To the Dean Supporters

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

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.

 

Sure, you can vote for a third-party (or fourth or fifth, if they can get the money together), but that's considered "throwing away your vote."

 

Now, as for Dean. I do support him over all the Democrats, with Kerry being second. I went to the Dean rally he had in Boston back a few months ago, and he showed a flair, a passion for what he wants to do if he were to be elected. I also agree with more of his positions than I do with Bush. Unlike most liberals, I didn't mind Iraqi Conflict v2.0...to a degree (what was used to initially get us there versus the actual going), so I'll give that one to the President. But on his social, economical, and educational positions, I side with Dean.

 

I think the President has done a decent job while in office (far better than his father ever could have wished of doing), but I agree with Dean on more issues and feel he should be in charge of the nation.

[Guest JMA]

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.

How many far leftists support (even just a little bit) the Confederate flag still be seen in the South? Not many from what I've seen. Sure, this was an obvious attempt to suck-up to the South, but it's still something you're unlikely to hear from a liberal. I believe he also supports gay civil unions over gay marriage.

 

Wow, real ultra-leftist that Dean is.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I believe he also supports gay civil unions over gay marriage.

 

Just to make things clear on that issue: civil unions are technically the equivalent of a marriage. Marriage=religious ceremony; civil union=legally recognized couple.

 

At least, that's how it works here.

[Styles 0]

Right, and even supporting civil unions is a left-wing position....

[syxx2001 0]

I'd rather Gore run. ABB.

[Justice 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.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is he's going to have to go back to the center to win the election and alienate these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal. He can't go back to the center without loosing some of his big new voting base and he's never going to get enough "Voting sucks!" people (Which are generally leftists) to beat out the moderate vote. He's painted himself into a huge corner and I seriously don't see a way for him to get back out.

 

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.

 

See, the only reason I would see Lieberman really failing is because Democrats wouldn't give him their full support because he is more of a centerist. Lieberman could easily get a big moderate vote because of his support of the current Foreign Policy but can differentiate himself on Social issues, which is what Bush could be considered weakest on. The only way I see him being a completely damned Candidate is because of the Democrats, not the Republicans.

 

 

 

But on his social, economical, and educational positions, I side with Dean.

 

I highlighted that because it surprised me the most. What the hell is Dean's plan for the economy besides the ultra-vague "1 Billion Dollars to Economic Growth"? Couple that with a rescintion of ALL the Bush tax cuts (Something none of the other real contenders have even dreamt of saying), I honestly don't see him doing anything besides curling up to your average active college lib or hardcore dem. Can anyone explain to me in more depth what I'm really missing here?

[Guest JMA]

See, the only reason I would see Lieberman really failing is because Democrats wouldn't give him their full support because he is more of a centerist. Lieberman could easily get a big moderate vote because of his support of the current Foreign Policy but can differentiate himself on Social issues, which is what Bush could be considered weakest on. The only way I see him being a completely damned Candidate is because of the Democrats, not the Republicans.

As someone (I believe JotW) pointed out, Lieberman has the bad qualities of both liberals and conservatives. And, in my view, he comes off as angry and bitter. Add that to the fact that he doesn't have much charisma (not enough needed to win a Presidential election, anyways). He's one of the Democrats that I will NOT vote for if he gets the nomination (the others are Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton).

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I highlighted that because it surprised me the most. What the hell is Dean's plan for the economy besides the ultra-vague "1 Billion Dollars to Economic Growth"? Couple that with a rescintion of ALL the Bush tax cuts (Something none of the other real contenders have even dreamt of saying), I honestly don't see him doing anything besides curling up to your average active college lib or hardcore dem. Can anyone explain to me in more depth what I'm really missing here?

 

Well, one thing I remember (... possibly the only thing I remember as it pertains to the economy) hearing from Dean repeatedly, is that he wants to pump a lot of money into small businesses, (rather than big corporations.. the implication being, all that tax cut money that went to these big companies would go here instead??), and help them grow, because growing small businesses create more jobs. There was also a stat about how 70 percent of the jobs in the US were from small businesses. The vague thing here (at least for me who hasnt really researched it) is what necessarily constitutes a small from big business, but I think i can sort of approximate that myself.

 

having seen some small businesses grow (my brothers' two businesses) I can say that when they do it right, within a relatively short growth period, a small business CAN practically triple or quadruple its workforce, in a very short time.

 

That is pretty much all I really know about Dean's economy plan, but I'll be honest, when I first heard it, it appealed to me, since I will most likely be more involved with smaller businesses as opposed to corporations (I'm a senior in the University now) by the time 2005 begins.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is he's going to have to go back to the center to win the election and alienate these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal. He can't go back to the center without loosing some of his big new voting base and he's never going to get enough "Voting sucks!" people (Which are generally leftists) to beat out the moderate vote. He's painted himself into a huge corner and I seriously don't see a way for him to get back out.

I don't follow the logic in this argument. Sure, he's going to have to move towards the center to win, but who else are

 

these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal

 

going to vote for? Certainly not Bush - that's the foundation of why many currently support fiery-Dean. He's the front-runner against Bush. The only "notable" third-party competition at this time could be another Nader run, and we saw how few voters he pulled in during the 2000 election. I guess you could say that the people who are supporting I-Want-The-Nomination Dean will just not vote, but I don't buy that. Public opposition to Bush is less about supporting Howard Dean as it is about opposing the current President. What I see as Dean's problem is the fact that, if he doesn't continue to distinguish himself from the Republican offering, he will remain just the alternative and won't pick many more votes. He probably won't get enough support outside the current base he has, but that won't be an issue of him running as a centrist. It'll be an issue of him developing a consistent public personality, not policy, and appealing to the people who are shaky on Bush but not quite shaken off the tree yet.

 

I don't see Howard Dean losing the support he's already gained. When he wins the primary, he's going to be the sole alternative to Bush, and these early liberal votes are signed, sealed, and delivered.

[Guest MikeSC]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is he's going to have to go back to the center to win the election and alienate these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal. He can't go back to the center without loosing some of his big new voting base and he's never going to get enough "Voting sucks!" people  (Which are generally leftists) to beat out the moderate vote. He's painted himself into a huge corner and I seriously don't see a way for him to get back out.

I don't follow the logic in this argument. Sure, he's going to have to move towards the center to win, but who else are

 

these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal

 

going to vote for? Certainly not Bush - that's the foundation of why many currently support fiery-Dean.

BUT, he will be unable to win UNDECIDED voters as his inconsistencies (which will have to pop up to move to the center) will bury him. Well, that, or his usual string of idiotic statements.

He's the front-runner against Bush.  The only "notable" third-party competition at this time could be another Nader run, and we saw how few voters he pulled in during the 2000 election.  I guess you could say that the people who are supporting I-Want-The-Nomination Dean will just not vote, but I don't buy that.  Public opposition to Bush is less about supporting Howard Dean as it is about opposing the current President.

Thing is, the Dems don't realize that there REALLY isn't much of an anti-Bush vibe in the country. The "hatred" of Bush in most voters' minds just does not exist. They seem to believe that such hatred is bubbling under the surface, but they're going to be sadly mistaken. Heck, Bush Sr. wasn't that disliked, either --- he just didn't want to run in 1992 and people recognized that quickly.

What I see as Dean's problem is the fact that, if he doesn't continue to distinguish himself from the Republican offering, he will remain just the alternative and won't pick many more votes.  He probably won't get enough support outside the current base he has, but that won't be an issue of him running as a centrist.  It'll be an issue of him developing a consistent public personality, not policy, and appealing to the people who are shaky on Bush but not quite shaken off the tree yet.

 

I don't see Howard Dean losing the support he's already gained.  When he wins the primary, he's going to be the sole alternative to Bush, and these early liberal votes are signed, sealed, and delivered.

When he goes right, a lot of the unwashed hippie set will get disillusioned and not vote. While that is a good thing in the long run (the bong vote is not a crucial element), it will hurt him.

-=Mike

[BX 0]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is he's going to have to go back to the center to win the election and alienate these people who actually think that he's going to run as a liberal. He can't go back to the center without loosing some of his big new voting base and he's never going to get enough "Voting sucks!" people  (Which are generally leftists) to beat out the moderate vote. He's painted himself into a huge corner and I seriously don't see a way for him to get back out.

 

That's very possible, but you should remember that a lot of liberal people who register to vote in this election will be voting to get Bush out of office. Dean might lose some leftist voters, but not many.

 

As long as Nader doesn't throw his hat into the ring..

 

When he goes right, a lot of the unwashed hippie set will get disillusioned and not vote. While that is a good thing in the long run (the bong vote is not a crucial element), it will hurt him.

 

That same "unwashed hippie" set is the same set that hates Bush the most. They would vote for a carnie if it meant getting Bush out of office.

Edited January 6, 2004 by BX

[Vyce 0]

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.

How many far leftists support (even just a little bit) the Confederate flag still be seen in the South? Not many from what I've seen. Sure, this was an obvious attempt to suck-up to the South, but it's still something you're unlikely to hear from a liberal. I believe he also supports gay civil unions over gay marriage.

 

Wow, real ultra-leftist that Dean is.

Are you referencing back to Dean's Confederate flag comments which remarkably served to piss off liberals who are against the Confederate flag, blacks who are VERY against the flag, and Southerners in general who clearly saw how little Dean understands them?

 

And believe it or not, supporting gay civil unions is a LEFTIST position.

 

The issue is not about the liberal base - Dean has them. Bush has the conservative base. That means for Dean to win, he has to gain the moderates in the center, which will NOT be easy for him to do, especially since if he gets the nomination all of his hard-left posturing will be used (effectively) by conservatives to bludgeon him in the campaign.

[Guest MikeSC]

When he goes right, a lot of the unwashed hippie set will get disillusioned and not vote. While that is a good thing in the long run (the bong vote is not a crucial element), it will hurt him.

 

That same "unwashed hippie" set is the same set that hates Bush the most. They would vote for a carnie if it meant getting Bush out of office.

They'd need a reason to drop the bong and stop eating the ganga brownies and actually vote. They'll be all disillusioned with Dean-o Machino there and not vote.

 

But, seeing as how I don't see Dean pulling down 90+% of the black vote ala Gore, I don't see him winning. Or even coming too close.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Eddy Mac: What I'm talking about is he is motivating voters on the left side of the spectrum who don't normally vote because he is making them think he's a true blue liberal. That's all fun and good, but the fact is that he's going to sacrifice those really liberal beliefs for centerist ones so he can win the election, which means he'll just turn into another "Washington Politician" that the re-motivated part doesn't like. He's either going to lose his original voting base to go after moderates or keep his original base but lose the moderates by staying to the left.

 

And a note on "People voting just to get Bush out of Office": Everyone in Michigan thought that they could get John Engler (Someone who I personally dislike a LOT) out of office, but he won reelection twice because the candidates were either lackluster or only appealling to the far left. Fire can get you a lot of places, but Geoffery Fieger is a fiery speaker, too, and he lost BIG TIME. And Bush is FAR more popular than Prince John ever was.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is he's going to have to go back to the center to win the election

We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think Dean can't be some kind of super-liberal, but I don't think going centerist is going to win this election. If you have to say anything about Bush, it's that he's not afraid to state his conservative opinions out loud to the public.

 

In most elections, I'd agree, but against a Bush-style politician who talks loud and proud, a centerist is going to look weak. Ann Coulter says that centerists are people who are too simple-minded to be able to make an opinion. I don't agree with her, but I think Dean will appear as such if he tries to jump to the center. I believe he needs to be left, but not far left.

 

In the end, it won't matter. Whether the candidate is Dean, Edwards, Kerry, even Clark or Lieberman, the Rove gang will portray Bush's opponent as a wild-eyed liberal who wants to disarm all our missiles, open up the possibilities for a new 9/11, drown our troops in "sensitivity training" classes, and fill the silos with flags that read "POW!"

[Styles 0]

In the end, it won't matter. Whether the candidate is Dean, Edwards, Kerry, even Clark or Lieberman, the Rove gang will portray Bush's opponent as a wild-eyed liberal who wants to disarm all our missiles, open up the possibilities for a new 9/11, drown our troops in "sensitivity training" classes, and fill the silos with flags that read "POW!"

And this would be false, how?

[Justice 0]

In the end, it won't matter. Whether the candidate is Dean, Edwards, Kerry, even Clark or Lieberman, the Rove gang will portray Bush's opponent as a wild-eyed liberal who wants to disarm all our missiles, open up the possibilities for a new 9/11, drown our troops in "sensitivity training" classes, and fill the silos with flags that read "POW!"

Holy shit, you just gave the best description of Kucinich I've ever read.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Right, and even supporting civil unions is a left-wing position....

Really? A lot of conservatives I know support gay unions.

 

A lot of conservative politicians I've read don't, but you have to keep in mind they need approval of both those who do and don't support unions, and not supporting unions is playing it safe in some states, and less likely to anger than the other positions in the other states.

 

The SF Chron really pushed and harassed Dean into trying to get him to support gay marraige a few weeks ago, and it didn't work.

 

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is widely regarded as a champion of gay rights after signing a pioneering civil union measure that he called "the beginning of the end for discrimination against any American.''

 

Yet Dean, who speaks emphatically on the right of same-sex couples to receive the same legal privileges as anyone else, is hesitant to extend his demand for equality to the institution of marriage.

 

"I think that's up to the people of each state,'' Dean said Monday in an interview with The Chronicle. "We did not do gay marriage in Vermont. When I had the chance, we chose not to do it. But I'm not going to make a value judgment about the rights of other states to do what they want.''

 

Dean, who has surged ahead of his Democratic rivals in his quest for the party's presidential nomination, defended his posture in favor of gay civil unions but not marriage, saying: "It's not what it's called. It's the equal rights we need to focus on.''

 

The question of gay marriage, thrust into the forefront by a Massachusetts court's ruling last month that same-sex couples cannot be excluded from the institution of marriage, is likely to become a contentious issue in the 2004 campaign. Religious conservatives are pushing President Bush to support a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages, something the White House has indicated Bush is considering, but has not yet decided. Democrats are divided over whether to support gay marriage or a civil union measure such as the one Dean signed as governor of Vermont.

 

Dean, in his most extensive comments since the Massachusetts' court ruling, outlined a position on gay marriage that is complicated by jurisdiction, constitutional rights and nuance. He opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He supports full equality on matters including filing joint tax returns, Social Security benefits, immigration and hospital visits. But he does not give a simple answer on whether he supports, or opposes, gay marriage.

 

"Marriage started out as a religious institution, and most people still think of it that way,'' Dean said, explaining why Vermont -- which, like Massachusetts, was under a court order to provide rights to same-sex couples - - rejected marriage in favor of civil unions. "We focused on the notion of equal rights under the law for every American. And civil unions grants that.''

 

Asked why a man and a women are allowed to obtain a secular marriage license, yet same-sex couples are not, Dean said: "Those are difficult issues, but again, marriage started out as a religious institution, and then it became a quasi-religious/civil institution, so we thought we would bypass that entire debate and say everyone will be equal under the law.''

 

So does that mean Dean believes gay marriages are wrong or simply that society is not ready for them?

 

"All I can tell you is that we did not do gay marriage in our state,'' Dean said, at one point sounding exasperated that he was being asked the same question repeatedly. "I'll say this again, if you like. I'll say this as many times as you want. The job of the state is to make sure that every person has equal rights the same as everyone else. That's what civil union does.''

 

Dean bristled at the notion that providing full legal rights but not the name "marriage'' constitutes something less than equal.

 

"I don't agree. There is not one right that you can have in Vermont because you're heterosexual that you can't have if you're gay. Not one. Except for the federal rights, which I would change as president by recognizing whatever partnership arrangement the state made to give its citizens equal rights.''

 

Dean's position, developed over months of contentious politicking in Vermont, is more nuanced than most of his Democratic rivals, who are rarely asked to elaborate for more than a minute or two during candidate forums.

 

"I think churches should decide who gets married and who doesn't,'' Dean wrote in his campaign biography "Winning Back America,'' which was released this week. "The civil and legal aspects are the responsibility of the legislatures. Thanks to civil unions, gay and lesbian couples have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, which is the heart of the matter.''

 

More prominent due to his status as the Democratic front-runner and his role as the governor who signed the nation's first civil unions bill, Dean holds a position not fundamentally different from that of his leading Democratic opponents. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri and retired Gen. Wesley Clark support gay unions but oppose gay marriage. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton support same-sex marriage.

 

"All of (the leaders) are struggling with this issue. We are disappointed that any candidate doesn't support marriage. We think that is the way to achieve equality,'' said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay lobbying group. "We also think that the Democratic field (including) Gov. Dean is very strong on gay issues.''

 

Many Democrats, including vociferous supporters of gay marriage, are hesitant to criticize what they see as Dean's prudent political position.

 

As the party's front-runner, "he's carrying quite a burden. I think he can ill afford loading his pocket with more rocks,'' said Carole Migden, who as chair of California's Board of Equalization is among the nation's highest ranking lesbian officials.

 

"I know in his heart, he's been tested and proven his support for alternative families,'' said Migden, who has been helpful to Dean but has not officially endorsed him. "I don't want him to have a suicide campaign.''

 

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, who led the fight against a California ballot measure banning gay marriage a few years ago and now supports Kerry in the presidential race, said he, too, would prefer any candidate embrace gay marriage but added: "This is a Republican trap. Every one of the Democratic candidates is far more supportive of (the gay) community than the president is.''

 

Bush has spoken out against gay marriage but has given mixed messages about whether he supports a state's right to offer civil unions. His aides say White House lawyers are studying a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

 

If elected president, Dean said, he would not promote gay marriage because it is a state issue, not a federal one.

 

"We will not be pushing gay marriage because that is not the province of the federal government,'' Dean said. However, he would extend federal rights now provided to married couples -- including joint income taxes, Social Security and inheritance benefits and hospital visitation rights.

 

So why embrace civil unions rather than simply marriage, which Canada legalized earlier this year?

 

"Because it's easier,'' Dean said. "And the religious connotation of marriage makes gay marriage a very difficult issue. It is a religious issue. You can't get away from it. You can say, well, some marriage is civil and some is religious, but people in this country think of marriage as a religious institution.''

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGLP3E5LH1.DTL

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And this would be false, how?

That stuff actually came from some raving Republican I used to read, describing Clinton and the military. And I thought Hannity's comment was harsh.

[Justice 0]

I'm personally fine with Civil Unions (w/all benefits of a married couple). I just think that going for Marriage is something that'll garner way too much resistance and hostility for something so little as a word.