want to say that I also knew plenty of people down there who couldn't stand racism and ignorance, my mother for one.

Once again, I apologize for seeming to generalize. I did not intend to speak of the south as a whole I was just addressing certain kinds of attitudes which still exist there (and up here, but those kinds of people seem to be more flagrant about there)..

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by xtisme
Was going to blast DtC for his 'hillbillies' comment, but see others beat me to the punch. Man...that was harsh. Its no wonder you like Dean...you seem to have the same foot in mouth problem he does. Maybe you could go to work on his campaign.

Why are these kinds of slurs acceptable on this board? "I didn't say that veryone who votes for Bush is a redneck, I said that everyone is a redneck will vote for Bush." Isn't this like saying anyone who is a niggah will vote for so and so, or every one who is a spic will vote for thus and thus, or everyone who is a kike will vote for...?

Not only is it offensive, but its just wrong. NOT all the folks who YOU categorize as 'redneck' shitkicker types will vote for Bush...though at a guess, most won't vote for Dean as he has put them down too (though in less harsh language than you used DtC).

-XT
It's not the same at all. "Redneck" describes an atitude not a race.

XT
01-10-2004, 03:30 PM
Horseshit DtC. 'Redneck' describes poor whites, usually in the south...in other words poor white working men (redneck from working in the sun). You can dance all you like, but you know the truth as well as I do. It describes a sub grouping of whites, just like those other slurs can be used to describe sub groupings (or the whole 'race) of the other groups. Where I come from, 'spic' is used to describe 'lazy' mexicans, 'nigah' is used to describe lazy blacks, etc...and 'redneck' is used to describe poor white trash.

BTW, my father in law would be what YOU would describe as a 'redneck' (lives in North Carolina, owns a pick up truck, uneducated, blue collar working class man, has several guns and hunts, etc) and HE is definitely not voting for Bush.

-XT

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 03:34 PM
I don't care what you think it means. What I meant was a certain kind of attitude.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 03:36 PM
Okay...my aside has turned into a hijack.

I accept that Diogenes didn't mean to slur all Southerners or even all Bush voters. If you don't, please consider taking it to another thread, preferably begun on the topic, and letting this one get on with its original purpose. Thanks. :)

XT
01-10-2004, 03:46 PM
I'll drop out after this Jayjay...promise

From DtC
I don't care what you think it means. What I meant was a certain kind of attitude.

So, if I say you are a "stupid ignorant asshole", but in my own mind that simply means I disagree with you, or that it means I think you have beady eyes, no offense intended, thats cool with you? Cool. I intend to use this interperatation of language thing in the future. To all Mods, please ASK me first if I use offensive terms or racial slurs, as they might mean something different to ME than what YOU think they mean. Thanks for your support.

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread...

-XT

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 03:51 PM
"Redneck" is not a racial slur. you are wrong.

I've already apologized twice in this thread for offending southerners. If you still have a problem with me you can take it to the pit.

BTW, I don't give a fat rat's ass what you call me. Just do it in the pit where it belongs.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-10-2004, 04:51 PM
Dio, thanks for the explanation and apology. FWIW, my comment was more because of something you said awhile ago in the pit, something about how the South needs to be smacked down again, that rubbed me the wrong way; not having commented then, I commented now. I'm happy to move on.

Daniel

Sam Stone
01-10-2004, 06:33 PM
Can't let this slide...


And Dukakis' inability to forever hide that he was running only because Kitty wanted to be First Lady is why the GOP's unbroken losing streak in Presidential elections only goes back to 1988, not 1984.


Let's see... That would be a losing 'streak' of... two elections? The Republicans win three presidential elections in a row, governing for 12 years, and then they lose two and you call it a 'losing streak'?

And at that, you seem to think that Dukakis somehow would have had a chance if only he could have looked more interested, or more manly, or something? The man lost 426-111, for God's sake. There was far, far more wrong with Dukakis than that. In fact, this bit about him only running for President because Kitty wanted him too is news to me. I've never heard that particular complaint before.

Sam Stone
01-10-2004, 06:38 PM
It's interesting that Dukakis beat Al Gore for the nomination. Democrats actually chose Dukakis instead of Al Gore. They also chose Dukakis over Joe Biden, Dick Gephardt, Bruce Babbitt, and Gary Hart.

There's an interesting parallel here between that election and the current one. From an outsider's perspective, Dukakis was the weakest candidate in the field. But he was farthest to the left, and Democrats therefore set themselves up to pick him as their nominee and lose in a landslide (he carried seven small states, and that's it).

And now they're about to do it again.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 06:40 PM
I still say that if Dukakis had managed to stay away from tanks, helmets and Willy Horton, and pulled a Muskie after the "Rape Kitty" question in that debate, he'd have pulled a hell of a lot more electorals.

elucidator
01-10-2004, 07:09 PM
I rise in defense of friend Dio. He is unsophisticated in the southern ecology. I doubt very much if he can correctly distinguish a peckerwood from a redneck, or for that matter, a Louisiana coon-ass. This cannot be said to be his fault, American education being what it isn't.

His mistake is in having things a bit backward, he assumes that all "rednecks" will vote for Bush. Willy is a "redneck", as am I. Its only that he has mistakenly reversesd the procedure, he has identified all peckerwood assholes as rednecks, but has failed to grasp that not all assholes are peckerwoods, much less rednecks.

Its a subtle matter of taxonomy.

jayjay
01-10-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
Its a subtle matter of taxonomy.

Typical Democrat. Tax, tax, tax!


:D

Diogenes the Cynic
01-10-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
I rise in defense of friend Dio. He is unsophisticated in the southern ecology. I doubt very much if he can correctly distinguish a peckerwood from a redneck, or for that matter, a Louisiana coon-ass. This cannot be said to be his fault, American education being what it isn't.

His mistake is in having things a bit backward, he assumes that all "rednecks" will vote for Bush. Willy is a "redneck", as am I. Its only that he has mistakenly reversesd the procedure, he has identified all peckerwood assholes as rednecks, but has failed to grasp that not all assholes are peckerwoods, much less rednecks.

Its a subtle matter of taxonomy.
I have to say that I do know what a coon-ass is. My grandfather (God rest his alcoholic soul) was a genuine Cajun chef. He worked on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and lived in a trailer park in Thibodeaux, Louisiana. He taught me how to fry catfish and tried to get me to drink beer with him when I was quite underage.

He was also a veteran of WWII who ran ashore at Omaha Beach on D Day.

He was quite a character. He was, as you say, a redneck but not an asshole peckerwood.

Thanks for the less in nomenclature but in my defense I have heard poor white southerners call other poor white southerners "rednecks" in a derisive way, such as "Don't pay any attention to old Emmit when he starts talkin' about the coloreds. He's a redneck."

Now what's the difference between a "Bubba" and a "Good 'ol Boy?" I never could get them straight.

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Shodan
NASCAR, now? Is Dean really that stupid, or is he hoping the South is that stupid?

As a Southerner, I must tell you that there is plenty of evidence that the South is that stupid ... in fact it's WAAAAY past that stupid. Rove knows it, too.

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by jayjay
That doesn't help much. Calling all the people who may vote for Bush redneck toothless inbred hillbillies is pretty much the definition of elitist. Political disagreement does not translate into superior/inferior or excuse stereotyping. From either side.

Nah, that's just going tit for tat with the pubbies. Do ya even REMEMBER the Clinton administration? The 2000 election. We Dems have a lot of name-calling to do before we're close to being on par with you.

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Once again, I am from the south. I have relatives who are the sterotypical rednecks. My vitriol comes from a long acquaintance with real people. I'm sorry I overstated it or that I seemed to be generalizing about the south.

Diogenes I understand completely. I'm from the South too, and I hate the "we love our ignorance" element that is still surprisingly strong here. I mean, the Pubbies were nasty, vicious, scum-sucking bastards for portraying Cleland as an unpatriotic fan of Osama bin Ladin, but God, the idjits in Georgia actually FELL for it!

jayjay
01-11-2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
Nah, that's just going tit for tat with the pubbies. Do ya even REMEMBER the Clinton administration? The 2000 election. We Dems have a lot of name-calling to do before we're close to being on par with you.

Okay, this is just stupid, in several ways. First of all, I'm not a Republican. I should actually challenge you to pistols at dawn and choose your second for even implying that.

Second of all, "he did it so we're justified in doing it too" isn't a valid construct in any mature set of ethics. It's a very juvenile way of looking at the world. Gratuitous insults and desperate attempts at finding ANYTHING to hang Clinton on made the Republicans look bad during Clinton's administration. Are you really saying that you want the Democrats to win a race to the bottom?

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 11:04 AM
OK, you're not a Repub. Fine.

Winning a race to the bottom is better than losing the race. I think if the Dems are going to beat the Dems at the polls again, ever, the gloves are gonna have to come off ... becuase the Pubbies have definitely taken THEIR gloves off.

Sam Stone
01-11-2004, 12:27 PM
jayjay said:

Or maybe I just get tired of arguing against the "liberal elite" charge and then turning around and finding some of the most outspoken liberal posters painting their opposition as uneducated hicks who shtup their cousins.


Yep, it sucks when your own allies come out and say bigoted and stupid things. Then they have to backpedal like mad, parsing the meaning of 'redneck' away until it means something like only non-denominational people who torture kittens, and who could be against that, and you think you've got the ugly genie back in the bottle, and then along comes...

Evil Captor:


As a Southerner, I must tell you that there is plenty of evidence that the South is that stupid ... in fact it's WAAAAY past that stupid.
...
...but God, the idjits in Georgia actually FELL for it!


And you have to start all over again.

jayjay
01-11-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
OK, you're not a Repub. Fine.

Winning a race to the bottom is better than losing the race. I think if the Dems are going to beat the Dems at the polls again, ever, the gloves are gonna have to come off ... becuase the Pubbies have definitely taken THEIR gloves off.

Oh, look! Our enemies are jumping off a bridge! We have to jump faster!

:rolleyes:

A race to nowhere gets you nowhere. The Republicans made a mockery of domestic politics and the Constitutional impeachment process. Do the Democrats really have to extend that sideshow?

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 02:56 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sam Stone
jayjay said:


Yep, it sucks when your own allies come out and say bigoted and stupid things. Then they have to backpedal like mad, parsing the meaning of 'redneck' away until it means something like only non-denominational people who torture kittens, and who could be against that, and you think you've got the ugly genie back in the bottle, and then along comes...

We who hate the ugliness present in some parts of the South and have to deal with it on a day by day basis because we live here are entitled to vent now and again. I'm sure that ignorance-worshipping is universal, but we've got a pretty virulent strain of it down here.


And you have to start all over again.

If you have some more accurate way to characterize the utter stupidity of falling for ads that characterize a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran as a unpatriotic OBL-lover, I await it with bated breath ...

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 02:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jayjay
A race to nowhere gets you nowhere. The Republicans made a mockery of domestic politics and the Constitutional impeachment process. Do the Democrats really have to extend that sideshow?

Unfortunately, yes we do, if we want to win. Careful observation will show that the Republican outrages have barely registered on the American electorate. The Repubs have discovered that they can play dirty and get away with it. So long as we persist in bringing a knife to a gun fight, we will lose.

jayjay
01-11-2004, 03:05 PM
Then we lose no matter what. I personally think it would be nice if, once everything self-destructs because of a total loss of civility and moderation on both sides, there will be somebody to pick up the pieces again. Your tactics seem to leave no one on cleanup.

Sam Stone
01-11-2004, 04:04 PM
If you have some more accurate way to characterize the utter stupidity of falling for ads that characterize a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran as a unpatriotic OBL-lover, I await it with bated breath ...


Do you have a cite that says anyone called Max Cleland an Osama Bin Laden lover? Or that this was the only issue that cost him the election?

And while we're at it, is there some magical power you attain from being wounded in Vietnam that makes you incapable of making policy mistakes?

It's an interesting tactic you're employing here. Saxy Chambliss went over the line in airing that commercial with Saddam and Osama on it, no doubt. So you'd rather focus on that, and then claim the voters were 'hoodwinked' by it, and then use that false characterization to declare that southerners are stupid.

Has it occured to you that A) offensive though the commercial might have been, the essential point that Cleland was misguided on his approach to terrorism might have had some resonance with the voters, B) Saxy Chambliss is a big name with many advantages, C) There are other issues that decide campaigns?

For instance, Cleland had only a 16% approval rating from the National Federation of Independent Business, while Chambliss's rating was 91%. In a state that puts great importance in small business, things like this make a real difference.

Stop trivilializing and demonizing your political opponents, and you may start discovering some nuances that give you a little more insight into the way the world works.

Shodan
01-11-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Left Hand of Dorkness -
Or would you prefer to dodge the question by subtle ad hominems?

And this immediately following Diogenes' latest gem -
The inbred, hillbilly, toothless, redneck fundie vote will go to Bush, regardless. At least my ad hominems are subtle.

Do YOU see something there that you think the average voter would find offensive?
Yes, I do, and so would the average Iowa primary voter. So would you if the Dean statement, or Diogenes' statement, had come from a Republican.

For heaven's sake, how would you react if a conservative had stated that "Dems have the n*gger vote sewed up"?

Do you honestly think calling the people you want to vote for you "extremists" is a clever idea? This is a bad thing for two reasons - one, it is not the first or the last stupid thing Dean has said, and two, it is not something that you can blame on Republicans. Just like with the Moveon ad - liberals have been caught with their pants down, and the attempts I read on the SDMB to spin it are not tremendously successful. And it seems Dean may run out of feet before he runs out of ammunition.

The Dems are not going to pick up votes by sneering at the South, like Dean and Diogenes and Evil Captor have done.

Although you are welcome to try, and I wish you would.

Regards,
Shodan

ElvisL1ves
01-11-2004, 10:41 PM
Sam, do you ever look up facts yourself before denouncing those who present them to you? Ever? I'm not sure I should even bother to show you the results of US Presidential elections in recent years, since you can do so and count yourself. But that "rebuttal" of yours is among the most ignorant things you've ever posted. Your pride in not knowing poll standings in 1988 is lower down, but on the same scale of ignorance. I'll certainly stipulate that there are many reasons Dukakis wasn't up to the job, but that isn't related to his decison to run in the first place, which is what I had said.

Somewhere in between is your proud denial of understanding whatthis meant: (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/)Cleland's opponent, Saxby Chambliss, who sat out Vietnam with a bad knee, aired a spot featuring unflattering pictures of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein ... and Max Cleland. Chambliss charged Cleland, the Vietnam vet amputee, was soft on national security because he'd voted against creating the Homeland Security Act.What inference do you think Chambliss intended to be drawn, if not the frickin' obvious one you deny? Oh, that he was "misguided in his policy". Certainly. Ain't enough rolleyes smilies for that one, pal. But that comes from a person who can sincerely say "Stop trivilializing and demonizing your political opponents, and you may start discovering some nuances that give you a little more insight into the way the world works" without looking in the mirror.

ElvisL1ves
01-11-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Evil Captor
...the idjits in Georgia actually FELL for it! And voted Perdue Governor, too, despite poll numbers the other way right before the election in both races. Or did they really? All votes in Georgia were counted on Diebold machines, I'm given to understand.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-11-2004, 11:10 PM
The Dems are not going to pick up votes by sneering at the South, like Dean and Diogenes and Evil Captor have done.
I wasn't sneering at the South, I was sneering at peckerwoods.

ElvisL1ves
01-11-2004, 11:22 PM
Guess we're not going to hear John expound on how Doctor Dean isn't as smart as he thinks, or how that compares to Bush's rating on that scale. Pity.

Evil Captor
01-11-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Shodan
The Dems are not going to pick up votes by sneering at the South, like Dean and Diogenes and Evil Captor have done.

This logic only applies if you think the South is occupied only by backwards teevee idjits. DtC and I have made it very clear that we think this group, while a sizable portion of the Southern demographic, isn't the only element of the South. Whereas through this slip Shodan clearly reveals that he thinks all southerners are backwards teevee idjits.