That’s almost exactly what Dean had been saying up until a week or so ago, when his handlers and the press started telling him, “Ummm, you’re never going to get elected if you don’t start Godding it up, bucko.”
Dean’s stand on Nicole Kidman and lubricants has not yet made the radar.
I read it. That was a case of “damning with faint praise.” But that, to me, is the equivalent of saying “good thing that rapist isn’t a murderer”.
That’s not what I want to hear. I was hoping someone could convince me of some sort of positive outcome to this. 
To be fair, Dean hasn’t had as many opportunities to express his Christian faith in deeds. For instance, in the matter of executions.
Our Leader is ever mindful of the Gospel. He notes the admonition from The Boss that he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. But a moments reflection and he realizes that death by stoning is not an option in Texas, so the issue is moot. As well, he is mindful that human judgement is not perfect and true justice can only be achieved if the accused is passed to the jurisdiction of a Higher Court. Often, we are told, GeeDubya would agonize over signing a death warrant for as long as half an hour. One is moved to weep over the burden of his sacrifice.
Further, he is mindful of Jesus’ one major failure, and that is His unseemly prejudice against the financially overendowed, and His dire warnings about camels not passing through a needle’s eye, etc. GeeDubya’s tender heart is rent with compassion, he is more than ever determined that the travail of the wealthy should be lightened, that while they might dread the life to come, thier life here should be as free from vexation, legislation and taxation as humanly possible. This is Christianity in action, not mere mouthing of platitudes about compassion, forgiveness, and other questionable lefty slogans.
By these actions, GeeDubya shows that he is entirely in agreement with Jesus’ firm guidelines.
And then the next question would be “Where do you stand on having ‘under God’ in the pledge?” Unfortunately, there’s just no escaping the religion trap if you want to run for prez.
Nope. It’s the equivalent of saying “good thing the fibber isn’t a rapist or a murderer.” Let’s keep this in perspective.
To be fair, Dean hasn’t had as many opportunities to express his Christian faith in deeds. For instance, in the matter of executions.
Our Leader is ever mindful of the Gospel. He notes the admonition from The Boss that he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. But a moments reflection and he realizes that death by stoning is not an option in Texas, so the issue is moot. As well, he is mindful that human judgement is not perfect and true justice can only be achieved if the accused is passed to the jurisdiction of a Higher Court. Often, we are told, GeeDubya would agonize over signing a death warrant for as long as half an hour. One is moved to weep over the burden of his sacrifice.
Further, he is mindful of Jesus’ one major failure, and that is His unseemly prejudice against the financially overendowed, and His dire warnings about camels not passing through a needle’s eye, etc. GeeDubya’s tender heart is rent with compassion, he is more than ever determined that the travail of the wealthy should be lightened, that while they might dread the life to come, thier life here should be as free from vexation, legislation and taxation as humanly possible. This is Christianity in action, not mere mouthing of platitudes about compassion, forgiveness, and other questionable lefty slogans.
By these actions, GeeDubya shows that he is entirely in agreement with Jesus’ firm guidelines.
Dean was doing essentially nothing during that time frame. Which was my point. Sorry you missed it.
And to paraphrase, if you can’t debate the issues, you don’t deserve to win. Which you won’t, because with an Bush approval rating hovering around the 60% range, and a margin over Dean of almost two to one, it would seem that your positions are not as mainstream as you would like to assert.
To sum up, Dean has a weak record on national security. Bush has a very strong one. Bush supporters have a record of success in Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Iran to point to. Dean supporters do not seem to be able to defend their boy’s positions or record, except to complain weakly that discussions about Dean’s record on security issues are avoiding the issues.
I understand completely your intense desire to divert attention from Dean’s failures back to attacks on Bush. Unfortunately for your side, so does much of the American electorate.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow! He’s a conspiracist?
I did not know that. I’d only read this quote of his on Newsmax. Obivously it doesn’t indicate what you’ve indicated, though. Could you let me know how to find out more about his pet conspiracy theories?
Well, he’s now on record as saying he thinks ObL should get the death penalty. If you watched yesterday’s debate, you would have heard him say so. Has he always been pro-death penalty, or is this part of his new religion? I don’t have the debate transcripts, but he’s also on record from December in this Chicago Sun Times article:
Yeah, this is the worst kind of weasling. Say that something is a rumor so you can get away with using it against your opponent, but can still deny that you actually believe it. Note that he said “it can’t be proved” and not “I emphatically don’t believe it”.
This seems to be an overreaching extrapolation from the approval ratings.
Here’s a link to PIPA where there’s a survey that discusses these sorts of things in more detail tha merely approval ratings:
http://www.pipa.org/
look under Americans Reevaluate Going to War with Iraq
Shodan, are you trying to fill in the gap left here by december? The point, which you missed, is that Dean was doing as much as anyone outside Washington about terrorism during his tenure. But you’re singling him out because, well, we know why, don’t we?
“Bush approval rating hovering around the 60% range” is offered by you as proof that no more than 40% of the people could disagree with Bush about anything. Rich.
“Dean has a weak record on national security.” At least as good as your boy had when he took over, with the added advantage of ability and interest in learning about it.
"a record of success in Afghanistan, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Iran to point to. " Snort. Richer yet. Afghanistan is a short-term proposition at best, Libya and Iran have had no real attention from Bush at all, Iraq and North Korea are abject failures everywhere outside Shodanistan. The reality the rest of us live in will decide the election, unfortunately for you.
Howard Dean finding religion is about as surprising and sincere as George W. Bush claiming to be a centrist. It’s what politicians need to do to survive.
The only point of debate here are from those folks trying to use this as some sort of scandalous :eek: revelation against Dean.
So, you’re comparing this with Nigerien uranium etc.?
From
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/press_12_03.pdf
70% Now Say War Has Not Reduced Threat of Terrorism
Three-quarters See Iraq as Less Important than Pursuing Bin Laden, al Qaeda
70% and 3/4 are well within the realm of mainstream it whould seem. Depnding, of course, on how you define mainstream.
I actually don’t know much about Dean, but just looking at the article you linked to, this sounds like total b.s. - If you read past the part you quoted, it says that the NRC has responsibility for ensuring the safety of the plant, but the Dean took steps to do so anyway. So far from “ignoring” anything, he actually went out of his way to address the issue:
It sounds like he didn’t take these steps until after 9/11/2001, but the stuff you say he’s criticizing Bush for is also stuff that happened after 9/11. And as for the comment that we’re not safer with Saddam being captured, it’s absolutely true. Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. in the first place. It’s a sad day when people get lambasted for telling the truth.
No, and I challenge you to produce one quote from me even hinting that I did. So, what’s your point?
You produced a quote to support your argument that Dean didn’t say Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. I simply pointed out that while you might be technically correct, you have also ignored that his statement was stupid, at best, and slanderous, at worst. I characterized it as weasling, and I think i was justified in doing so. Do you think it wasn’t?
“Technically correct” was the defense presented for the Nigerien uranium flak.
The gist is this
Nigerien uranium= technically correct but misleading
Are you saying that the Dean quote represents a similar type of scenario- technically correct but misleading ?
There isn’t the slightest need for Dean to insinuate. The clear and provable facts as regards GeeDubya speak volumes.
If Mr. Bush wishes to make certain that the record is clarified, he has ample means to do so. The alert reader with excellent memory will recall that an investigatory committee was established, over fierce Pubbie resistance, to check into just that sort of thing. The ironicly inclined amongst us will recall with droll amusement how Henry Kissinger, that paragon of candor, was initially proposed to chair said committee.
Recall, as well, the Bushiviks efforts to redact and obscure findings that would be politically difficult for the Saudis, as well as briefing notes that they regards as compromising national security.
Recall the White House’s sudden attack of fiscal concern:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
“Is the Bush White House trying to put the brakes on the congressional panel created last fall to investigate 9-11 attacks? Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq…”
Recall how quickly this fell apart when howls of anger arose from the survivors of 9/11 victims.
Recall all that, and then tell me how swiftly and urgently the White House has moved to “clarify” all this.
I’m saying that no only is your reference to Bush irrelavant to the discussion at hand, but that it’s actually a distraction from it. We are discussing Dean and his stance on Religion as a candidate. There are any number of threads in GD devoted to “Did George Bush Lie” in which you can post your theories about Bush and Uranium from Niger.
Not quite, John. You can’t seriously expect to cast a slur at Dean’s credibility, and then retreat behind a barrier of “relevence”. If strict relevence was your guiding light, you wouldn’t have supported friend Shodan’s efforts in conspiranoia. But, having done so, you are in no position to insist that others refrain from rebuttal because they are as “off-topic” as you are.
On further review, not a bad religion-pandering start.
We’ll see in the coming weeks how he manages to work in appeals to Sikhs and Wiccans.
I initially missed the part about how he is realizing the importance of religion to Southerners, as opposed to folks in the heathen North.
Well, not all voters are Doper-style cynics, and maybe this will not turn out to be the spiritual equivalent of Dukakis’ ride in the tank.
Salaam, baby.*
*Did Arnold say this in one of the Terminator movies? Or was it Aldebaran? Ah forgets.