To the Dean Supporters

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, we got one of these for Bush, but I think this one demands more attention.

 

Dean has all but been given the Democratic nomination. There is NO real competition for it. Bush had McCain. But no Democrat seems willing to really go after Howard. They'll throw the occasional jab, but nobody seems willing to go after him.

 

So, he'll likely win the nomination.

 

And from where I stand, he appears to be utterly unelectable. He is liberal --- FAR to the left (yes, the press portrays him as "centrist", but I could pull out quotes of the press calling Dukakis "centrist" and "moderate). He's as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right in '64. 2004 is shaping up to be an annihilation for Bush. Dean has a running habit of making idiotic comments and STICKING to them.

 

So, WHY does the left seem to love this guy so much? I don't honestly believe that most Dems truly feel that he can actually win. So, why throw away 2004 on a candidate who, honestly, is almost a dream candidate for Bush's team?

 

I'm just baffled, as Dean's supporters just seem almost frighteningly gung-ho about the guy.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not sure if we have anyone here who's a cemented Dean supporter other than Tyler, and he's been MIA for a while. My stance is pretty simple: Anyone But Bush.

 

Yeah, I know, you probably figured that out, but hey, you asked the question.

 

Believe it or not it's not because of war, gay rights, or church and state issues even though I harp on those things a lot.

 

I'm just not nuts on family legacies (which is why I wouldn't vote Hillary unless she was running against another legacy such as Bush but I have said I'd rather vote for Guiliani who I assume the GOP would run against her), I'm underwhelmed by the return of Reaganomics, and his attempts to change nuclear proliferation scare me. I'm not against building new bombs and replacing our old bombs (hey, at least it'll make jobs), but this whole idea of small-scale nuclears for bunker busters and other situations where conventional would work will, in my opinion, desensitize the world to nuclear arms, and cause an idiot somewhere (Pakistan?) to launch, creating the situation of falling dominoes.

 

Top it off with a "with us or against us" stance that was pure politics to make the Democrats cave in early, and is still inspiring Republican supporters to ask Democratic supporters why they hate America. Saudi Arabia is not with us, there's a good amount of evidence they are against us. I don't expect Dean or anyone else to eliminate the Saudi government, but I don't expect him to talk brashly of cleaning house in the Middle East and then conveniently forget about that country.

[Styles 0]

Jobber, that's very interesting. My stance is almost completely opposite: Anyone but Dean. If anyone else miraculously wins the Dem nomination from Liberman to Kerry to Gephart, then I might have some real thinking to do. But, I do not like Dean at all. The man dowright scares me with his cult leader like tactics and general unstableness. Some of the things the guy says and then tries to qualify are insane. Plus he says to one crowd he's really the crazy loudmouth liberal people want him to be, and they should nominate him for it, and then to another crowd says "hey, I'm just putting on an act to attract a base, elect me, I'm a lot more moderate and rational than you think!" Well, gee, like him or hate him, at least Bush sticks to his guns. What you see is what you get. If comes down to Bush vs. Dean, there is no question for me. Not even mentioning that I LIKE the president and think his administration is making the right moves to keep us safe and combat terrorism, but even moreso it's the other side of the coin in that I do no feel safe AT ALL allowing Howard Dean in control of the country and am convinced we would be in serious trouble security wise if he was. Again, I'd like to consider a Democrat (I am voting in the damn primaries afterall), but it's really hard....anyone but Dean.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

It's because he's (Dean) tapped into the anti-politics backlash people. The type of people who just dont like politics in general, and the types who probably felt disenfranchised enough that they didnt even vote for either Bush or Gore. They see him as sort of the 'rebel against Washington,' and see all the negative stuff as coming from "traditional Washington." I mean if Dean doesn't get the D nomination, what's left? Everybody else is just a ... well a usual politician.. The people who don't understand why Dean gets the support he does... are the people who look at the situation through the same "POLITICS" glasses that they've looked at all elections and such matters.

 

The other thing is, I think the current situation is a lot different than elections past. In this post 9/11 world, we've become a lot more divisive. There amount of "middle ground" people has really evaporated down to a smaller contingent. Even in the biggest partisan heyday of Clinton and Bush Sr, I dont remember there being as clear a de-lineation as there is now. Even during the ugliest partisan ramblings when the whole sex scandals were happening, the largest group were the ones who just didnt give a fuck other than as entertainment. Mainly because of the terorism and Iraq things... its either a) I support Bush and what he's doing, and b) I don't (not that I'm saying there are no people in the between, but I think they are far less, thanks to 9/11, and thus the past "traditional" ideas of winning elections isn't going to work).

 

SO, while I DON'T think Dean is going to win, I dont necessarily think that a D candidate has to skew to the center (like Clinton did) as they had to do in almost all the previous elections.

 

As a matter of fact, I'd venture a left-er candidate will do better than a centrist. I honestly think Lieberman would do worse than Dean against Bush, because of the divisiveness in the country, he'd lose half of his possible voter turnout to Bush. People these days for the most part dont want "somebody" in the middle. I believe we've become so partisan divided that its going to be an either/or thing.

 

I mean, the people opposed to Bush see him as this fascist-in-the-making thats leading us to global ruin and police states... the people supporting him see the left as commie socialist anti-americans <insert buzzword>... these are ordinary people saying things like this, everybody's moving to an extreme.

The right thinks: "the very survival of our country is at stake... they will let Osama walk all over us!"

The left thinks: "the very survival of our country is at stake... Bush will crack down on all our liberties and squash dissent!"

 

9/11 and the events afterwards changed everything, INCLUDING politics.

 

ie: they see him as a kind of Paul Heyman, with W Bush as Vince McMahon, and thus are able to overlook his negative extremist qualities, because of the way he energizes *them*

 

Edit: there's also something to be said for a "difference" perception. When you look at Dean talk (for a period of time, more than just a soundbyte on CNN), there's just... something different about the way he talks and its apparent when you're watching all the guys standing there, i'm not saying its good or bad, but there's something.. different in his voice patterns, the way he says long 'sound bite' sentances, letting his voice dip and not take breaths. He's got a kind of "flirting with danger against traditional Washington" appeal, this all sort of ties in above.

Edited January 5, 2004 by metr0man

[Guest JMA]

And from where I stand, he appears to be utterly unelectable. He is liberal --- FAR to the left (yes, the press portrays him as "centrist", but I could pull out quotes of the press calling Dukakis "centrist" and "moderate). He's as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right in '64. 2004 is shaping up to be an annihilation for Bush.

I'm curious, who would you consider to be a more moderate liberal politician (and I mean a LIBERAL, not just a Democrat). I'm not trying to be a jerk, just an honest question.

 

Now on to your question. Speaking as a "leftist," I'm still not sold on Dean. I'm not one of his groupies, but I don't buy the way he's being portrayed by his detractors. Hell, John Ashcroft is known for saying idiotic things and sticking to them. Dean is the only Democrat to actually "step up to the plate," so to speak. No one else seems to have the balls to stand up to Bush.

 

Dean also appeals to people (like it or not). He gained many supporters over the 'net and raised the most money. Clinton pulled off the upset over Bush Sr. by appealing to the young and somewhat jaded Americans. The BEST chance the Dems have, IMO, is to appeal to these young people.

 

To answer your question in a single sentence: What OTHER liberal Democrat (hell, even a non-liberal Democrat) is willing to stand up to Bush?

Edited January 5, 2004 by JMA

[BX 0]

God, if I didn't pay attention to politics, and was easily swayed, you would all have me convinced that Howard Dean was Charlie Manson. I don't see where the "insane nutjob" comes from (actually, I do, but I chalk it up to the partisan rhetoric bullshit that's so common in here).

 

I like Dean because his name doesn't start with a "G", and end with a "eorge W. Bush". That was the original reason I looked into him. The Patriot Act, the "No Child Left Behind" bullshit, and environmental deregulation acts enacted under Bush went against my belief that we need a decent educational system, and an improving environment. And the potential abuses of the Patriot Act bill just scared me.

 

Hell, I like Dean's aggressive manner. I don't attribute it to temper. I think Dean has balls, and I admire that. I LOVE THAT. We need someone with a little fucking PASSION when he talks about the issues, when he addresses people. I get energized when I hear Dean get started during speeches to crowds. It's a huge contrast to Bush's cold, lifeless, careful delivery. I know it's ultimately meaningless, but I want someone who doesn't have to rely on the "cheap pop" to get a crowd to respond. That's one of the things that seperates Dean from the rest. I wouldn't be sad if Kerry got the nomination, but Dean appeals to me more on a basic level.

 

I like a few things Kucinich has done, but I realize that he is unelectable in the current politic climate. Some like to say, "Dean is too far to the left OMG" but he's nothing compared to Kucinich.

 

That's all I can think of in a moment's notice. I'm sure someone will try to pick this apart though, and give me a reason to elaborate further, so no big deal.

[Styles 0]

I'm curious, who would you consider to be a more moderate liberal politician (and I mean a LIBERAL, not just a Democrat). I'm not trying to be a jerk, just an honest question.

America doesn't want a "liberal" president. Some of the other candidates seem more moderate while known as liberals (i.e. Kerry and Gephart) but as I lamented in another thread, it doesn't seem like anyone realizes they have a choice...

[Styles 0]

BX, I'm not going to pick you apart. Just a couple questions. First, while Dean might "fire you up" don't you think in such an unstable time with such danger in the world, that we would be safer with a more calm and rational person in the face of danger rather than an emotional and likely not clear thinking person? Also, this is now 2 Dean supporters....both reasoning, He's Not Bush. Well, gee, are you just bandwagon jumping? If you are, be honest and say yes. Because "he's not Bush" is not a good reason when there are so many other candidates avaliable....then again, you hinted to liking Kucinich who makes Dean sound like Reagan, so maybe I'll leave you alone

[Guest JMA]

America doesn't want a "liberal" president. Some of the other candidates seem more moderate while known as liberals (i.e. Kerry and Gephart) but as I lamented in another thread, it doesn't seem like anyone realizes they have a choice...

American doesn't really want a "conservative" President either. Most Americans want a President who has the same beliefs (or close) as they do, obviously. Trends in America and the state of the country also factor in.

[Styles 0]

Your right. Bush is pretty moderate in comparison to his party. Dean is quite liberal in comparison to his party. By that logic, Dean has no chance in hell. Clinton was quite centered for a Democrat, remember.

[BX 0]

You know, someone once joked that Stephen King's book, "The Dead Zone", was some sort of propethical warning against Howard Dean, as the candidate in the book was both from Vermont, and a charismatic guy with a firey temper that would get us all in trouble.

 

I thought it was a funny comparison, but I don't neccesarily think it's true. Dean has yet to snap on someone and stomp a hole in his ass. You should also consider that if/when Dean gets into office, he'll have a staff, analysts, and such whispering in his ear. I'm more then confident that if that temper is there like some say, he'd have someone to calm him down.

 

And sure, Dean's a bit farther out left then the usual Democrats, but the normal democrats are a bunch of bitches right now, so I think the distinction is heightened by that fact.

[Styles 0]

Dean has yet to snap on someone and stomp a hole in his ass.

...yet

I'm more then confident that if that temper is there like some say, he'd have someone to calm him down.

 

That's reassuring!

[Guest JMA]

Dean certainly isn't "liberal" on gun control. Believe that.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think everyone is making assumptions too early on how Dean will run his campaign once(IF) he is awarded the nomination. In primaries, candidates by nature are out to appeal to their side of the political fence, once they get the nomination they know damn well that they have to appeal to indy & moderate voters so you usually see a shift in emphasis on certain issues and such. Lets just wait until the primary is over, watch a debate or two, and then re-visit this and other threads like this.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

America doesn't want a "liberal" president.

Normally, I'd agree with you. People usually vote on issues, but in the past five years issues and parties have suddently gone hand in hand.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

what makes you think ordinary people would be turned off by a candidate who lost his temper and kicked the ass of a opponent? They'd be able to relate. take off the 'politics' glasses for a second... he'd the stone cold of politics and instantly appeal to the massive "politics-suck" non-voting MAJORITY.

 

So in conclusion...

 

Howard Dean needs to kick Lieberman in the gut and stunner him the next time Lieberman brings up the Saddam safer quote.

 

EDIT: on a less joking note, I feel kinda left out, everybody skipped right over my post and went on to argue with each other

[Styles 0]

what makes you think ordinary people would be turned off by a candidate who lost his temper and kicked the ass of a opponent? They'd be able to relate. take off the 'politics' glasses for a second... he'd the stone cold of politics and instantly appeal to the massive "politics-suck" non-voting MAJORITY.

 

So in conclusion...

 

Howard Dean needs to kick Lieberman in the gut and stunner him the next time Lieberman brings up the Saddam safer quote.

We'd all be speaking Iraqi...

[Guest JMA]

I wish SOMEONE would beat the living hell out of Lieberman. The guy comes off an an angry, bitter prick.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'd say the biggest thing that makes this election different is that we will be at war during it. I mean I don't see the country being any different then it was in 2000 regarding social issues, however the only real big thing out there to sway voters is the "war on terrorism" and how it is going around October/November

 

With the media currently scared to death to show anything but a positive outlook on the war, it makes you wonder just how skewed people's views on the war will be by the time november comes around.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Also, this is now 2 Dean supporters

I'm a Dean supporter in a sense that I'm an Arnold supporter. When it comes to the ballot being shoved in my face, Dean is going to agree more with my opinions, though I don't agree with his.

 

I voted as I did in the recall because Arnold's interviews made me think "Hey, I agree with this guy more than the other guys." I still needed a drink when I was done voting and when the results came in I actually felt sad for a few minutes that the guy I voted for was the winner. When I got over the party bullshit and realized that illegal immigrants weren't going to get driver's licenses and a pro-choice, pro-gay-union Republican was elected to a position of prominence, I got over it.

 

There's another connection between Arnold and Dean I wish to make, too. The state Registrar of Voters reported a huge upturn in new reigstrations, which the analysts pinned on Arnold's campaign against politics as usual. People who didn't even bother to vote were showing an interest in a political race because Arnold was challenging the establishment (the Republican party in this state has big fundie backers and breaks down in bickering whenever someone disagrees with it, accomplishing nothing) and running a campaign that was considered positive, though still fueled by anger ("We're mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.")

 

This is what I point people to when they say Dean's anger is creating a campaign of negativity. I think it also somewhat represents where all of Dean's support is coming from. Dean's verbal gaffes are akin to Arnold's groping allegations, although Dean's problem will kill him if he suffers foot-in-mouth in a debate with Bush. If he can restrain himself and not try and reach too far out there like he did in that statement that was supposed to pander to the South, it won't happen.

[Styles 0]

That's an interestin comparison. Arnold is a celebrity and a movie star which is where a lot of his mainstream recognition came from, which is different than Dean who sort of built up his own political support.

I guess, I just wish against reality than ANYONE else gets the nomination. I really want to have to make a decision, pay attention to the issues, etc. come November. But it's going to be Dean. It should be loads of fun to watch the debates, ads, etc. but when it comes to election day I won't even have to bat my eyes to re-elect the president. It's not so much that I dislike the President, but it's like I want to be challenged. Dean doesn't challenge me, he just reaffirms my beliefs that we have the right guy in office...

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Also, There's another connection between Arnold and Dean I wish to make, too. The state Registrar of Voters reported a huge upturn in new reigstrations, which the analysts pinned on Arnold's campaign against politics as usual. People who didn't even bother to vote were showing an interest in a political race because Arnold was challenging the establishment (the Republican party in this state has big fundie backers and breaks down in bickering whenever someone disagrees with it, accomplishing nothing) and running a campaign that was considered positive, though still fueled by anger ("We're mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.")

Exactly.. there's where Dean's support is coming from. That pretty much summed up what I was trying to say with my long rambling post up above.

 

If you take off the politics ideolague glasses, its blatantly obvious wehre his support is coming from (again I dont think it will lead him to a big victory), but I've actually thought for many years that somebody needed to d something like this to take off.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well so far the Arnold experiment has been pretty lackluster if you ask me. I know it hasn't been very long but hell the Davis recall effort started less then 2 months after he was re-elected. Arnold repealed the car tax which was popular, but now is in a quandry on how to raise the much needed funds, and as far as social issues, he has been dead in the water, I haven't heard a peep from him regarding all the liberal social views he talked about during the election. Hell, I live in Sacramento, CA and have seen him being interviewed by Sean Hannity more times then I see him on the local news.

[Styles 0]

Dean certainly isn't "liberal" on gun control. Believe that.

Oh, good one of the few "liberal" issues I care about, and this guy is against it. Was this supposed to endear him to me or something?

[Guest JMA]

Oh, good one of the few "liberal" issues I care about, and this guy is against it. Was this supposed to endear him to me or something?

No. It was just a statement. It wasn't directed at anyone. He supports the NRA, something few liberals do.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's an interestin comparison. Arnold is a celebrity and a movie star which is where a lot of his mainstream recognition came from, which is different than Dean who sort of built up his own political support.

His celebrity gave him a bunch of attention and some sucker votes by people who thought it was cute to have a movie star for Governor or were disenfranchised by the ludicrous ballot (Gary Coleman? Larry Flynt?)

 

Dean is getting the attention, Bush is going to consume all the sucker votes because he has the macho cowboy rhetoric and the soundbytes.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well so far the Arnold experiment has been pretty lackluster if you ask me.

Yes, but it's not Tom "Simon 2.0" McClintock, Cruz "Why, yes, I *AM* showing favoritism to Indian casinos" Bustamante, Peter "Why do we call these people 'Illegal Immigrants'" Camejo, or Arianna "*unintelligable ranting*" Huffington.

[Vyce 0]

Oh, good one of the few "liberal" issues I care about, and this guy is against it. Was this supposed to endear him to me or something?

No. It was just a statement. It wasn't directed at anyone. He supports the NRA, something few liberals do.

People (i.e. liberals) bring up the gun-control issue as if it makes a fucking difference.

 

If he's moderate-to-conservative on one issue, but he's far-left on so many others, it cancels it out.

 

I agree with Mike's assessment of Dean. He's likely to get the nomination, and he'll try and move to the center (with help, wink wink, of the press), but ultimately he'll fail to sway a majority of voters to win the election.

[Guest Cerebus]

Sean Hannity more times then I see him on the local news.

Why in the Hell are you watching FAUX NEWS?

[Red Baron 0]

okay, now this is a relitivly stupid question, from a Canadian

 

If I do not want to vote for Bush or Dean, can I vote on some third party that will get maybe 0.1% of the votes, or am I stuck between the two.