Wow, as a gay man, I'm so happy that I can finally get screwed legally by a Texas cowboy.
Hey, wait a second!
Didn't the Supreme Court already make that decison in 2000?
From Andrew Sullivan's drive-through shooting of Howard Dean today:
WHOPPER: I didn't see what many are calling a disastrous performance by Howard Dean on "Meet The Press," but I know from observing him and debating him once that he's an intemperate, arrogant bully. Will Saletan is onto something here. It's a trait bad doctors have. They are used to being in such controlling positions vis-a-vis their patients that it goes to their heads. Good doctors resist such an obvious temptation.
Uh, okay. And you are...not "an intemperate, arrogant bully?" Now that you've set Dean up, tell us what you really think, Andrew....
And then there's Dean's looseness with the truth. I'd say Fred Barnes scores a few hits with this column. Here's one Dean quote Fred exposes: "Karl Rove and others have talked about going back to the McKinley era before there was any kind of social safety net in this country." Now Karl Rove has talked about McKinley - but only, so far as I know, in respect to electoral campaign politics, not policy matters. Maybe one of the Dean blogs can put me right on this. Defend Dean's statement; or somehow persuade me this isn't an obvious deceptive smear. Email me, Deanies. Stand by your man. Or keep him honest.
So I write to Andrew Sullivan:
Perhaps Dean took the rhetoric a bit far, but please, Andrew, please! Can you really make the case that this is somehow worse than Bush's frequent assertion that he promised during the 2000 presidential campaign that he would only allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency, but he never imagined he would "have a trifecta?" As you know, it was really Vice President Al Gore that said "Barring an economic reversal, a national emergency, or a foreign crisis, we should balance the budget this year, next year, and every year."
Considering the fairly well established neo-conservative goal of federal government starvation, Dean's rhetorical point -- facts aside -- is hardly a stretch. Drawing two pieces of related information into one point, when and if the facts bear making that point, is the debaters prerogative. But a Whopper? By your standards, the unseemly lies coming out of the Bush administration constitute a lifetime supply of 6-Dollar-Burgers.
Dean & Clark Sittin' in a Tree?
Has anyone else noticed how similar, how very very similar, Howard Dean's and Wesley Clark's foreign policy seem to be? One wonders if they are already in deep discussions regarding the possible future of serving our country together. Consider Dean, on Meet The Press:
DR. DEAN: If we continue following George Bush's military policy and defense policy, will become a secondary military power. Under President Dean, that won't happen for two reasons. First of all, it's a long-term phenomenon. And secondly I will begin to set us on a path where cooperation as part of our foreign relations and our diplomatic policy. This president has essentially pushed aside people who disagree with him, using our military might, and using threats and intimidation. In the long run, that does not work.
MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?
DR. DEAN: I can't answer that question. And I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that we're one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than they're getting.
And consider this, from Gen. Clark, on Crossfire:
CLARK: Well, I think we've got to try to do as much as we can to make that a success. We can debate whether we should have been there or not, but the fact is, we are there. And if we make it a success, there will be some benefits that come from it. To make it a success, the Iraqi people have to want us there. We have to legitimate our presence. International organizations in there supporting us. I believe we need a greater role from the United Nations, at least in terms of overall legitimacy, and we need to get the Iraqi political process moving at the greatest possible speed.
BEGALA: But you would not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?
CLARK: Not at this point. No. I think there is still a chance that we can do some very, very good things in there now that we're there.
Hmm. These guys sound pretty damn similar, don't they? What is up with that? But wait, Clark continues, defending Dean to Tucker Carlson regarding his answers on Meet The Press:
CARLSON: General Clark, you went up to Capitol Hill last week, and apparently were very warmly received by Democrats, a measure of how weak the current field is. I want to give you one example. Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, on NBC this weekend, admitted he had no idea how many military personnel there are in the United States. That's embarrassing, isn't it, that he didn't know that?
CLARK: No, I don't think that's necessarily embarrassing. He gave an answer, as I recall. He said 1 to 2 million. So, I mean, when you count the active and the reservists, he's certainly in the ballpark.
CARLSON: Do you think he has the experience to be president?
CLARK: I'm not going to pass judgment on that. I think that's for the American people to decide after they hear the issues and compare the candidates.
I say K-I-S-S-I-N-G (figuratively speaking of course) and that's a good thing.
I'm beginning to detect a pattern. GOP operatives are so frightened of the prospect of Howard Dean that they can't even play a decent hand of poker. Heck, they can't even decide on the rules. It's kinda like Howard-Dean-kitchen-sink poker -- just throw all your cards in the air and hope that a winning hand falls back on the table. In the many posts below, and no doubt more to come, they clearly believe that they must call Dean names and attempt to tear him down. However, they can't decide what names, exactly, to call him. And, curiously, it seems that the only candidate that they are really interested in attacking is -- yup -- Howard Dean. In this piece from the right-wing Washington Times, they've decided to report on pro-gun control groups -- strange in and of itself -- that are gearing up an attack on Dean as 'weak on guns:'
Mr. Dean believes that gun laws should not be a federal issue; individual states should determine what, if any, restrictions to impose. "Perhaps Dean will have success in convincing criminals to promise not to carry their guns across state lines, and convincing gun traffickers not to buy or sell them across state lines. Governor, guns cross state borders. Maybe it's you who should stay at the state level," the Brady group said.
It's important to note that Dean's stance on control is actually a bit more varied than this. He's for closing the gun show loophole, and he's for the ban on assault weapons. He's also strongly for fully funding enforcement of the sometimes-ignored and underfunded federal gun laws.
Is he too left? Is he too right? Whatever the answer, the GOP is pissing their pants at the poker table -- and it shows.
UPDATE: Also from the Washington Times, an editorial regarding Dean's support of civil unions. I should have seen this earlier, an excllent illustration that the GOP is not clear which way to play their Dean hand. You know, if the left keeps hitting him, and the right keeps hitting him, they may just pound Dean into a highly electable centrist. However, Dean would occupy a left-leaning center that exposes Bush for the radical right-wing neo-con that he truly is.
Hillarious (and futile) posts from FreeRepublic.com, a "conservative" forum, regarding their pathetic attempts to influence the MoveOn.org primary. Umm, do the posts on this page seem conservative to you? It gives me the shivers. It's not like this is an online CNN poll! However, I came across this gumball, and for Dean fans like me, it's gratifying to have a 'puglican confirm what many of us already suspected: Dean is the man the smart ones are worried about. Katya, take it away!
I should have added: Hugh Hewitts request to vote for Dean is ridiculously stupid. Dean is problematic, as he is pro gun and very slick...he doesn't come off as a pansy politicians like Kerry. MoveOn is going to send the winning candidate a truck load of money...let it go to someone with no hope of winning.
UPDATE: From the freeps that brought you the above: Republicans for Sharpton
UPDATE 2: more MoveOn.org shenanigans: Common Voices
Well, Howard Dean has taken his screaming from the left of late for being a closet conservative while the right largely took a snooze, content to call him names like liberal or ultra-liberal in passing. No more. With the bizarre exceptions of Joe Scarbarough & Pat Buchanan -- who both seem to find Dean sincerely appealing as a candidate -- we are now gonna start really taking it. These three columns ratchet up the volume against Dean and are particularly nasty. There will be many more of the same. The deep, dark Bowels of Rove are churning as we speak.
By J. Grant Swank, Jr. at the conservative MichNews.com:
When the public gets mainly his park yell and not his think-through with depth at a debate table, then Dean gets himself in trouble with people with brains. Now I don't expect Dean to take this advice. He will continue doing what comes naturally. He will just let that lip fly at full tilt. All the while he will surmise that he's making sense. He won't be making much sense to people with brains, but the applause from his already enthusiasts will kid him into thinking that he's making points.
Illogical and dumb, this article basically states that Dean talks too fast, is gonna burn out, and his supporters are dumb and illogical. He may have a point about the burnout, but the truth is, we have a long, long way to go. We can deal with peaking too early when we are considered the frontrunner. We should have such problems.
Let's move the gutter down the hill with Rush Limbaugh:
Dean's political Hindenberg landing may have helped him with the far-out, wacko liberal base, but in terms of the mainstream population, it was a bomb of Dukakian proportions. He will suffer a McGovern-Mondale-scale loss if he faces Bush next year. These guys try to be Bill Clinton, but they can't pull it off! Clinton would've bit his lower lip and called who ever reported this stuff a lying sack. Dean tried, and failed spectacularly. He may get the nomination based on performances like this, because he's up with Sharpton as the only candidate with a pulse. We'll wait and see.
Now, is he the lefty or the charlatan centrist? How, exactly, would a performance on Russert, with answers liable to upset the Dem base, help get Dean the nomination? I'm confused, Rush.
Now, buckle-up! for a trip around the chamber pot with Doug Patton at GOPUSA:
Back here in the real world, a man named Howard Dean is running for president, and what he is selling is a snake oil worse than anything ever pedaled door-to-door or at any MLM convention. In fact, what Howard Dean is pushing would make FDR gasp and Lenin applaud.
Of course, barring some catastrophe, Howard Dean will not defeat George W. Bush to become the next President of the United States. Those who truly wish for such an outcome can always move to Canada and pretend their guy won.
So basically, if you are a Dean supporter, you are far-out, whacko, crazy, stupid, lefty, communist, French-Canadian homosexual whore. Got that? Or not, because according to Slate you are a closet biz Dem lurking in lefty circles wearing cashmere and a silk scarf.
But seriously folks, if Dean didn't have the Republicans nervous, they wouldn't waste the ink. If they really thought he would be the best candidate for Bush to trounce, they'd shut the hell up. But the truth is, they are trying to affect our primary. They would love to face Gep or Leeb. Clearly, they can't decide on the best message to take Dean out, so they have all these nervous, critical ticks. They are all over the map, and their screeds are the political equivalent of a pipe bomb. But just like a pipe bomb, they better be careful or they may wind up mortally wounding one of their own.
I mean, George Bush + High Expectations = President Dean.
As for Dean's attacks from the left? I happily refer you to FDR's gasps and Lenin's applause (see above). I think I'll just keep working on Howard's campaign and leave these folks to debate their polarizingly opposite arguments of the same guy. Nope, sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.
Oh, and a "by the way" to Rush, Rove and the gang: keep screamin' and yellin' and spellin' Dean's name right! We need ALL the press we can get.
The survey shows that Bush leads an unnamed Democratic challenger by 12 points, 50 to 38 percent, about the same lead he's held since the war began in late March. That's a sizable lead, perhaps, but not when you consider that Bush's father held a whopping 21-point lead (51 to 30 percent) over an unnamed Democratic rival at this point in the 1992 campaign.
And, the more unbeatable they say this guy is, the better our chances of beating him. Low expectations were extremely helpful to Bush in 2000, and high expectations devastated Gore. The same will be true, in reverse, for Bush -- and, I, hope Howard Dean. Dean is already far ahead of where Clinton was in 1992, so hey, anything -- and I do mean anything -- is possible.
The following is the letter I sent to a huge list of friends asking for their support of Dean and asking them to register at MoveOn.org and vote for Dean!
+ + +
Though I haven't been in touch with many of you in some time, I write today regarding a matter of great urgency. MoveOn.org, formed in opposition to the Clinton impeachment machinations of Republicans in Congress, is now a 1.4 million strong progressive organization with amazing clout on the internet and real-world impact. With an e-mail or two, MoveOn can raise hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions and millions, of dollars for candidates they endorse.
MoveOn is currently holding an online "primary" for the Democrats running for President. To receive the endorsement, a candidate will need to receive 50% of the vote -- and in a field of 9 candidates, that's hard to do indeed. Registration to vote is only open through the end of the day -- and it's critical that you register and vote.
Why is this so critical? The candidate with the largest chunk of support from MoveOn members is Howard Dean, the former Governor of Vermont. He's a straight-shooter. He signed the civil unions bill in Vermont. He's for a balanced budget. He's vocally opposed to the unilateral, dogmatic foreign policies of the Bush administration that make for a less, not a more, secure America. And most importantly, he's quite likely the ONLY Democrat who can stand up to Karl Rove and George Bush and Dick Cheney and win. Rove, Bush and Co. are most frightened of Dean, and if they have their way they will destroy him in the primary rather than face him in the general.
I don't typically send out these sorts of e-mails, but right now, so much is at stake in America. In these challenging times for our country, we must have a President who works with our allies, who cares about the United States standing in the world neighborhood, and who will stand up to Republicans and fight instead of acting like Bush-lite and hoping that a faux-Republican stance will somehow, mysteriously win us back the oval office.
None of the other candidates are likely to win, but they could block Dean from receiving 50% of the vote. My belief is that if we win the MoveOn primary it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to deny us the nomination. Further, 1 million MoveOn members pledging $10 a month would produce $120 million in 12 months. To fight Bush's $200 million war chest, we will need this kind of grassroots organizing.
Please help us take back the Democratic Party, take back the White House, and give the political power in this country back to the American people. It's an exciting time, I hope that you'll join us and be a part of this historic movement. Please register for the MoveOn primary (it only takes a few minutes), please forward this message to those you think might be willing to help, and please please vote Howard Dean for President!
Dean for America
Best Regards, - Scott
Great Arianna Huffington piece. She sounds like a Democrat more and more lately...
Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, has identified among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent, a doctrine that is riddled with contradictions, the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God, and the use of reinforcement techniques such as repetition to spread one's message.
Sound like anyone you know? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle... come on down!
Wonder why the WMD are MIA? The answer may lie in the DSM -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I know it can sound a bit cheap to call people you disagree with nuts, which is why I refer you to the psychiatric literature. And keep an open mind, something the Bushies stopped doing a long time ago.
Nice stuff. You go girl!