I like Dean quite a bit. He reminds me of Paul Wellstone in some ways. Universal healthcare is big point in his favor in addition to an enlightened attitude about gay rights. He doesn’t come off like a slimeball, and I think he would run circles around Bush in any debates.
Of course his single most outstanding characteristic is that he is not GWB.
Everything I’ve read thus far about Dean makes me think he would be my ideal Presidential candidate. He’s unashamedly liberal, but practical enough to not over-reach.
I think he has a chance, in the right circumstances. If the war goes badly or drags out and public opinion turns sharply against it, he’s going to look good for opposing it from the beginning.
Even if the war goes well, if the Bush administration has too many more situations like the Halliburton handout and Richard Perle, it could come down to integrity. I’ve never seen Dean’s integrity questioned in anything I’ve read.
It could work as a double-edged sword for the right-wing punditry. They’ve spent a long time trying to portray centrists like Clinton, Gore, and Daschle as shameless pinko leftys that I’m not sure how they’ll react to a real liberal. If they press the demonization too hard, it could backfire and make them look pretty bad.
(It has cracked me up in the last few years to hear talk radio folks and TV pundits trying to demonize Tom Daschle, since he’s one of the few Democrats left in power and they have to have someone. It’s like trying to demonize Wonder Bread.)
Dr. J
Frankly, Polycarp, I doubt that Dean can be elected president. Supporting civil unions legislation means he isn’t going to pick up too many votes among conservative Christians, and I would be willing to bet that those folk far outnumber the GLBT community.
Also, said support will give the rabid talk show hosts and the GOP contenders a convenient wedge for attacking Dean. They can play up the angle of “He’s going to destroy the American Family by legimatizing sodomite marriages” (Cal Thomas had a recent column similar to this) and ignore all his other proposals.
I don’t think this will be a factor, Doctor, unless the Dems have the guts to push the issue. Judging by their failure to emphasize Enron during the 2002 election, I doubt they will develop intestinal fortitude in '04.
I think you’re being optimistic. Those bastards could demonize Mother Theresa if it suited their purposes.
And, not that I would ever hijack a thread or anything, DoctorJ, but what happened to the Wildcats yesterday?
They lost to Mother Theresa in overtime.
Well, Marquette is a Catholic university…
[continued shameless hijack]Bogans was only half there, so the rest of the team was only half there as well. If you ask me (and, as a native Kentuckian, it is my duty to question the coaching decisions of Adolph/Joe B./Eddie/Rick/Tubby), they would have had a better shot without him. Not a good shot, but a better one than they had.[/csh]
I really hope you’re wrong. I expect a much bigger fight out of the Dems in 2004, and that’s going to be hard with a centrist candidate like, oh, everybody else. It’s tough to be a passionate moderate. The campaign needs to be about something other than keeping down the Republicans.
Of course they could, but they’d look like major-league assholes (to borrow a phrase from our born-again President) for doing so. If they reach too far to badmouth Dean, it could backfire rather easily. The dyed-in-the-wool right-wingers won’t care, but it might scare off enough moderates to put this one outside a Supreme Court tiebreaker.
Regarding the support for civil unions, there are people out there who wouldn’t vote for someone based on that issue–but how many of those people would have voted Democratic anyway?
Dr. J
I honestly don’t know, DoctorJ, but I know I live in a region, SW Indiana, that has a lot of conservative Democrats, and I think that one issue may be enough to cause some of them to consider voting for other Dems, or for Bush if Dean gets the Democratic nod.
I guess we’ll just have to see what happens in 2004.
I would wholeheartedly support Dean. I watched that Barbara Walters’ interview of Tony Blair a few nights ago, and I was struck by how strange it was to have a politician actually saying intelligent things instead of spinning. Even though I don’t agree with Mr. Blair’s war policy, he actually presented logical points instead of sound bites. The problem with Gore was that he tended to get lured into the same spin-not-substance with which Bush won. With Dean, if he can come out with a markedly different policy and actually reasonably argued the policy, it will be quite a breath of fresh air into American politics.
Ya know, if the Dems can’t smell blood in this election, you had better just stick a fork in them. Bush is vulnerable on so many levels that to not go after him will cause the death of the party, at least in my eyes.
Clinton seized the middle for the Dems. Bush seized it back. The Dems can’t simply walk in there and claim to be more moderate than Bush. Bush has a bunch of great, polished lines about how moderate he is – “compassionate conservatism,” “uniter not a divider” – but like most of his campaign, he needs to be attacked hard on these points because there is just no substance behind those points. While claiming to be a moderate, he has come in and passed a broad-based neo-con agenda. The Dems need to attack this hard from the left. They need to work hard to get out the vote. They need to expose Republican attacks for what they really are – big business protecting their own interests. They need to unmask the numerous missteps and drive home the points. They need to make every American disgusted with the policies of the Bush White House. Bush got to office by talking nice but playing dirty. The Dems cannot afford to play nice with this one, even if the war is still continuing.
—I watched that Barbara Walters’ interview of Tony Blair a few nights ago, and I was struck by how strange it was to have a politician actually saying intelligent things instead of spinning.—
I don’t know how anyone could have watched the joint press conferance and think Bush was even in the same league as Blair as far as on-the-spot articulateness, an impassionate moral vision, and honest candor. Asked with the same sort of question about the Coalition, Bush stuck to a well-recycled spin point that simply brushed over the question, while Blair’s comments made real note of and consideration of objections being made and then explained at length and with nuance why he thought they were wrong. How can anyone call Bush a “straight-talker” when he stands next to someone like Blair and spouts canned responses?
If Blair is kicked out of the PM in the future, I’d be happy to have him come run for President here. If it were legal, he’d probably win too. Why can’t we produce politicians like this? A Major. A Thatcher. Even a Patten.
It wouldn’t be legal. (Doesn’t anyone read the Constitution anymore?)
However, if Mr. Blair were to be un-confidenced this year and immediately became a U.S. citizen residing in Maine, he could run for U.S. Representative from Maine in the 2010 elections. He could run for Senator in 2012.
It is interesting that the phrase “natural born citizen” doesn’t necessarily mean “born in the United States.” John McCain was born in Panama, to American parents (his father was obviously in the military). I wonder if Winston Churchill, who IIRC mother was American, would have been eligible for the American presidency.
I doubt many minds will be changed either way by the civil unions issue, not compared to the war, the economy, health care, and a long list of others. I do think that those would refuse to vote for Dean on the basis of that issue probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway, but his taking a stand on a progressive issue just might attract a number of voters looking for a progressive with a spine who might take on other issues with the same determination.
This discussion reminds me of those about an earlier generation of politicians who were said by some to be unelectable because of their commitment to desegregation. The frequent outcome was that they were, in fact more electable by a society ready to advance. It’s now generally understood, I believe, that sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable, like race, and that discrimination on such a basis should be eliminated. My bet is that the issue will help the good doctor’s total vote count.
But overall, I just haven’t seen or heard enough of him on the issues the 2005-8 President would most likely face to make a decision yet. Can I just get an “I Lean Dean” button for now?
Actually, I don’t see it that way. Contemplate this board’s views as a representative sample of the liberal and left-moderate population, with a smattering of conservatives mixed in. Few among us are opposed to civil unions – even a number of people who believe that homosexuality is sinful do not hold that gays should be deprived of the rights they seek.
Admittedly, my church is sliced off the left of the political thicket, but it’s fairly representative of the Episcopal Church in this area, and from my experience in much of the nation. We include ~275 households, which include two gay couples and about 25 singles, orientation unknown to me but I believe predominantly hetero. The other ~250 are straight couples with or without children. Of that population, exactly three families are opposed to civil union status. In short, I think that Dean will gather a lot of votes from among the real “moral majority” – the people who see the need for HRC-style equal rights and have not had a voice willing to speak out.
I realize that a great part of this thread has focused on gay issues. This is partly my fault, because I located the interview in the Advocate, and the subjects dealt with in that interview were naturally those of particular interest to gays.
However, there are a number of items on his website that relate to other major issues – and some posters have addressed them.
FWIW, I’ve offered my services to his campaign – haven’t as yet heard anything back from them.
Well, if they don’t take you up on it, they’ve lost credibility in my eyes.
I am more impressed by Dean as time goes on, but my main worry is that he will drift away from the liberal positions and ideals he holds now just to win the nomination. He may stress his gun control stance to lure conservative voters, but I haven’t seen him dole out a definite plan to avoid the fates of Mondale and Dukakis.
In summation, as many posters have said already, I’d love to have the guy as President, but I don’t currently see how, given the current layout of the nation. Even if the war tanks, the GOP spin machine is at full throttle and running as smooth as I’ve ever seen it.
I sent in my DNC Presidential Survey with Dean’s name checked as my choice for Presidential candidate and a check for $60.
Prediction: Howard Dean has zero chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of being selected for the Vice Presidential slot.
But, he WILL be this year’s equivalent of Mo Udall, John Anderson, Paul Tsongas and John McCain. That is, he’ll be a media darling and will get far more attention than votes. There’s always ONE candidate with no chance of winning that the press embraces, and I’m willing to bet Howard will be this year’s model.
As a Republican I think Dean is great. He is pro-gay marriage and anti-war, now if y’all can get him to come out against motherhood and apple pie he’d be a dream candidate. 2004 would be like 1984 and 1994 all rolled into one.
That is just wishful thinking. Dean is the cycle’s Tsongas, he doesn’t have the name recognition, money, or skill to be anything more than a good story for the press before the real campaigning begins.
Are you implying that there is something un-American about being either pro-gay or anti-war?
—It wouldn’t be legal.—
I didn’t ASK if it were legal or not, I was talking about IF it were legal.