Conservatives Endorse Dean

Be careful what you wish for!

I posted this at the offical Dean forum and I was banned without warning. I hope that's not an indication of things to come from a Dean presidency.

If you do not in lockstep will all the other Deanites, you will be banned

If your voice does not sing Deans praises from the mountaintops, you will be BANNED.

If you question the Great and Powerful Dean, you will be BANNED.

If you speak any words that the Deanites feel would promote honest political debate or discussion, YOU WILL BE BANNED![/u]


The Forces of Dean only allow dissenting voices if they dissent against Republicans.

God forbid...then it would resemble the Bush presidency.....

ditto my above post...

Conservative's case for Dean nomination[/u]
By:Jonah Goldberg
January 7, 2004

The unofficial Conservative Pundit Full-Employment Act - aka the Howard Dean presidential campaign - currently working its way through the democratic process in Iowa and New Hampshire looks pretty much unstoppable at this point.

If Dean wins those early primaries, it's almost guaranteed he will be the Democratic nominee. Of course, the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire have a rich heritage of smashing such predictions the way John Belushi smashed that guitar in "Animal House." So, let's just assume I've invoked the appropriate "anything can happen" cliche.

I've largely decided that I want Dean to get the nomination. In my more patriotic moments, I realize how selfish this is. As an American, I should hope that the best, most qualified, candidate gets the Democratic nomination on the chance he might become president.

In that sense, Joe Lieberman should be my guy. But he's got no chance of winning the nomination. Richard Gephardt probably wouldn't be a disaster except on economic issues. Meanwhile, John Kerry is the most incoherent major presidential contender of my lifetime, so, frankly, I have no idea what kind of president he'd make. Maybe, if he achieved his lifelong dream of being president, he'd just sit in the Oval Office shooting at TV sets like Elvis.

In fact, with the exceptions of Kerry, Carol Mosley-Braun, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, I think Dean is probably the worst choice of a pretty awful field. It reminds me of that 1960 bumper sticker that read: "Kennedy and Nixon: Thank God Only One of Them Can Win!"

But then I get selfish. There are at least three reasons I'd like Dean to be the nominee.

First, Dean provides a real alternative to Bush. As commentators Andrew Sullivan and Bill Kristol have already pointed out, an election between George W. Bush and Howard Dean would provide a stark choice in 2004.

To be fair, I thought that the Gore vs. Bush 2000 contest offered a stark choice, too. Gore turned his back on the Clinton legacy of policy centrism and ran as a fire-breathing populist. The problem was that he looked a bit phony, since he'd spent 20 years building up a reputation as a moderate.

Dean has undergone a similar reinvention. But he has the advantage of being an unknown to most Americans, so his reinvention doesn't make him look like an opportunist the way Gore's did.

Regardless, stark choices are good for politics and for people who write about politics. Dean has promised or strongly suggested that he wants to reregulate big business, raise tariffs, go a long way toward socializing medicine, scrap any initiatives toward privatization, raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class, and entrench quota-style affirmative action.

And, most significant, at a moment when national security is of monumental importance, Dean has adopted a "do the opposite of George" foreign policy. If Bush is for it, Dean must be against it. It's almost like Dean's the anti-matter universe version of George Bush - like in the "Star Trek" where Captain Kirk is evil and Spock wears a goatee.

Which leads me the second reason I'm increasingly gung-ho for Dean: He says such amazingly crazy things, he's just so much more entertaining than the ever-cautious Gephardt. For example, Dean recently said that he didn't want to "prejudge" Osama bin Laden's guilt or innocence since he'd have to face a "jury trial."

Can you imagine FDR declaring he didn't want to "pre-judge" Hitler? The comment was a parody of conservative complaints about the Democratic Party's approach to the war on terror; they see it as a pesky law-enforcement problem.

Last Sunday at an Iowa debate, Dean tried to explain that "a candidate for president of the United States is obligated to stand for the rule of law." However, he added, "I have no doubt that if we capture Osama bin Laden, he will end up with the death penalty."

Um, so which is it? Does he not want to prejudge bin Laden or is he sure he'll get the death penalty? Because if he's keeping an open mind about bin Laden's guilt, then being sure he'll get the chair is a problem.

This sort of nonsense is typical Dean. When his statements end up making him look ridiculous, he offers an explanation that in many ways is worse than the original gaffe. He's like a guy who spills soup on himself and then thinks he's covering himself by saying, "I meant to do that."

Which brings me to third reason I want him to be nominated: I think he'd lose badly (unless the economy and Iraq tank). And when Dean loses 40 states, I'd like to see him say, "I meant to do that."

Once again: Be careful what you wish for!

:wink:

This is from the Republicans for Dean website:



...and there's more (Fedral). :wink:

Admittedly I don't know too much about politics... (but isn't there an acceptable amount of political naievete for a 14-year-old?)

However, the way it looks to me is that the Democrats are going to be destroyed in the elections no matter who they nominate, simply because there's about half the Democrats backing the new breed of Democrats, namely the hardnosed, Howard Dean, in-your-face politics, and the other (about) half is more interested in getting another traditionalistic Conservative in the presidency.

On the other hand, the Republicans, for the most part, love Bush, and what with his war and his popularity, he's a shoo-in. I think Bush will get about 50% of the votes, and even if Dean is nominated, the traditionalistic Democrats will throw their votes away to some independant party rather than see Dean become president, and God forbid they vote for that scum-of-the-earth Bush!

Always tell me if I'm wrong.

Okay, Francisco...you are wrong!

Now where else would you find comments from REPUBLICANS FOR DEAN------well gee wiz-------on a republicans for Dean WEBSITE--amazing

You find some here:

Am I the only angry Republican?

Well Fedral,

This is one of those situations where you may have to eat your words.

Usually political debates are abstract enuogh to ensure that both sides can claim to be proven right. For example, people still can't agree if Reagan's economic policies were brilliant or disasterous. Each side can twist the facts even in hindsight.

But you have gone so far as to predict that Bush will win 40 states. And in 10 months we will see for sure how much of your bluster is -- well -- bluster.

Predicting electoral politics a full 10 months ahead is awfully risky business even for an idealogue.

If Dean wins (or even loses with 23 states), there will be no way for you to dither or twist the facts.

Won't you feel foolish.

Francisco,

It is not uncommon for the other party (i.e. the party not in the White House) to have a contentious primary. After the primary the Democrats will pull together behind the candidate.

Historically a hard-fought primary usually doesn't give the incumbent president much advantage.