I doubt it. Just pro-Agro-American.
I can’t speak for puddleglum but I think you’d be puling a major ostrich if you believe that there aren’t many many voting americans who believe exactly that.
stolichnaya, what percentage of them do you think would vote for a Democrat anyway?
I’m definitely in favor of Dean. I have been for a few months now, since a friend of mine turned me on to him; I was interested in his politics before most people had heard of him. At the time, I didn’t really think he had a chance, but was going to support him anyway (but then, I voted Nader in the last election).
Now, though, I’m starting to actually think he has a chance. In recent polling in NH, he trailed Kerry by a statistically-insignificant 1% (it was 24-23, iirc, with the next candidates being many points behind). His name recognition is building fast, and he’s starting to get mainstream media coverage. And most importantly: nearly everyone I’ve talked to with any liberal leanings at all has practically started drooling as soon as they hear about his position. For winning the primary, that’s like finding a surface vein of diamonds.
For winning the election, let’s do keep in mind that a bit less than half of the people who voted in 2000 voted for Bush, and a bit less than half for Gore. That was after Gore ran an outrageously mismanaged, dreary, wooden campaign. Dean, meanwhile, is the sort to get people using phrases like “breath of fresh air” and “refreshing lack of spin”. The people he turns off with his civil-union support are by and large people who wouldn’t have voted for him anyway; and his fiscal conservatism will bring over a lot of fence-sitters.
As for VP, I’m simply tickled by the idea that lee suggested to me a while back: why not put Ann Richards on the ticket? A liberal southern woman who was a former governor of Texas. Of course, Dean hasn’t made even the remotest indication of anything, and this is totally random speculation. But it’d sure be nice…
If Dean wanted to defuse the civil union issue he could easily portray it as a states’ rights thing (say that it’s something that should be left up to individual states and their electorates instead of forcing the issue from above). And seeing how Bush and (more specifically) Ashcroft have been thumbing their noses at the idea W ran on, it could also be used as a sucker-punch against its supposed supprters. Oh, the irony…
Semp, Dean already uses a considerable deal of “state’s rights” talk in his current campaigning.
Of course, it’s traditional in American politics for the minority party to be for “state’s rights”.
Southern Democrat here. I like Dean’s chances.
The South has a culture of macho. I think what bothered many Southerners about Mondale and Dukakis is that, well, they didn’t seem manly. Sorry to say that, but it’s my read.
Dean doesn’t have that problem. He’s a straight talker with some backbone, and frankly, with some bass in his voice.
As much as I wish it weren’t so, Presidential politics is about style almost as much as substance. Dean has style, in spades. He has that “Presidential” aura. Barring a major implosion, I expect him to get the nomination.
Still too many variables to say whether he will defeat Bush in the general election. A lot of things can happen between now and 11/04.
(Oh, and I agree that the “state’s rights” angle will help defuse the gay union issue.)
Oh yeah, and it’s also my view that people who get hung up on the gay union issue are likely to be hard-core Republicans who aren’t going to be voting Democratic no matter who gets nominated.
I found out about Dean about 6 months ago and have been a fan ever since.
I think he has a very good chance at getting the nomination.
I also think he has a very good chance to win.
(Clinton was also off the radar at the beginning of his campaign…and he did quite well.)
I liked what Martin Sheen had to say about Dean in support of his candidacy:
“He’s not afraid to lose.”
It might sound like an odd endorsement, but I understood it to mean that Dean is a man who will not feel it necessary to bend and sway to gather every swing voter. I think he will put himself out there and you either buy into him, or you don’t.
I wasn’t saying that being for gay marriage and anti-war is anti-american, they are just very unpopular. Dean is still polling at about 5% nationally and seems to be positioning himself as the anti-war candidate. If the war goes well he is going to look foolish.
Oh, it seems I misspoke earlier. I actually sent the DNC $30, not $60 as I previously stated. My mistake.
Hm, then I imagine he doesn’t have much to worry about, then. There’s no way this war is going well, and it’s not likely to get much better any time soon.
How quickly perceptions change…
.02
Back to the OP: Just two weeks ago I thought Dean had roughly a zero chance of even being a candidate, but then Kerry went and shot himself in the foot with his idiotic “regime change” remark. So who knows? It could get interesting.
I can see Howard Dean as a front runner for the nomination. He seems like an intellegent person, straight spoken, and a cut above of what other people are running against him. In 1991 people laughed when Clinton wanted to run and pundits said he did not have a chance. So, who knows.
His minuses are that he is from a small state, he has a Jewish wife who has kept her maiden name (ala Rodham), and that his state legalized gay marriages. Besides, he is too damned liberal, he wants to nationalize healthcare like Clinton did, but by he being a doctor might get away with it.
I see in 2004 a poor economy, a dangerous occupation in Iraq, and a possible terrorist attack. God forbid, but a Democrat could win.
SP
The McGovern Syndrome will be common among the radical left of the DNC if Dean is nominated.
You may love him. Your friends may think he is swell. But get a candidate to stand up infront of America and endorse socialized healthcare and other not-so-popular-in-America ideas, and you’ll be in a daze come election day, saying, “But everyone I know voted for him!..”
I had never heard of Dean until NPR ran a piece on him the other day. I was impressed by his straightforwardness and well-reasoned and articulated responses. I thought; “now this is the kind of guy I could vote for.” Until I went to his web site and read this little gem concerning the Bush tax cut:
I have always had a big problem with this kind of reasoning, because it never takes into consideration that the same relatively small fraction of the population also pays an equally disproportionate of taxes. The tax cut, while stupid, is merely no more than giving people back their own money. It’s not like it’s taking money from the pocket of someone working two jobs and giving it to Ken Lay, but it is disingeuously portrayed as such.
He’s gonna have to do better if he wants to be president.
bizzwire
If the tax cuts are in exactly the same proportion as that paid by the wealthy, then you have a point. If they are not, then Mr Dean has a point. Do you know which is the case with the proposed Bush tax cuts?
As to, “taking money out of the pockets . . .” I must simply note that the government will take in a certain amuont of revenue. While taxes are not precisely a zero sum game, the balance of an established tax burden across a population is. While it is certainly correct to say that evrey dollar not collected from a welathy person is therefore taken from a poor person, it is equally incorrect to pretend that a tax cut for slected segments of the population is simply “giving their own money back” and has no effect on the distribution of teh tax burden.
excellent point, Spiritus,
third option, if an across-the-board percentage is applied (i.e., everyone gets a 5% rebate on the taxes they paid), then, advantage, me. In truth, I don’t recall how the tax cut was determined.
Assuming this was not a typo, by the same argument, one can say that every dollar not collected from a poor person is therefore taken from a wealthy person, or even, another poor person?
I didn’t say that the tax cuts enacted benefited a selected segment of the population. Mr. Dean did. Or at least implied such with his reference to Ken Lay.
It was a typo. I amke many of them, unfortunately this one actually distorted the sense of my post. Allow me to rephrase:
The following statements (neither of which I am attributing to you) are equally incorrect (checks spelling)
[ul][li]every dollar not collected from a wealthy person is one dollar more taken from a poor person[/li][li]a tax cut for slected segments of the population is simply “giving their own money back” and has no effect on the distribution of the tax burden.[/ul][/li]
I hope that clears things up.
Oh, and if I understand correctly that your “third option” is a rebate based upon a percentage of actual taxes paid, then I agree that such a cut is neutral with regards to the distribution of tax burden.
Then I must call “foul” on your criticism of Mr Dean’s position. Since you are not certain whether the proposed tax cut is actually regressive (provides more relative benefit to the wealthy than their percentage of tax burden) you would seem to lack teh necessary grounds for complaining that he is caling it regressive.
Of course, you might also call “foul” on his site for not providing the documentation to support this position plank, assuming that is the case. (I have not been to his site to see. I’m afraid that even the thought of plunging into Presidential politicing this early makes me ill.)
hahaha
You can run, but you can’t hide!
