Redstate

Dean is foolish liar. I only hope he and his echo-chamber of advisors are sincere in their position, as odd as it may sound to be a sincere liar.

For the future it's still a model for the Dems to follow and that should be something for you to worry about.

Ultimately most people don't care about democratic or republican labels.  They care about candidates that have credibility.

So what if his campaign was based on his veteran status?  That, along with the financial scandals surrounding the Ohio GOP, took him from nothing to almost something.  Next time it just might take him to victory.

While Hackett did in fact get a close election, he did so by playing dress up-basically portraying himself as a DINO.

are the only convincing liars.

It was hard to tell exactly what his positions were, he stated lots of problems on his website, but no ideas how to fix them-and it is the details of how to fix problems that the DNC and GOP diverge.

Basically he pretended to be something he wasn't in order to make peopel believe he was that something, and that ain't honesty, that is deception.

If the dems want to win, then they need to actually have ideas beyond telling everyone how evil Bush is.

If the dems want to win, they need to in reality to move back to the center, not play the center at election time then bolt back to the left where they listen to the special interest groups rather than their own constituency.

The solution for the dems is in fact to head back towards the center and run candidates who actually in reality occupy the center.  Dean thinks Hacket won because he ran as a liberal democrat, when he did nothing of the sort.

You may want to reconsider whether that is the sort of remark you want to post on a site devoted to promoting Republicanism about an elected member of your own party.  Let's not take cheap shots at our own*.

* or the other side for that matter.

re: "Paul Hackett didn't apologize for being a Democrat, didn't hold back from criticizing a president who has failed to lead in Iraq and at home, and took a strong Democratic message into the heart of a Republican stronghold."

Paul Hackett lost by four points.

On another site, where the owner was issuing commands to filibuster Judge Roberts as if he ran a caucus, I saw it posted that Hackett would have won in any other Ohio district.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

One would like to think the Ohio GOP would not have run Jean Schmidt in a tighter district.  Remember, a large part of Hackett's "success," if that word is applicable, is in how he matched up against Republican Schmidt.

That current schill for the ACLU is so sincere when he gets on TV. But Dean is another orderof magnitude in the sincere liar game. this is going to be an interesting 39 months until Nov. 2008.

into full blown delusion. Next will come magical thinking...wait that came first. Remember Dean with his paranoic rantings about 911 was the first DNC leader to embrace the Michael Mooeron view of the world.

The Democrats seem to have adopted the bizarre strategy of running for office while trying to hide who they are and what they stand for, to the point where now they are donning disguises.

This seems to have started with Al Gore, who for some reason tried to fool people into thinking he had orange skin.

By the time Kerry came around, a guy who made his bones in the antiwar movement and had twenty years in the Senate hung his whole campaign on four months he'd once spent as a riverboat jockey in Vietnam. Never mind everything he'd done since (whatever that was), he's JFK-II, right off of PT-109.

This guy Hackett is at least a genuine veteran, but he doesn't want anybody to know he's a Democrat. He just "that veteran guy, the gun owner." Imagine the voters' surprise if they'd found out later that they'd elected a frigging Democrat to the Congress.

This seems to be across the board: the Democrats' pollster said today that the public has no idea what  Democrats stand for. It's been less than a year since all these Democrats were running around the country trying to get elected, and nobody today can say why they were doing it.

No wonder George Soros pulled the plug on ACT and went back to square one. Now he's funding think tanks. He, at least, understands that getting out the vote is a waste of money if the people running for office don't know themselves why they're doing it. First let's have some ideas, then we try the orange people and guys who salute and women with bats coming out their ears.

"Queen of the Damned look alike"

But we really should leave the cannibalism, and the needless meanness, to the Democrats IMO.

is that those who are speaking clearly about what dems stand for, like Dean, Kennedy, Reid, etc. are coming acros as people you wuold not elect run your civic association, much less the nation.

I would disagree.  I don't think you can call the President a SOB and a chicken hawk and claim to be a DINO.  

I did hear a commercial to the effect that the President thought it was a great thing to join and serve, and he (Hackett) agreed.  I don't think that makes him running as a Bush man.  If there are other commercials, I would be intereseted in hearing them.

I heard Hackett interviewed several times and those same interviews were running in Cincinnatti.  I don't think you can say the things Hackett said and hide it for the locals.  Neither did voters just show up and not see the D next to the name in the booth.  Something made voters cross over and I don't think a two sided candidate could do it.

I think his and Deans tell it like it is style is correct.  I think his blatant comment that the Democratic Party is wrong on gun control is a good comment.  

I think his rather detailed explanation as to why the training of the Iraq army was not succeeding and the need to more fully integrate indicated he had a definate plan to get us out.  I heard him say clearly that the initial invasion was a misstake; I have not heard a Republican do that yet.  I did hear that from Dean during his campaign.

He talked about fiscal responsibility and jobs in Ohio.  Maybe they both did that.  But this is going to be a key Democratic theme and again reminds me of Dean's campaign.

This is Dean all over - except for the yell in a crowded room.  That is how I saw it.

imho,

Stanford

inconsistent with your tag line.  You're basically calling Dean an idiot on every post.  Unless you meant Pat Leahy or Jim Jeffords or whatever.

"Well, Hackett did not apologize for being a Democrat because pubically he never said he was a Democrat."

Emphasis mine.

Some typos are more unfortunate than others. Am I a prude for disapproving of that one? Were you trying to play to the potty mouths at dKos with a "cute" misspelling? Are you secretly trying to drive some of the millions of porn searchers toward Redstate to get more traffic?

Sorry, I've been editing text for 9 hours solid the last few days, i can't help it. HELP ME!!!!!!!!

Some lingering sense of fairness compels us to award you a Sharpshooter badge for that one. It's not often we give those out to Democrats, so treasure it.

I used to live in Rep. Jim Moran's heavily Democratic district.  He usually ran unopposed (or perhaps with a token Libertarian opponent).  One year, there was actually a Republican challenger, except the word "Republican" was nowhere to be found on any of his signs or campaign literature.  This is just the way things work in deep-blue or deep-red territory.

corph is right. It either has to be three villages or 3 idiots, or maybe 1 village with 2 idiots and one with 1. In any case it shouldn't be 0ne with 1

Howard Dean as Governor was a moderate, middle of the road guy in Vermont. The problem is that he morphed into a Moveon/Kossack who viewed the Iraq War as "immoral" and denied the basic existence of the terror threat.

Politically, he had to embrace the Sean Penn singing about rivers of chocolate in Iraq "before the Americans came" ala Team America World Police, and that embrace was/is fatal. It still applies to the Democratic Party and no doubt hurt Hackett despite people wanting a change from the existing Party and various scandals.

A fifty state campaign, contesting nationally, gun control as a loser, getting on the side of populist style NASCAR guys, Dean IS smart and knows the problem. He can see it.

Which is why it's infuriating to see him unable to break free from the Kossacks and the like. The most damning criticism of Iraq was not that Saddam was a cuddly guy who wasn't a threat, but that he should have been way down on the to-do list after Pakistan and Iran. THAT consistent line would have propelled even Kerry into the White House (and Kerry was one giant stiff).

Gun control will never be dropped, nor will hostility to middle class, particularly white or home-owning Americans. Nor will basic hostility to the US, and capitalism, corporations, NASCAR, the NFL, sports, the military, law enforcement, and other cultural, political, and social sacred cows amongst the Kossacks and Malibu Millionaires that make up the money centers in the Party.

A REAL populist, responsive to middle class Americans Democratic Party should be welcomed by Republicans, in that it can only sharpen the ability to compete for votes in this area and produce by competition new ideas. It also makes us safer to have two adult and modern parties.

The tragedy of Howard Dean (I don't know what else to call it) is that he can see this promised land but he can't enter, because he can't cast off his chains of Daily Kos, Moveon, and Malibu.

I banned you once for failing to change a username that was unfiltered profanity. Coming back with a really poor choice of euphemisms is not a way to endear yourself to your hosts. I mean, good Heaven, this would be sophomoric for a freaking seventh grader.

You get one more chance. Play nice or don't play at all.

For some reason you sometimes just start spelling words wrong and lately I have been spelling publicly wrong so much that I've had to put it in autocorrect in the word processor.

Of course I type 94 words per minute and usually forget to proof read after the fact.

Dean tears at the fabric of reality like an out of shape body builder tearing at the Manhattan phonebook. His face turns red. He sweats. He grunts. But reality is unyielding.

The loss in Ohio is devastating for the Dems. John Glenn and some of the other party heavyweights came to town to campaign. If this was the debut of the Democrats new strategy, it was a disaster.

Bernie Sanders.

You should have asked Dean exactly what did Hackett stand for? Eventually you have to have a plan of your own, because the hate runs out.

Two thirds of the Republican voters stayed home and the Dem still lost. That's something to be proud of.

Please Dr Dean was the most realistic about terorism and the Iraq war and has now proven RIGHT and Americans are now sharing his view.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713832.shtml

Some quotes on Dean about the Iraq War in late 2002 and early 2003 pre-war- which endeared him with Deaniacs.

Dean: "Look, we're going to have our kids and our grandchildren dying in Iraq when we send our people over there. The president owes it to the American people to stand up before the country and say, this is the evidence that Saddam has these weapons, and this is why we have to go in. And then he owes it to the American people to say, 'And when we go in, we're going to be there for 10 years to get the job done right.' Because if they go into Iraq and they leave after a year or so, who's going to fill that vacuum? Al Qaeda. There is a worse scenario than Saddam Hussein and that's al Qaeda in Iraq."

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news/news.newsmain?action=article&amp
;ARTICLE_ID=432482

(Dean) "He has said Saddam is an evil man. Well, there are a lot of evil people and before our sons and daughters come home in pine boxes, I think it's incumbent upon us to have a better reason than 'He's an evil man.' I will take the president's word for it. I think the president is a truthful person, but he has never said that Saddam possesses atomic weapons or biological weapons and the means to deliver them. Secondly, the president must do one other thing if the nation is going to support him in the long run: He must be truthful about the length of this effort."

to the campaign disguise strategy, I mean except for being honest about being an adulterous cad or worse. And really, except for Mondale's tax raising intent admission (ante-49 state loss) no democrat ever really totally admits how liberal they are.

Look at the euphemisms they employ to hide the lunacy of their views, the political correctness, the support the troops not the war, class warfare, etc. They can't be honest and win. And they lose as liars as well.

What I find funny are all the stories about how they don't stand for anyting or just don't communicate their message well.

Crap. Liberalism is discredited and thanks to the new media we all know their code now.

Result: they control nothing in government except berkely and chicago.

actual votes at polls? What is the prize for winning cbs news polls? Retirement to investigate national guard service more fully.

Courage.

Pin polls on wall and enjoy.

While the GOP backed army kills terrorists and breaks things the terrorists like to play with so that liberals can read polls that elect no one.

I wish Dean hadn't become so polarizing due to the Democratic primaries in which our own -- I'm a Democrat, of course -- party decided to villify and smear him. He is at least honest, even when he's WRONG he's not lying or being weak, and I think he could've been an interesting and independent wild card had only Dems not pegged him as a crazy loony leftist. As the quotes above show he was at least right on an issue where the majority of Dems refused to stake a position.

I don't expect this view will gain much sympathy here at Red State, but I really think Dean would've been both a better candidate than Kerry AND a better president than Kerry or most other Dems, had he been elected (note: I'm not going to try to argue a Dean > Bush argument here, I'm too tired).

It's my own selfishness and indulgence talking, but I wish that Dean would get a little bit of his due from the right at some point. Not going to happen, but you all know that he at least he never descended to the pitiful quivering jello that Kerry did.

Ooh, how I despise Kerry. But that's a discussion to be troll-rated for over at Daily Kos, so I'll leave it at that.

Sincerity is very important for politicians.  When a politician can fake sincerety, he has it made.

Addison and I agree with your reasons why. He is honest and i do respect him 100 x more than kerry

and 100 X less than Bush.

I share your loathing of Kerry as i see him as having no core beleifs and having a poor character.

I see Dean more as an undisciplined child that found himself having risen higher than he was strong enough to handle.

He is not a bad person. But the dem party is sorry party.

I was dem party county chair in sc for years and left the part in june 2001 at age 38.

Anyone who thinks I'm "braindead" and "evil" is going to have a hard time winning my vote.  Or put in consultant speak: he doesn't seem Presidential.

I'm glad he excites people.  I'm sorry he does it through divisive, hateful, negative speeches.

He's the butcher, he gives us red meat. And I respect him for doing so honestly as concordant with his beliefs. Kerry could never do that, and nor was he presidential, so he had nothing going for him.

Anyway, yeah, there's no way Dean could be "presidential," and that's why I -- as a Democrat -- like him. Precisely because he's not trying to win your vote by merely equivocating his way into everyone's disrespect. I hope that makes sense.

of Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral getting caught in a belly laugh by a reporter's camera and changing his countenance to teary-eyed mouring inside of 5 seconds?

I wish Dubya weren't so "Presidential." Actually if Dean were president and his country were attacked, I would love to turn him loose on critics of his war!!

I admit, that, being a  good baptist, that I  actually do have to pray to supress hate for the liberals that give and comfort to the enemy. I only hate the sin not the sinner!!!

But I think we would win moderate voters lokking for a leader if Dubya would show some Dean-like righteous indignation and blunt truth-telling from the conservative point of view.

And if I had to have either Kerry or Dean on Sept 12. I would take Dean every anniversary.

But thank God a majority wasn't brain dead and we got Wyatt Earp back in!!

Well I've voted for the majority vote winner in every election I've voted in.  So maybe you don't want my vote anymore, that's fine... but it is also why the 50-50 setup has shifted towards a +5 R advantage.  The more the party sucks up to the former Naderites, the more it loses any chance at winning over those of us who give it a chance.

I think you can be partisan without being insulting and hateful.  I think Gillepsie, Mehlman, and President Bush do a pretty good job of it actually.  If you can find a single place where they tell you that they hate anyone, I'd be surprised.  The intolerance of the leaders of the Democratic Party have really left a bad taste in my metaphorical mouth.  But it's not party.  If hate is what the base wants, I guess that's the way it will be.

But that's the kind of grudging almost respect for Dean I like to see! It's all about having someone, anyone, stand up for YOUR beliefs and ideals of America -- no matter what they are -- without watering them down into an incomprehensible mishmash of empty statements and truly pitiful focus grouped talking points. We all need our strong and unrelenting representatives on the political stage, no matter what party we belong to.

is that a large minority of voters are very liberal. A result of the 60's lib vietnam free love baby boomers takeover of the universities and the culture for 25 years who essentially substituted liberal ideology for religion and so are too invested in it , despite its failed results in domestic and foreign plicy to give up on it, because to do so is the render much of their lives meaningless.

Hence, the dem party, as the repository for this 20-30 % of the electorate will be relugated to permanent minoroty status or die.

We may well see that happen or see a libertarian-isolationist party emerge.

What say ya'll?

I didn't mean Democrats didn't want your vote, I meant that Dean wasn't speaking as if your vote mattered more than mine, a surefire Democratic voter.

Democrats have stumbled themselves into rough times, and we need to keep the fire burning. We're the minority party and our chairman will reflect that. No one in the GOP has a political reason to be angry, bitter, or insulting. But for us, in the sad sad Democratic world of 2005, it's a bit different. He keeps a lot of Democrats from seeing the entire party as a lump of incompetent boobs while we're renewing ourselves, and so serves his purpose well.

I also don't think it's about shifting toward Nader or away, it's about finally, at long last, coming up with an actual cohesive platform and vision for the country that isn't a hodgepodge of policies with no internal consistency. That could be right or left of the 1990's Dems. Dean buys the party the time to accomplish that by being the firekeeper.

I do respect much about Dean. On eof my favorite verses in the Bible is the one about a church that is luke warm that God spews out of his mouth.

Be hot or cold! I think Dean is wrong about most things, but he has a backbone, and I do belive that if he had been president on 9/12 he would have fared well and defended this country.

The presidency requires a confident man that is unafraid to fail as a major character trait and dean has it.

Too many in both parties do not. And debates in the center leave us all not knowing what policiecs actually work and which don't.

The Democratic party will shift towards a libertarian/isolationist platform to fill the perceived vacuum. I think that's already apparent in Kos' Rocky Mountain strategy, and I personally would be for it. Stranger things have happened...

a good debate on trade policy myself and immigration as relates to foriegn affairs, the terrosist threat and the effect of illegal immigration in large numbers on wages as well as social costs.

I just have no confidenc ethat the dem party can pull this off unless, and I hereby offer my advice!

1. Embrace state's rights on abortion and other social issues as relates to gays, etc. I actually think the left could make headway if they would give up the harsh rhetoric and relaince on courts and get back in the arena of ideas. They no longer have msm monopoly protection. They have to persuade people and they could to a good extent.
   
2. They must eschew the temptation to jump at every hint of opportunistic scandal mongering and reacting to news events.
   
3. Partisanship stops at the water's edge. They have got to support the president in war.

If they can't do #3, post 9/11 they will never have power again in our lifetime.

But I just think that theeir are too mnay liberal voters that will have a repository for their electoral power and its the dem party.

Luckily, given the roe effect on birth rates, they have peaked!

Dont believe every spin you hear.  Give me the link and the context of the quote you mentioned.

because  I know what he means and where he is coming from and actually appreciate the fact that he is passionately unashamed, most of the time of his liberal views. He means no personal harm to conservatives like me and the majority of the country.

He believes in his policies as the best for the country.

The dems I resent are the weasly so-called modertates that try to disguise liberalism by coucjing it in frauduent conservative rhetoric...like BOTH Clintons, and Biden, etc...

Jasmine, I hate to be the one to enlighten you, all snug and smug in your self-delusional little Liberal persona, but really:

"Howard Dean is no tragedy"?  Dean is both tragedy and farce.

This quote from Larry Elder, 'On WMD's - what did the Democrats say?', January 22, 2004, Town Hall:

"Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given."

There are similar quotes from President Clinton, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, and a host of prominent Democrats.

And President Bush made it absolutely clear that defeating the terrorists was a requirement, and would be a multi-year task.  I think that President Bush first said this in the speech right after 09/11.  President Bush, having spelled out the dangers and the task before us as a nation, oversaw the Afghani and Iraqi War Resolutions, both of which were strongly approved by both Houses of Congress, including many Democrats.

Dean is selective in his memory and opportunistic in his goals, and consequently can't be depended on by the American people.  Virtually all the Democrats are the same way.  That is why the Democrats are having trouble winning elections.  This is also why the Democratic Coalitions are fracturing; ethnic, Big Labor, Feminist, MSM, and the 527 groups are falling apart and becoming incoherent.  Even the DLC and the DNC are going in different direction, and Hillary just switched to the DLC.

I seem to recall the Lord of The Manor opening a can of whoop-you-know-what on The Prince of Windsurfing Trophy Husbands for running an abysmal campaign--particularly the notorious "I voted for it before I voted against it" line that he and his were defending to the death before Nov. 2nd.  Should Mr. Kerry somehow wind up with the 2008 nomination--presumably due to multiple scandals and/or plane crashes involving Lady MacBubba and other early frontrunners--it should be thoroughly entertaining watching Kos and his Merry Moonbat Minions trying to put that toothpaste back into the tube.

I personally think because of Clinton the Dem Party has become more moderate--they now believe in balance budget, welfare reform, fair free trade, pay go policy etc.  

Even Dean supporters....  Many Dean supporters were McCain supporters--I just think they were attracted to Dean or McCain becuase of the straight talking.

Dean supporters knew Dean was a moderate centrist and governed that way in Vermont and yet like him and the way he governed. Dean was Clintonian in governance and policy.

So really I dont understand what LIBERAL means.

I don't think Clinton left an imprint on the party and actually think, that except for Clinton's preservation of the liberal religion's sacrament of abortion, including the veto of partial birth (scissor to the skull as legs dangle outside the womb) abortion, the liberals in the party resnt Der Schliek meister.

Dems opposed the extension of welfare reform under Bush. Dems are for higher taxes, not balanced budgets.

McCain is not a straight talker. We found that out when he stuttered for two days over the confederate falg in SC 2000 and when his feingold law took away 1st amendment rights to....talk straight!

Dean was a mederate-centrist subject to Vermonts budget balance law the same way penitentiary inmates live healthy lives...by force.

I for one am glad the dems did not learn any Clinton lessons.

Liberals treat terrosist attacks on Americans as a law enforcement problem to investigate and turn over to lawyers AFTER THE FACT; they favor abortion on demand and gay marriage or at  last a judge's right to vote it in against the will of the people; higher taxes; did I say higher taxes; political correctness; moral relativism apologizing to UN dictators for America's supposed sins; condom demonstrations in schools while not praying....

Got it now?

You know I watch, listened,read most of Gov Deans

interviews and you take one paragraph out of its context.  Gov Dean has proven right and everything he said about Iraq was very reasonable.

Here is the transcript of the whole interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/main523726.shtml

I am a Catholic and I wish we have a Fetal Right to Life Bill and dont understand why Republicans who control the Legislative Body dont introduce it instead of focusing on Roe V Wade which will not make Abortion illegal.

I like George Herbert Bush 41 and would vote for him if he ran against Kerry but I thought Clinton was a good president.

And I really dont know what being a Liberal or a conservative means. I hate labels.  

Vermont was not required by law to balance their budget unlike many other states.  

and I do actually agree that despite Clinton's character flaws and their destructive manifestations in office, that while I can't flatly say he was a "good president," he did take Greenspan's advice on economic policy and signed the DOMA and gingrich welfare reform. And he did act w/o the UN in several areas and articulated the case against Saddam well.

He was bad in many ways and too liberal on partial birth, gays in military, hillary care, etc, but he did agree to gingrich tax cut.

I guess, when babysat by gop he was alright.

I voted for him twice and feel betrayed by him and left the pary in june 2001 after a conservative epiphany.  Bt Clinton did have some conservative ways born of sunday scholl in Arkansas and I don't hate him. Repent and sin no k more woman abuser!! (Don't you think he he is??)

But I will say i don't hate him and we could have done worse. he did not wreck the economy. He also didn't fight terrorism.

He has no character though.

How high are the taxes? I don't worship at the holy grail of a balanced budget FOR ITS OWN SAKE. Their simply is no evidence that it is that crucial. It also doesn't win elections. If most people had balanced budgets most would not own houses. Its a red herring for dems to raise taxes for power's sake and to free up funds for more bureacrcaies to build the utopian socialiust state they envision in their dreams. For the GOP it USED to mean smaller government. Now, tax cuts mean, RIGHTLY, more freedom but not much else.

here is a wapo summary

here is the original braindead article

and here is the original evil article  and there are surely other publications that covered it.  This is just the first three I checked.

Will pass muster with the SCOTUS, that is why we have to do something about Roe and Doe  first.

We recognize that the elimination of Roe will not make abortion illegal, it will only return it to its rightful place in the legislature.  However, until we reach that state, a Fetal Right to Life bill will be found unconstitutional due to the "Right to Privacy" emanating from the penumbras of the Constitition.

I can't believe liberals can't get this straight.  Wild-eyed NOW leaders say we must block John Roberts because he will send us to back alleys and coat hangers.  Others think we could just pass a simple law and end run around SCOTUS.  What's up?

I'm digitally challenged and surely don't break 40.  But it gives me plenty of time to proof read.

By the way, isn't your wife having your first baby around Labor Day?  Around our parts (Southwest Missouri, similar weather to OK), we call that poor family planning.  Children should not be large in the tummy in July and August.  Next time, I'll bet you deliver around April.

What in the world am I going to do when my kids get into Jr. High.  

I have no idea what you are talking about (and I'm not asking to be enlightened.)  This is the second time this week that I have been revealed as a square. (And who knew that a tongue ring had any kind of sexual connotation?)

Let us know when your book is published.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR200506280
1074_5.html?nav=hcmodule

snip

"As governor, Dean treated the citizens' money like his own. Sorrell remembers him pounding the arms of his chair in anger over the fact that he and the legislature had to assess a small sales tax. When he took over, Vermont was running a $65 million deficit. For 12 years, he was a fanatical balancer of the budget and also managed to lower taxes (helped by the Snelling policies he inherited).

Dean's management style in doing so was brisk, to put it charitably. He was impatient with procedure. Sorrell remembers Dean calling him in the early days of trying to erase the deficit. "Listen, I'm thinking about an income tax cut," he said.

"Whoa, Howard," Bill Sorrell said. "Whew. I got to chew on that one."

"Well you better chew fast, because I want to announce it today.""

Since he has known John Bolton and work with him,  I would defer to Sec Powells assessment.

to a Dem talking head the other day 'I don't know what you stand for.' He then asked him the Dem's party position on various issues eg tax cuts and the guy simply could not answer.

They have no cohesive vision and this is the problem with the English Tory party as well.

I agree and admire your honesty. What a pity I couldn't go to Dkos and put up the same sort of post from the right - I'd be troll rated right away.

But can I just point out to you that red meat Dems never win here; only Dems who pretend to be Repubs do - watch Hellary's hard tack to the right.

There are two things that I think every watcher of US politics ought to know. One is that Americans are fundamentally conservative. Even blue states voted with supermajorities of over 60% against gay marriage when it was on the ballot. This is why Hillary is changing her rhetoric.

the second is that elections go up and down here, but at the end of the day, the most affable, likeable candidate wins. This is because of the advent of universal tv. Clinton beats Bush, bush beats Gore and Kerry.

I think this is the single most important factor in all of American politics.

If Dems want to win next time around, I urge them to nominate Evan Bayh.

candidate than Kerry, just because he is more interesting, but I also don't think he would have won, and probably would have lost worse than Kerry.  

I also think he suffers entirely too much from foot in mouth desease, something most politicians catch a time or two, but Dean seems to be terminal with it.

of party leadership.  He doesn't suffer from foot in mouth desease, and he has goals and vision for the party, and does what he can to meet them.

I think the GOP made an excellent choice in him for party leadership.  He doesn't make the news as often as Dean does, but then he doesn't have to apologize as much for being "misunderstood."

What is the evidence that there was crossover? There is monumental evidence that only 20% of the GOP voters voted but what is your evidence of any significant crossover?

they have got to marginalize some of the special interest groups that control the party platform.

They should take on some pro life compromise planks-the things that the people in the gray areas are want to see.  I think that is hurting the dems on that issue, because the dems seem so uncompromising on it.

They should support school choice and vouchers (if anything is going to start bleeding African Americans it is their socially liberal stances combined with their opposition to any type of school choice-and they don't have to bleed to many more-a 5-10% shift in the African American vote, and that is all she wrote for the DNC).  Sure the teacher's union will have a coniption fit, but the DNC needs to tell them to sit down and shut up.

Going the libertarian approach would work for the DNC, but they will have to shed their special interest groups (who are not anything close to libertarian) in the proccess, or at least marginalize them, so they don't control so much of the party platform.

Link of so called paranoic ranting about 911--link please.

As a Republican, I don't respect Dean's message, but as a political hack, I do respect his tactics and goal.  

Last year when he was running for DNC Chair, many folks on my side of the aisle dismissed Dean as a loony leftist (which, admittedly, he is) whose extreme views and statements would severely damage the Democratic Party.  Yet that does not appear to be the case, as there does not seem to be much fall-out from his recent spate of statements -- other than outrage and consternation from the right.      

If the Republican Party was in the position in which the Democrats are today, I, like you, would want a leader who provides a choice, not an echo.  The issue for Democrats is whether the choice Dean provides is the right one to lead them out of the wilderness.  Being competitive in all regions of the country (ala the 2nd CD in Ohio) is a good start.  But tactics alone does not a majority make unless it is accompanied by a message that has coherence and resonance (ala the Contract with America).  

that Dean got my admiration for one statement I saw him make during a C-Span televised speech (I'm a C-Span junkie) early on.

He came out and said we can afford all of the heatlhcare that we need but we can not afford all of the healthcare that we want.  I actually thought that that really cuts to the chase and would be a good starting point for beginning to formulate policy.  It's not profound, but coming from a politician it was refreshing and on point.  Part of the reason we want so much health care (and we do - anyone with a headache wants a darn MRI)is because it's easy to want when you are playing with OPM, but we still need to grapple with need.  I think energy and healthcare are the big domestic issues facing this country and neither side really seems to have a solution.

I have to say that seeing the most esteemed and powerful members of the party attending the premier GOP event of the four year election cycle wearing band-aids with purple hearts on left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I thought it was juvenile and below the belt, though quite possible effective.

As an independent, I just don't see either party wearing a white hat on this issue and I am equally disgusted with both.  But it is probably the public's fault.  We seem to crave this rabidly partisan environment.  Modern day gladiators or something, keeping us amused while Rome burns.

Hackett lost by three points. Schmidt received 51.6% (57974), Hackett 48.4% (54401) -- news organizations rounded that to 52% and 48%, which is fine, but if you are taking the difference you need to subtract before rounding. Hackett lost by 3.2%, or three points.

He advocated raising federal taxes in his presidential campaign. I hate what for former lib dem tax-cutting at white christian state level govs running for prez on a class warfare raising taxes platform stand for....

For Colin Powell's opinions all we have to do is talk to the msm lib sychopant reporters he whined and leaked to while undermining his own president.

Good riddance to him.

But given that the congressional dems never actually embraced Clintonism but just clammed up a lot until he was gone, and given Gopre's leftward "real" gore campaign that ran away, not only from Monica, Kathleen and Juanita, but also the booming economy and welfare reform, I just don't think the leadership of the party has it in them to follow good advice.

A tiger is a tiger. Libs are libs. they still think they don't get their message out.

My God its out!!

By redstatesoccermom (let them play basesball!!) and also shows some of the reasons why Dean is not so bad sometimes and why we, ie America needs a coherent, sane and rational opposition party.

Go to dnc.org and you'd swear Hackett won the election.  How desparate do you have to be to try and act like a loss is a win?

"Gov Dean has proven right and everything he said about Iraq was very reasonable."

Really?  Including the times he has contradicted himself?  

And it is not just Dean.  In 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act was passed because Saddam was a threat and had WMD, among many other reasons.  The Senate voted unanimously for the Act, the House was near 100%, and President Clinton signed it into law.  The Iraq War Resolution in 2003 was passed with strong Democratic support.

There are many quotes from this time by leading Democrats that Saddam had WMD and he needed to be eliminated.  It was only after we were committed to war that the Democrats began to weaken.  After we were in Iraq, then the Democrats suddenly elided their previous positions, and discovered that BUSH LIED!  Amazing, since Bush has been constant and the Democrats changed their position, which, just coincidentally, they thought would give them political advantage.  Boy, were they ever surprised!  Bush was re-elected even though the Democrats lied to prove that Bush was all wrong!

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040122.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20040130.shtml

But keep up the good work.  We have much to accomplish, and the work will go much more easily as long as the Liberal Democrats continue to stew in their own dishonesty and confusion.

NOTE:This is from a diary entry ... Administrators should delete if reposting it like this violates somethin'

[It's a] speech by Sandy Berger, given at Stanford University on the 8th of December, 1998, the former National Security Advisor who "inadvertently" stuffed classified documents down his pants and socks and "inadvertently" destroyed them when he got home.

... I want to talk about another aspect of our Middle East policy today—our effort to combat the threat to peace still posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And I want to put that discussion in a broader regional context.

America's most vital national interest in dealing with Iraq is straightforward: to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military capability, including weapons of mass destruction, and from using that arsenal to move against his neighbors or his own people. But we must also keep in mind that Saddam's continued reign of terror inside Iraq and intimidation outside Iraq have broader implications for all our interests in region. The future of Iraq will affect the way in which the Middle East and the Arab world in particular evolve in the next decade and beyond—and our policy must take that into account.

[...]

Keep in mind that Saddam's Iraq was traditionally the region's leading opponent of compromise with Israel. It led the effort to quarantine Sadat's Egypt after Camp David, and it prided itself on being the only Arab country that could rain down fire on the Israeli people.

But when Saddam was defeated by a coalition of Americans, Europeans and Arabs fighting together, many old preconceptions about Middle East politics were shattered. The Madrid peace conference soon followed, and from that the whole series of events that led to the Rabin-Arafat hand shake and more important, to the countless handshakes among ordinary people that have followed.

The peace process has moved forward in part because, ever since the Gulf War, the immediate military threat Saddam poses has been contained—albeit at a substantial price. But even a contained Saddam is harmful to stability and to positive change in the region. Conversely, a constructive Iraq would help change the equation in the region.

That is not because Saddam is a true believer in any radical, extremist vision. The only cause Saddam believes in is his own survival and ambition. And more Arabs see through him today than ever before. But by manipulating the suffering he himself has inflicted on Iraqis, and invoking the rhetoric of Arab solidarity, he has remained a convenient symbol for those who seek to exploit the sense of aggrievement, frustration and defeat that is still so powerful in much of the Arab world. Fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden may be utterly different from Saddam, yet they can still take advantage of his conflict with the world to win recruits for their cause.

As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.

[...]

Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable over the long run.

It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms. The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance, followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances, "cheat and retreat" leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot tolerate it endlessly, either.

The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain the international support we have built for our policy. Even this toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as their country is Saddam's preserve.

Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam's continued misrule of Iraq is harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from evolving in a positive way. It creates the false perception of a conflict between Muslims and the United States " a perception that the President has done much to erase over the last few years, but which inevitably persists among some people in the Muslim world. It means the continuation of oppressive policies against all the peoples of Iraq that threaten that country's integrity, and thus the stability of the region.

The sooner the situation in Iraq is normalized, the sooner the people of the Middle East can get on with the business of building a more stable region, and the more likely we are to realize our goal of seeing the region integrated, with consent of its people, into the international system.

We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is "through a government in Baghdad—a new government—that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region." Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him.

[...]

What we can and will do is to strengthen the Iraqi opposition and support the Iraqi people, to work with them step by step, in a practical and effective way, to delegitimize Saddam, and then when the time is right, to help them achieve a new leadership in Iraq.

[...]

We know from history that when tyrannies are prevented from expanding they often retreat and decay. We know from experience that when people struggling for freedom gain the moral and material support of the American people, they usually win in the end.  We know as well that change, when it does come, often comes suddenly and at unexpected times.

Change will come to Iraq, at a time and in a manner that we can influence but cannot predict. And when it does, we'll look back and say "thank goodness we persevered." That is what we intend to do, with your help and your understanding.

Let's couple that with this by President Clinton himself; he delivered this speech at the Pentagon to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 17th of February, 1998 ...

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

[...]

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

[...]

UNSCOM ... [has] uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

[...]

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

[...]

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

And then, of course, is this; this is is is Item 4 on the background info on Al Qaeda from the 1998 Justice Department indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented to the United States Southern District Court of New York:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Then we have these statements by many other Democrats and Clinton Administration officials ... Note that these are people who have or have had access to intelligence reports since the Gulf War. They include at least one General, two Presidents, a Secretary of Defense and Legislators who are or have been members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees of the two Houses of Congress.

Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.

Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.

Robert Byrd, October 2002

There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001


Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.

Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons ... I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.


Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.

Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.


Bob Graham, December 2002

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

John Kerry, October 9, 2002

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.


Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.


John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Why am I posting up all this? To illustrate the utter mendacity that has consumed the Left and the Press (I repeat myself) on Iraq. Let's recap: the Left side of the political spectrum in this country continues to push the story that the President "lied" i.e. framed Saddam Hussein, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

We're supposed to believe that the idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was something made out of whole cloth by the Bush Administration. The more idiotic elements (and unfortunately quite significant) of the Left i.e. Kossacks, Chomskyite college students and Hollywood actually believe that Saddam never actually had WMD. This is so stupid, it does not deserve the honor of a refutation.

And even if, Saddam did, at some point, have weapons of destruction (which some Leftists concede), we're supposed to believe that it was well known, prior to the war, that Saddam could be taken at his word that he had gotten rid of these weapons. The words of many Democrats, voiced mere weeks before (and even after) the invasion, who have access to the same intelligence the President has, and who have had access to this intelligence long before the President's ascension to the Oval Office, belie this utterly.

Those Leftists who are honest enough to acknowledge that hindsight more than two years forward is the only reason why they are so sure that Saddam didn't have WMD next would have us believe that the Bush Administration deliberately overhyped the threat, e.g. flyerhawk. Apparently, nobody else considered it a big deal if Saddam Hussein had a few thousand liters of VX, Sarin or Botox. Again, the words of many senior Democrats, the past Administration and even the President of France belie this as emphatically as possible.

Next, we're supposed to believe that even if it was a big deal that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, it was common knowledge that we could rest easy because he would never ever have considered giving these weapons to terrorists to use on US soil, which is the same thing as basically allowing the national security of the United States to be dependent upon the rationality and sanity of Saddam Hussein. Yet, many high ranking Democrats (including no less than a President) are on record acknowledging that Saddam, did, indeed, have a record of aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists, and that it was a distinct possibility that he could hand a cannister of Sarin to a terrorist organization.

When confronted with this, the Leftist simply takes another sip of his/her latte, his/her copy of the New York Times folded neatly in front of him/her and proclaims confidently (largely because Saddam is in a jail cell) that Saddam being secular and Osama being a religious fanatic meant that the Saddam regime and Al Qaeda could never have worked together. Again, we have a document (the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden) from a Democrat administration asserting that, on the contrary, Saddam and Al Qaeda not only were capable of working together, but they had actually come to some sort of agreement about it.

Did the Clinton Administration therefore lie in the indictment? And since they submitted this to a court, is that not cause enough for prosecution?

Most would then point out that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion (hindsight enabled) that the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had not developed a "collaborative operational relationship" as proof that Saddam and Al Qaeda would never have been able to work together. But this ignores the rest of the paragraphs that dealt with Al Qaeda and Iraq, of which these words are at the tail end.

From Chapter 2 (Page 66 - i.e. 83 on PDF) of the 9/11 Commission Report;

There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

[...]

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

After the events of 9/11, without the benefit of hindsight on the state of Saddam's WMD programs/arsenal, and every single credible intelligence agency around the world certain that Saddam Hussein still retained a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons, any report of contact between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda would terrify anybody, especially an administration that had just witnessed the worst attack on its nation's citizens since World War II.

Yet the very same people who charge that the Bush Administration failed to "connect the dots" and therefore "allowed" the September 11th attacks to happen are the same ones who are pretending to be aghast that the Bush administration did not choose to ignore the Intelligence agencies of this nation and its allies, the UN, reports dating back many years and the public statements of the Clinton administration when it came to Iraq.

There are many solutions to the problem and I am afraid Bush chose the wrong one and the dumbest solution.  HE should have listened to his father. Events today proved Bush Sr., Gov Dean, Buchanan, Novak, Wesley Clark RIGHT.....

And so with the majority of americans now believe so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713832.shtml

... the majority of Americans were opposed to the Marshall Plan too but that didn't make them right. Although I have great confidence in the inherent good sense of the American people, sometimes they don't know it until later.

Given the constant diet of nothing but bad news it is almost amazing that the opposition, or more correctly lack of support, isn't even lower. The people of this nation are bombarded day and night by the leftist Hate-America-First media and the Democrats crying "the sky is falling" --- it isn't surprising that people might be unsupportive.

Because of the deficits he wanted to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy first.  He thought the middle class got only a measly tax cut which was offset by higher tuition rates, property taxes, state taxes, hidden fees and taxes.  Eventually he wanted to have real tax reform.

I will trust him because he has 12 years of governance background to give us an idea of what direction he would take on taxes and fiscal responsibility.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Tax_Reform.htm

What I dont like about SSS is that we pay a lot of payroll taxes.  Why dont Republicans hit the current Social Security by providing a way to decrease the payroll taxes?

Is it true?

If GWBush were objectively wrong to have invaded Iraq, a poll would be irrelevant.

Is it opinion?

If the population thinks GWBush was wrong to have invaded Iraq, an objective statement would be impossible.

So by including both a poll and an objective statement of putative fact you do not re-inforce your argument, but undercut two seperate arguments that allow you to draw your conclusions as you like.

I am glad so many people have jobs that allow them enough free time to do the work of Rumsfeld and his whole staff, as well as Rice and her whole staff, and GWBush and his whole staff.  Obviously the national intelligence budget is totall pork since we can count on the population to digest the needed data by reading USA Today every other day.

at the prescience that enables the left to determine which polls to believe. I guess they are just special in that way.

he thought that Bush new in advance about 911 from the Saudis.

Maybe the frequent movement of idiots a