Facts about conservative candidate Howard Dean

All these things do is prove that the "Dean's too liberal" rant that Bush operatives will be spouting from February to November should be dismissed as desperate talk of a directionless Administration. Thanks, Ben.

 

This is ridiculous Gephardt propaganda. Dean knows that the Medicare system is broken, because it's a tax-funded program that lines the 23% profit-margined pockets of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. This is something that no Republican OR Democrat will address, because everybody's having their cake and eating it,too.

If you want a real idea on how to reduce healthcare costs, read here: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/DocServer/Record_-_Prescription_Drug_Costs.pdf?docID=815

When the entire pharmaceutical industry tries to sue you out of existence, you must be doing something right.

 

In other words, he's "Clinton, Mk. II" only without the raging horniness and strong-willed wife, apparently.

Sadly, the Dems think the only chance they have is to occupy the space in the center-right that used to be held by moderate Republicans. Given the stranglehold of corporate money in elections these days, they're probably right. Still, even given that virtually anyone would be better than Bush, how depressing this is.

 

Hold on here, Dean's being mischaracterized. This guy's the only politician in U.S. history who's taken on the healthcare industry and won. He's a revolutionary in this field.

He was also the first candidate to attack Bush on Iraq. He's the one who made it ok and even hip to do so.

And he's maintained his pro-gun rights and pro-death penalty positions even though it can only hurt him in the primaries, because that's what he believes him.

And his progressive postition on gay rights is lightyears ahead of his competitors.

 

Obviously Ben and I have cast our lot. Who are the rest of you fence-straddlers backing?

 

???

The healthcare industry loves Medicare and Medicaid.

 

OK, I must amend my post to read:

"In other words, he's 'Clinton, Mk. II' only without the raging horniness and strong-willed wife and a better record against the health care industry, apparently."

I gotta give Slick Willie this, though. He was a moderate Republican at heart but he also knew he had liberals by the balls because, frankly, where else are they going to go if they don't like whatever center-right candidate the Dems throw at them? Vote Green? Ha ha ha. Dean certainly has his own quirks but overall, it seems like he is just a less weasely version of Clinton who also took on the healthcare industry and didn't entirely cave into the gay-hatas in his own wishy-washy way.

All this, of course, is not to say that Gephardt is the Dems' best possible choice. Just that the Dem leadership obviously wants a center-right candidate and that narrows their possibilities. The only question for them now is "Who can raise the most corporate $$$? to combat Bush's obscenely gargantuan war chest".

 

No they didn't. They lobbied hard to control it, and they succeeded. It was something that every industry dreams of: a multi-billion dollar government subsidy that legitimizes your business model.

 

Not as much as they love being able to gouge you in a "free market".

Still, Ben is right that they were in a panic over those programs and pulled all the usual red-baiting and other tactics that they did on Clinton's single-payer healthcare scheme 30 years later.

I'd say that Dean will be an interesting experiment for the Dems. Can they legitimately pull off proffering a socially and economically conservative candidate while ceding the military/foreign policy conservative ground to the far right? It sounds like a smart bet if they don't bungle it. They won't lose liberal votes because liberals are a captive audience. It's not like any cadidate with the "Dem" label is going to win over the Axis Alex crowd that makes up macho-military portion of the Right. But they may be able to successfully compete in some traditionally Reep social and economic issues with the proper candidate.

 

For the record I support Dean, have supported him for over a year and a half.

Now that is out of the way...I think what is going to be interesting is the race to define him next year. Those us who pay attention (.01% of the US Population) and bother to post in political forums know that Dean is an interesting mix of ideologies spanning the left spectrum. However 99% of America doe snot.

The real race is going to start in Febuaryish and will be who defines him first. Some questions/thoughts...

When will Bush run his first ad characterizing Dean as a whacky pinko? If he were smart he would get out early and often ala Gray Davis did against Riordan in 2000 in Cali. Define your opponent while he is still fighting another battle.

Will the media buy into the Bush teams label of Dean (like they did with Gore in 200) or will the "free" media contradict what the paid media is saying?

Will Dean have the $$$ to end the Demo battle early enough to start fighting the real war?

Will independent groups like MoveOn and Soros's group defend the exposed flank of Dems early next year long enough for them to finish their primary battle?

Is 200 Million too much? You can only buy so much air time. You can only mail so many pieces. Is Bush raising so much money that he risks a backlash against his team for their over-saturation?

 

What reason is there to believe that Dean's position on foreign policy and trade are wacky? "Wacky" is a stong word. I think of Lyndon Larouche's (sp?) policies as wacky.

 

???

Dean cut spending in Vermont, capped taxes and balanced the budget.

 

What do you mean? And why do you say that? I tend to agree with Dean on the issues you have mentioned.

Ben, do you mean that, in a general election, Dean's positions on the issues you mentioned (military/foreign policy, health and labor) would help him less than Gephardt's positions on those same issues? Or do you mean that you disagree with Dean's positions on said issues? Or do you mean both?

I ask because a number of people in the media should do a better job of distinguishing between, on the one hand, predictions about future events and, on the other hand, evaluations of policy. Said distinction is overly simplistic, but it can be fruitful in some contexts.

When one says he is "too liberal" or "too conservative," some others interpret that as a condemnation of his policies. Of course, it is hugely important to critically evaluate a candidate's policies, record and political philosophy. However, my experience is that when someone says he is "too liberal" or "too conservative," it tends to short-circuit the discussion. And the merits of the policies end up not getting discussed in a reasonable fashion.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I’m seeing a pattern in contemporary discourse that is troubling me. The words "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things to different people. And sometimes they mean more than one thing to a person. And often the meaning is vague. I think it is much better, when evaluating policies, to use words like "good" and "bad," "reasonable" and "unreasonable" rather than words like "liberal" and "conservative" or expressions like "too liberal" and "too conservative." The good/bad approach often makes it clearer what point the person making the claim wants to get across. It also seems to help advance the discussion.

Also, when the word "liberal" is frequently used with a negative connotation, the usage can have bad consequences. It can mean that a good political philosophy or idea gets dismissed without its getting a fair shake in the market-place of ideas.

As for the forecast about which candidate (Gephardt or Dean), were he to win the nomination, would have a better chance of beating Bush. I think it is really unclear which of those two candidates would have a better chance of beating Bush. In contrast, it is clear that either Dean or Gephadt would have a better chance of beating Bush than Kucinich or Sharpton would. That is, we are strongly justified in believing that.

But Dean or Gephardt? It is more murky. Dean has the internet and has shown an ability at fundraising. Moreover, my impression, for whatever it is worth, is that the majority of likely voters will find Dean more engaging than Gephardt. And the candidate that the majority of potential voters find more engaging seems to have some affect on voting behavior.

However, Gephardt would have a better shot at winning Missouri, a swing state with a fairly significant number of electoral votes. And perhaps a fairly significant number of voters will weigh fairly heavily foreign policy experience, and Gephardt has more of that than Dean does.

On the other hand, the election is likely to be close, only 50% of eligible voters have been voting, and there is some evidence that Dean would be better than Gephardt at convincing those who haven't been voting in recent elections to get out and vote for Dean. But how many people is that going to be? Enough to make a difference?

Also, who would do better with the people who voted for Nader in the last election? And would that be a big enough number to tip the general election one way or another?