Skip to comments.Conservative Leader calls Dean Dean Too 'Mentally Unstable' to Be President
Posted on 01/01/2004 9:19:32 AM PST by nwrep
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- The leader of a conservative political group says he thinks Democrat presidential front-runner Howard Dean is too "mentally unstable" to become president and that it is "sad" Republicans want him to be the Democrat nominee.
Religious Freedom Coalition Chairman William J. Murray sent an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday voicing his reservations about the former Vermont governor becoming the Democrat nominee for president that he says are echoed behind closed doors across the country.
"It says something about our nation that a great political party consisting of millions of Americans could possibly pick someone as mentally unstable as Howard Dean to lead their party and carry their banner into a national election," Murray wrote in the e-mail. "I have just made a comment about Dean that has not been printed anywhere, but has been said privately in newsrooms and boardrooms across the nation."
Murray added, "No one, not even Governor Howard Dean, can tell what is going to come from his mouth next."
But Murray said Republicans should not be elated at the prospect of Bush facing Dean in the general election in November.
"Republicans think that Howard Dean as the Democrat front-runner in the primaries is just a big laugh," Murray continued in the e-mail. "I don't think it is funny, I think it is sad."
Murray cited Dean's flip-flop on the issue of Christianity while on the campaign trail as evidence of his blunt description of Dean.
"I was shocked to watch [Dean] at a rally in San Francisco when he growled out loud that he wasn't going to listen to any preachers," Murray recalled in the e-mail. "Then in New Hampshire during an interview on Christmas Day with the Boston Globe, he stated that he would emphasize his Christianity as soon as he began to campaign in the South. What?"
Dissecting Dean's religious background, Murray notes that although his mother was Catholic, his father was Episcopalian and raised him in that faith.
However, when Dean met his wife, Judith Steinberg, she was Jewish. He did not want to convert to Judaism and she did not want to become a Christian. Murray said Dean and his wife contemplated becoming Unitarians as a "compromise."
"Compromise?" Murray questioned. "Unitarians do not believe in a living God."
He added, "Most Unitarians are either agnostics or atheists and they surely do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ."
As for Dean's children, Murray said, "it gets worse."
"The Deans told their children to pick a religion, any religion, and that they would not get involved in their decision one way or the other," Murray lamented.
The two children subsequently chose to become Jewish.
Dean himself parted ways with the Episcopal Church in the 1980's "over a dispute about the route of a public bike path through the church property," Murray wrote.
"Excuse me? Now, I would leave a church if they ordained female deacons or recruited a homosexual music minister...but a bike path?," exclaimed Murray.
Murray said Dean then joined the Congregationalist Church, but now "rarely, if ever, attends."
Citing the recent Boston Globe interview, Murray said Dean was careful not to mention Jesus Christ as being "the Son of God, as a part of the Trinity, or being in any way divine."
"Indeed, he talks of Christ in the past tense, as if He had died in the human sense," Murray contends. "Perhaps Howard Dean would have been better off in a Unitarian Church, but then he would have had trouble winning any elections as a member of a near atheistic institution."
Murray says this indecision about his faith is what makes Dean change his mind so often about what he believes on a daily basis.
"One day [Dean] said he did not know if Usama bin Laden was guilty of 9-11 and that the man should get a fair trial," Murray wrote. "The next day he said Usama deserves the death penalty."
He continued, "[Dean] has stated that the United States should receive 'permission' from the United Nations before waging war and then said that the Iraqi people must determine their own fate."
Murray says this indecision about what Dean believes is evidence of someone who is "not of a single mind," alluding to possible schizophrenia, and that his run for president is both "pathetic and dangerous."
At the end of the e-mail, Murray gives a hypothetical scenario where Dean is the Democrat nominee and behind Bush by 15 percent in the polls in October. Then Bush dies running in a marathon and Vice-President Dick Cheney becomes president and decides to run against Dean.
"The Christian right envisions Cheney's lesbian daughter being married to her female lover in the White House, and they just don't vote," Murray envisions. "The Muslims join with the unions, the gays, the socialists and the loony greens to vote Dean in, and we have a madman in the White House in January '05."
Murray does not believe this is as far-fetched as it might sound and believes it should cause anyone who cares about the values and principles of America to fear the possibility of a President Howard Dean.
"The fact that Howard Dean can raise tens of millions of dollars and attract millions of supporters who really don't care what he says should scare all Americans and the rest of the world as well," Murray concluded.
Reiterating his personal concerns about Dean, Murray says that Bush should want to face the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, not their weakest.
"While Karl Rove may be ecstatic over the Democrats picking Howard Dean as their standard bearer, I am not," Murray stated at the end of his e-mail. "Further, I am sure that President George W. Bush would prefer to run on his merits and his faith against a more worthy opponent than Howard Dean."
The Washington-based Religious Freedom Coalition works on behalf of Christian rights in America and to aid persecuted Christians around the world.
Copyright © 2003 Talon News -- All rights reserved.
Jewish? How terrible! </ sarc>
Over the top rhetoric?
Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?
I didn't think so.
Why does stating the obvious "make us sound like wild-eyed fanatics"??
Isn't it a fact of the matter the majority of this year's Democratic Party candidates for President can be considered certifiable loons?
I submit the following mental patients: Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Kerry.
Better plan for Clark.
To the average voter, this writer is saying that a medical doctor, former governor of Vermont, and a presidential candidate is clinically insane.
First of all, he is not insane. He is hot-tempered, arrogant, a liar, and willing to ditch any previously held position in order to get the nomination. None of these characterists, nor all of them together, make him insane. It makes him tempermentally unsuited for the office.
Secondly, accusations such as this one sound so ridiculous to the general public that they begin to ignore anything substantive coming from our side. Please remember how the conservatives worries about Clinton's contacts with China were ignored by the public who had come to believe that everything Clinton did was being attacked by the right.
This type of diatribe is counterproductive.
I submit "Help, Mary!" as Exhibit A.
In addition, he has no loyalty to anyone but himself, is also a liar, and has an inflated sense of his intellect and leadership skills.
I also privately think he is another nutso, but we will need to focus on sounding reasonable in our objections.
I was teasing Marple, who is familiar with my stance on the shortcomings of internet discourse.
What you say is exactly my point. We don't need to be circumspect, but Prudence is the chief conservative virtue according to Edmund Burke.
Some of our exchanges on a conservative site are reasonably passionate -- that's okay if within lawful bounds.
I think being hot tempered, arrogant and an outright liar makes Howie Dean emotionally unstable and emotionally unstable individuals aren't fit to be elected POTUS.
This is nothing different than what is being said in every back room and party in the country, including in democrat circles. We are all looking at him and shaking our heads in wonder that he got this far. Every party needs one or two people who are not elected (thus if they go to far in what they are saying can be denounced by the party) to be able to throw out what is really being said behind closed doors, basically be the bulldogs of the party.
This does not hurt us in any way, but does let those who are willing to listen understand some real concerns being thrown around.
Actually, I hink it is very effective when we use their tools against them. This is the type of thing they do all the time, very sucessfully I might add.
I also think it's great that we are turning the label of intolerance right back at them. Soon, they will be known as the intolerant ones. A label that Republican's had to wear for quite some time.
Only problem with this is that it comes from the "religious right". And as a former northeasterner I know that is a very effective phrase to scare most folks into not listening to anything you have to say.
Wasn't Nixon Unitarian?
Remember all the absurd and outlandish stories Gore used to make up? He was a proven chronic liar and he almost won the Presidency. Scarey!
First of all, the Democrat Party is not a great party. Not any longer. Once upon a time, there were elements of greatness--facing down threats, cutting taxes, protecting innocent life--but now? Give me a break. The elevation of Dean is the inevitable evolution of the Democrats.
Secondly, this is nothing new. Look at the individuals nominated by that Party since 1972--George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. Not a worthy man among 'em--the fact that two--count 'em two were able to slip enough lies past the electorate to hold the reins of power is incredible, yes--but not at all unusual for the Democrats.
Finally, Dean's ascendancy should be greeted as good news by Republicans. Fooled by the facade of Clinton's "success", liberals now apparently believe they can fool most (or a plurality) of the people most of the time. They cannot. They'll fail miserably, and though liberalism won't die completely (we have to remember that lesson from '94) it could be sent into deep hybernation--at least politically.
That line was where I wondered if the whole article was some kind of 'reverse-psychology' operation. You know, when somebody brings something up that most people have completely forgotten about (like me for example)? And then blows it up into a reason that a man like Cheney gets dumped for Chuckie after a weird chain of events....? Well anyways, I'm not sure that I trust the author.
The two children subsequently chose to become Jewish.
Jewish? How terrible! </ sarc>
No kidding! What would Mr. Murray have said if they became Moslems?
"-US no safer w/Saddam in custody"
-"Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand"
-"most dangerous admin in his lifetime"
-"Bin Laden shouldn't be pre-judged"
These aren't just statements by an over the top and desperate candidate. They are remarks by an irrational person.
Dean is far too unstable to be my president. I prefer the more conservative minded, rational, controlled and sensible leaders like Ronald Reagan and GWBush to lead America.
In a close reading of this article. I don't see where Murray is saying Dean is "clinically insane." Where did you find that?
I see where Moore writes that Murray is "alluding to possible schizophrenia," but I don't see where Murray actually makes that accusation. There's a ton of difference between being mentally unstable and being clonically insane. Don't you agree?
BTW, Murray's reference to single-mindedness is a Biblical reference, not a psychological one. (James 1:8, "A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.")
For some, following PresBush`s low key lead will get the job done. Some of us will have to ratchet up the rhetoric to get the attention of the independent voters. Others, like Jimmy Moore, will go over the top to make their point.
I think its fair to say, short of getting down in the gutter and using trash talk as a first option, nothing is really out of bounds. Repeating the same anti-Dean slogans over and over, will also work to get the messge out. OTOH, for about 1/3RD of the electorate who consider themselves hardcore liberals and/or anti-Bush haters, nothing will work.
This is one thing I do love about Bush - he just totally ignores the nutcases, he doesn't even attempt to reason with them nor does he hardly acknowledge that they even exist. He just quietly and steadily goes about his job and allows them to walk off the cliff themselves.
Over the top rhetoric?
Yes, it is over the top rhetoric. You are as ignorant of what it takes to win an election as Howard Dean. Elections are won by getting more than half the centrist voters. And what was posted above is as over the top to the centrist voters as is the left calling Bush a gun toting international law breaking cowboy.
Saying what the base wants to hear in an election makes as much sense as Dean saying what the left wants to hear. You both do the same thing to opposite sides of the political spectrum.
I am sure that if Miss Marple ever wants to know how to lose and election by epic proportions, she will call on you... you are undoubtedly a great expert on how to get whipped at the polls by an inferior candidate.