Posted on 11/10/2003 7:57:43 AM PST by Theodore R.
Howard Dean, Serious Threat Christopher Ruddy Monday, Nov. 10, 2003
Howard Dean is not to be dismissed. He is a serious candidate who will most certainly give George Bush a run for his money next year.
The former Vermont governor is the all-but-certain Democratic nominee unless Hillary enters the race at the last minute.
This past week, Dean had some good news and some bad news.
The good news came from two of the nations largest unions.
The Service Employees International Union, the largest AFL-CIO affiliate, with 1.6 million members, endorsed Dean. He also won the support of AFSCME the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
These unions will give Dean what he has lacked for final victory ground troops in key primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere to get out the vote.
The bad news is that the U.S. economy is rebounding, sharply. If that trend continues, Bush has a lock to win in November 2004, even if the slog in Iraq continues.
But for now, momentum is on Howard Deans side.
The growing support for Dean is no surprise to NewsMax readers. Earlier this year, when Dean was nothing but a blip on the radar screen, we reported that Dean was the clear favorite of the press to become president.
With positive media spin and, as Dick Morris says, the most successful Internet campaign effort ever, Dean has broken through to emerge as the clear front-runner among the eight dwarves and the general.
Washington Republicans, including President Bushs adviser Karl Rove, are said to be pleased by Deans success. They believe that Dean offers shades of Michael Dukakis and George McGovern.
But Dean is neither. For one thing, the diminutive candidate makes a powerful impression on TV. Unlike Dukakis, who was cold and uninspiring, Dean is personable and persuasive. He impresses even me.
And unlike McGovern, Dean is no dove.
As Dean likes to say, he supported the first Gulf War and President Bushs military effort in Afghanistan, but he has strongly opposed the recent Iraq war.
Since that war has not gone so well, Dean benefits. He looks better than many Democrats, for example John Kerry, who voted for the war but has since become critical.
Dean looks like a leader. He is also an outsider. As the Schwarzenegger win proves, Americans want outsiders in Washington.
Dean is also not a liberal Democrat in the traditional sense.
Chuck Noes investigative report for NewsMax Magazine, Dean Unlocked, gives the best insight into the real Howard Dean.
Many know, for instance, that Dean has won applause from the NRA. But he also took on environmentalists and the ACLU in Vermont and was also a fiscal conservative.
For the first time, NewsMax talked with the folks who know Dean best, the people of Vermont.
What we learned is surprising and worrisome for Republican prospects next year, especially if the economy is not back on track by that time.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. :)
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?
I agree about Graham - that he would be a more likely VP choice than Clark for Dean.
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.
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.