2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

i like Dean. He doesn't seem to be as hamstringed as others about worrying about offending folks. He has been out in front woth speaking out against the Iraq war before the rest of them foung=d their backbones, and with sharply contrasting how his policies would differ form shrub's.

Sorry. I should spellcheck more.

I like Dean, too, Snood -- a lot! When it was first rumored that he was about to announce, I wrote a cheque for -- maybe $50 -- and sent it to him, thanking him for running. Got back a personal, really nice letter. The guy's a mensch -- quite apart from the fact that he's saying all the right things!!

What do we know about his early years, administrative skills and motivation for running for the Presidency?

Mapleleaf -- Good question. We know he's a respected and courageous leader in Vermont. I hope some Vermonters will come on line and tell us more about it, negative or positive or just (hopefully) informative!!

I went looking for some dirt on Dean, looking for solid evidence that I should dislike him. I found this:

Candidate Howard Dean, on Gun Control

At their core his comments go to placing this issue where it belongs, with the states, allowing each state to formulate its own gun control policies and laws. Having gone looking for reason to disagree with this candidate I found something on which he and I seem--at least in part--to agree. (Where we disagree is that I would trim back or eliminate federal gun control statutes, where he would leave them in place.)

I'm a left of center Dem who'd agree wholeheartedly on that, Tres. I think the gun control issue has gotten out of hand, dragged there by both sides. Very glad Heston (who's a nice guy, by the way) will be heard from less on this topic. Hope Dean articulates the issue well. It should be a state and even county issue, not a federal one. I very much agree with those who wish the feds would go on a strict diet, giving their leftover food money back to the states. Of course, I'd start with the military (just to rile you, but in fact that's just where I would start!).

Iteresting someone would initially launch a search ostensibly for "dirt", and not for qualifications.

Interesting, but not suprising.

Howard Dean on foreign policy. http://www.e-thepeople.org/a-national/article/13557/view?viewtype=best
c.i.

Leave it to you to attack a conservative for making a positive comment about a liberal.

I think what you are having trouble coming to grips with is my candor, not my actions. It is reasonable for me to go looking at a liberal's record and expect to find it rife with liberal ideas and actions. Those are generally (though not always) ideas and actions with which I disagree. So, starting from knowing Dean is a Democrat who favors government control of health care I presumed any research I did would turn up more things with which I would disagree. There's nothing new, noteworthy, or sinister in that.

Yes, my bias tends to lead me to look for successes among conservatives and failures among liberals--just as yours leads you to do the opposite--but in my case that is only half the story. The other half is that I am honest enough to acknowledge when I find things to dislike among conservatives or things to admire among liberals, even when I had hoped to find otherwise.

But I believe we're supposed to be discussing Democrat candidates here, and as I am not planning to run, perhaps we could return to the topic.

After you've barfed your three paragraphs of indignation at my very succinct comment about it being interesting, but not suprising that some people would search for faults in Dean, you wish now to get back to the topic?
This is the problem with you, trespasser. When you devote three paragraphs to 'straightening me out' about who and what you are, you become what you defend, but you can't see that. Yes, I have a liberal bias, but you accuse me of having no intellectual honesty about my own bias (as you so piously claim about yourself). You don't know me enough to say that, and the reason you won't ever, is because your ego is taking up valuable brain space that would've otherwise been occupied by some sense of perspective.
You spend mega words in defense of what you perceive to be a bias and disrespect of your president - somehow the 'tone' or frequency of the derision is not to your liking. You hold forth endlessly about the bias you perceive against Christianity. Your hackles then raise when I point out that you yourself said you went looking for dirt about Dean.

I don't care what you say about your superior motives or outlook. You are no better than anyone else. and the fact that you obviously think you are is the source of our failure to constructively communicate - NOT my grasp of the intricate nuances of your reasoning.

Now we can return to the subject.

Some have claimed that this administration has the worst record for unemployment imaginable. That isn't true in fact the Bush administration is probably doing a little better than average when one considers the unemployment numbers in this country year-by-year since 1939. Here are some numbers derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have provided a link to the raw data, if anyone would like to check my figures.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

The average unemployment between 1939-2001 was 5.77

FDR's administration had both the highest unemployment and the lowest. Both numbers are easily accounted for … the Great Depression was still a major factor in 1939, and war production in 1944 was the closest we've ever come to full employment.

Unemployment in the Reagan's first three years was the worst since 1939-31, and only slightly better than Ford's three years in office. Unemployment steadily decreased in Reagan's administration, but his overall average is only slightly better than Ford's record after only three years.

I expected unemployment to be pretty low during Truman's administration, but was surprised to find that LBJ's average was actually slightly lower.

Democrats average unemployment of 5.31 over 35 years in the White House.
Republicans average unemployment of 6.35 over 28 years in the White House.

I couldn't figure out how to post a properly formatted table, so I hope the use of color here will make the information readable.

LOWEST HIGHEST AVERAGE
FDR 1.2 17.2 7.34
TRUMAN 2.9 5.9 4.08
EISENHOWER 4.1 6.7 5.35
JFK 5.5 5.7 5.6
LBJ 3.5 5.2 4.07
NIXON 4.9 5.9 5.38
FORD 7.1 8.5 7.77
CARTER 5.8 7.6 6.65
REAGAN 5.3 9.7 7.25
BUSH 5.6 7.5 6.7
CLINTON 4 6.1 4.94

"If you want young people to vote in this country and if you want the 50 percent of adults over 30 to vote in this country that do not vote in today's election, then we had better stand for something, because that's why they're not voting. Stand for something or fall again to President Bush."
--Howard Dean at a meeting of Democratic party activists

As long as you're sure.

Yeah I'm sure. Hey they even have BOTH of our permissions, so it must be right!

Poor Gephardt ... even on this thread, he got less mention than the dog rescue. Heck, he got less mention than a sigh-invoking squabble between a couple of respondants here

Looks like Kerry and Dean are coming to the top, but its still a long time to Iowa.



timber

I watched some of Gephart's interaction with factory worker's in NE. He definitely appeals to the working man and he is experienced in the Federal government. I haven't seen Kerry and Dean giving speeches. Apparently, Dean is finding money as he goes he goes; whereas, Kerry has his wife's bank account.

I applaud Dean's stated goal of engaging more of the electorate in the electoral process. Of course, there are two ways to do this, and depending on how you do it the likely results would be very different.

Bus people to the polls who would otherwise not be bothering to vote, as Democrats often do--and you end up increasing the percentage of uninformed voters. Interestingly this favors Democrats, which is why they do it.

Work to better inform people on the issues and on why it is important to vote, and you will also increase turnout at the polls, but my guess is that this would favor Republicans or libertarians, which is of course, why Democrats don't tend to favor this tactic.

I will wait and see how Dean decides he's going to push for new voters at the polls. How he does so will tell us something about what kind of man he is; does he believe in the people and the process, or just in himself?

Re: Howard Dean

I think it was Mapleleaf who asked for more info about Dean. Just had a phone call from Vermont and asked my friend to assess Dean for all of us, please (she has met him several times but doesn't know him well, but knows people who do): He's highly respected, statewide; he is a "tough hombre," takes no guff; he has managed to set up a statewide full healthcare system for children while at the same time he maintained a balanced state budget. He's against gun control. His wife stays out of the picture, is Jewish, and a physician with a busy practice. Dean was of course a doc himself and a respected one.