Howard Dean, Serious Threat, Says Christopher Ruddy

Newsmax.com ^ | 11-10-03 | Ruddy, Christopher

[Nonstatist]

Which of the 20 Gore states is Dean likely to lose?

I would say.. Pennsylvania , NM, Minnesota,Oregon and Iowa.In the maybe corner goes Washington and Michigan. The number of states willing to boot an incumbent over the war alone, if the economy is in decent shape, is not all that high. And that will be Dean's main issue.

[mac_truck]

Dean looks like a leader. He is also an outsider. As the Schwarzenegger win proves, Americans want outsiders in Washington.

Here's another example. Since when does a conservative populist movement to oust an entrenched Democrat in California translate into a positive event for Dean?

I've heard Terry McCauliff spin this argument, but not too many others.

[Nonstatist]

How is it "liberal" to argue that the massive costs incurred in the war on terror ought to be paid for via taxes instead of via borrowing from the Chinese

Dean wants to spend that tax money, not hoard it, cowboy. Borrowing this much forces us to reign in spending, as an alternative to further dampening growth thru tax increases. Thus Bush is setting the table for future spending cuts. Kinda ingenuous, isnt it?

[Doctor Stochastic]

At this stage in 1976, I seem to remember that Muskie was thought to be the front-runner (with Ted Kennedy a slow second.) Dean and Kucinich seem popular in Northern New Mexico.

[Nonstatist]

In primaries Dems run to the left

Dean's got several volumes of "words" to eat, before he gets back to the center. Wait till people see what a basket case of left wing nonsense Vermont is, before you start spouting about what a "moderate" Dean is. National Review did a big article on it a couple of weeks ago.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Dean will grab Graham much sooner than Clark. Graham and Dean didn't really toss barbs at one another.

[MattAMiller]

I have to agree with Ruddy. Dean is not the wild eyed liberal his supporters think he his. All they hear is the Bush hate. He has good record on guns and will have credible, at least in the eyes of the public, economic conservative credentials.

And whatever you think about Dean's demenor he's certainly better than the other Dems.

And if the attacks don't let up in Iraq Bush will be very vulnerable, whatever happens in the economy.

[Theodore R.]

Nonstatist, you need to change your moniker then to "optimist."

Pessimist TR

[oceanview]

of course. people here expect Dean will be spouting the same radical stuff he is saying now during the general election. he will not, he will be a "centrist governor". the main question is how many independents vote Dem, their base is secure, how many independents can be fooled by the media and the rest of the Dem apparatus to vote for Dean (or any Dem for that matter)?

if Karl Rove were smart, as soon as Dean appears to have won the nomination, start an TV ad campaign with just some of his "best of" remarks during the campaign in the swing states. Don't give Dean the chance to "re-invent" himself after the primaries.

I also agree that Graham will be the VP. Their strategy for the election is all the Gore states + Florida.

[oceanview]

what is Dean's economic agenda? unless he is willing to run against free trade, where is his appeal on economics apart from the Dem base?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Presidents don't have close re-elections. They either lose badly or win handily. Bush-Cheney '04 needs to decide which way it's going to be. The dynamics are totally different than an open race.

[Nonstatist]

change your moniker then to "optimist."

LOL! Maybe I'm all full of spit, who knows. But I personally dont think Gore would have done as well if he werent the incumbent, with the economy doing well. And he still lost. :)

[GraniteStateConservative]

I meant to add that this is particularly true of presidents who have already faced voters in a general election-- as Bush has, but a few other presidents had not.

[GO65]

Dean wants to spend that tax money, not hoard it, cowboy. Borrowing this much forces us to reign in spending, as an alternative to further dampening growth thru tax increases. Thus Bush is setting the table for future spending cuts. Kinda ingenuous, isnt it?

Given that the spending bills coming out of Congress in the last few weeks continue to grow the government, and Bush shows no signs of threatening a veto, when can we expect these mystical spending cuts? During the 2nd Jenna Bush administration?

[Wphile]

Obviously Bush-Cheney'04 wants to win handily. However, we should never go into an election thinking that way. It's important that no amount of complacency set in as we will have to turn out the vote. That's the reason behind the message.

I agree about Graham - that he would be a more likely VP choice than Clark for Dean.

[oceanview]

generally true, but I think the country is so polarized now, that its a different analysis. there really are two america's, there isn't much common ground between the "factions".

[GraniteStateConservative]

And Bush hasn't even framed the debate on the war, yet. That's what that wad of cash is for. Making the world safe for the US and not sweeping problems under the rug-- that's the message.

[Nonstatist]

when can we expect these mystical spending cuts

I'm hoping after the election. Im just pointing out that Dean is no balance the books type of guy. Bush may not be either, which will leave somebody else down the line with some hard decisions. Not the way I would have done things, but Im trying to look at the bright side.

[Jack Black]

Is Dean, not Bush, the best choice of those who want to restore the Consitutional Republic?

Or in other words does it have to get worse before it gets better? Should our strategy be "slower" or "bring it on!" That's the most interesting question.

The answer depends on whether one believes we can get back to the original Republic in reverse, via electing the most conservative R's we can. Bush is an excellent example of the best we can do. (That is he is more Conservative than McCain, the main challenger in 00, or Dole, or his Dad. List out the 'on deck' Republicans for 2008 and most are to the left of Bush2) To date he has grown the size of the government at a high rate, even excluding TSA and such. He has failed to eliminate almost any government program. He has agreed, in principal to another huge federal mandate, prescription drugs. He is unable to appoint conservative judges, which means the rule-by-men-in-dresses will continue.

I believe he would like to do more, but for various reasons can not.

If we are the frog the flame has been lowered, but the water is still getting warmer and warmer.

Perhaps we need to go "though the looking glass" to get back to where we want to be. An ultra liberal proposing reparations, gun confiscation and gay marraige might be just the thing to bring the pot to a boil now, when there is still a collective memory of concepts like Liberty and Individual Responsibility.

As much as I respect Bush I sometimes feel that by voting for, a man who is good at heart, but ultimately constrained in his actions, is not accomplishing anything significant towards the issues I consider most key.

Are we resigned to continuously living in a more and more socialist, controlled, hedonistic, liberal dominated police state? Is the role of "conservatives" merely to slow the rate at which we become France?

I guess we will all try a little longer. Those supporting Democracy in Iran have supported Khatami, the President, for a decade. While talking as a "reformer" and friend of democracy the brutal reality is that he lacks the ability or fortitude to actually counter the mullahs. Finally, they seem to be realizing that this is not getting them anywhere.

I am starting to feel, like Iranian reformers, that conventional electoral strategies for restoring our lost Republic are somewhat useless. The left used a wide variety of methods to impose their coercive socialism on the USA, going back to FDR. Can we undo it with a tepid and constrained Republican party as our only tactic?