Howard Dean, Serious Threat

Newsmax ^ | 11/10/03 | Chris Ruddy

[Maria S]

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 nation’s 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 Dean’s 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 Bush’s adviser Karl Rove, are said to be pleased by Dean’s 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 Bush’s 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 Noe’s 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.

[Maria S]

Can anyone tell me if moveon.com is the website that got it all started for Dean? From all of the contributions to him from that website?

[Maceman]

I do believe Dean will win the Rat nomination.

But when all is said and done, I just can't see him being a credible candidate in the general election.

[finnman69]

Now newsmax is trying to pump up Dean to scare the Bushies.

Dean is NOT a fiscal conservativeas he wants to raise taxes across the board on individuals AND corporations AND mammothly increase spending on things like Universal healthcare.

From Dean for America:
My economic policies for America are based on four fundamentals:

Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and use those funds to pay for universal health care, homeland security, and investments in job creation that benefit all Americans.

[GO65]

Already posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1018511/posts

[Defender2]

Howard Dean, RAT LOSER!!!!

[RandallFlagg]

Please email them and tell them they misspelled, "Series."

[finnman69]

Dean on speding bajillions on healthcare:


In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.


It doesn't have to be this way in America. In Vermont, where I served as governor for the last 11 years, nearly 92% of adults now have coverage. Most importantly, 99% of all Vermont children are eligible for health insurance and 96% have it.


But that's not it. We coupled our success in insuring kids with a new early childhood initiative that we call "Success by Six." As a result, nine out of 10 parents with a newborn baby -- regardless of income -- get a home visit from a community outreach worker who's there to help them with parenting skills and to put those parents in touch with the services they may need or want. Thanks to Success by Six, we've cut our state's child abuse rate nearly in half, and child sexual abuse of kids under 6 is down by 70%.


If Vermont -- a small, rural state that ranks 26th in income in the United States -- can achieve this, surely the country that ranks No. 1 in the history of the world can do so as well.


A just-released Congressional Budget Office study shows that nearly 60 million Americans lack health insurance at some point during the year. The number of uninsured is soaring at the rate of nearly 1 million people every year. More than 40% of uninsured adults postponed seeking medical care last year alone. At a time when insurance costs paid by working families are increasing exponentially, and 1,300 babies are born in this country without health insurance every day, there is no excuse for President Bush's plan to slash funding for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $2.5 billion.


For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.


I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.


My plan consists of four major components.


First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.


Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.


Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.


To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.


Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.


With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.


Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.


I believe this plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When my wife, Judith Steinberg, and I graduated from medical school, we took an oath in which we pledged to practice our profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients our first consideration. With this plan, and in my campaign for the presidency, I will make the health of all Americans my first priority. Our country has waited too long, and we must do better.

[swarthyguy]

A word of caution to those Republicans, gleefully salivating at the prospect of a presidential candidate running as a longshot, a former governor running as an outsider.

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

[GO65]

Reading Dean's plan I'm struggling to find the differences between it, and the plan that President Bush has put forth at: http://www.georgewbush.com/HealthCare/Brief.aspx

Both argue for greater government involvement in health care, the details vary a bit, but the basic principle is the same - both Bush and Dean share in the belief that tax dollars should be used to provide health care for Americans that can't afford it.

[NewEnglander]

Yet, but what about his wife?
Have you seen any pictures of her?
Were are they going to hide her?

[GO65]

More on the Bush plan available at http://www.georgewbush.com/HealthCare/Brief.aspx

- $400 billion increase over 10 years for Medicare spending
- $117 billion to make health care insurance more affordable
- $350 million for welfare-to-work health coverage
- $3.2 billion in S-CHIP funding
- $20 billion for long term care programs
- $5.9 billion for bio terror research
- $1.5 billion for community health care

Bush proposes paying for these programs through greater borrowing, Dean proposes paying for his programs through higher taxes. Who is the Conservative?

[swarthyguy]

I've seen a pic or two- talk about your stereotypical Birkenstock and granola Vermont earth mama type.

She'll prolly get a makeover.

[finnman69]

Oh that's cute, yeah Bush is the same as Howard Dean. Bush proposes paying for the programs by cutting taxes and the resulting economic stimulus providing revenue. But you should know this. Or would you prefer a 1.7 trillion tax increase to start?

GO65
Since Oct 16, 2003


Are we having fun as a libertarian disruptor yet?

[GO65]

Oh that's cute, yeah Bush is the same as Howard Dean. Bush proposes paying for the programs by cutting taxes and the resulting economic stimulus providing revenue. But you should know this. Or would you prefer a 1.7 trillion tax increase to start?

I'd rather we didn't have the spending to begin with. However, I'd also rather that if we are going to have the spending, we pay for it up front rather than borrow it from the Chinese

To me, it isn't Conservative (or Libertarian) to borrow from the Chinese to fund our prosperity.

[finnman69]

I'd rather we didn't have the spending to begin with. However, I'd also rather that if we are going to have the spending, we pay for it up front rather than borrow it from the Chinese

Glad to clear that up. Add one to the "raise taxes" libertarian column. Howard Dean is proud of you and the CATO Institute is holdig their heads shaking them.

[meenie]

The game plan of Bush's that was used to take the issues away from the Democrats by outspending them is bearing fruit now. Now in many ways a liberal Democrat seems more conservative than the Republican alternative. The Democrats in the early half of the century were the war party who used war to salvage economies. Now this has fallen to the Republican's side of the aisle. The Democrats had the unenviable position of being wasteful and eager to spend for any variety of programs. It took a record budget deficit to shift irresponsible spending away from the Democratic camp and into the Republican domain.

With the prescription drug program being promoted by the Administration, the health care spending issue becomes a liability to the Republican side of the ledger. As these shifts in party politics continue, the true conservatives have to make a decision between the two evils with an R or D behind their name. In the meantime big government socialism continues to work its way toward to a complete collapse of our economy and freedom.

[AndyTheBear]

As Dean likes to say, he supported the first Gulf War and President Bush’s military effort in Afghanistan, but he has strongly opposed the recent Iraq war.

Strongly opposing the Iraq war will hurt Dean badly in the genral election. For both moderates and conservatives this associates him with the anti-war zealots who made complete asses of themselves.

Have to disagree with NewsMax, GWB will mop the floor with this guy.

[91B]

In the end Dean will have to fight to take several of the states that Gore carried (Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania). Bush may lose New Hampshire to Dean and Dean is unelectable througout the South, great Plains and intermountain West. All Bush has to do is carry the states he won in 2000 and he wins 278-260 thanks to redistricting.

[JohnnyZ]

a former governor running as an outsider. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.

Dude, every governor runs as an outsider. And while governors are typically much more successful than senators, it's more a necessary than sufficient cause. Dean is one of the weakest ex-gov candidate the Democrats could find. I guess he'd be better than Tony Knowles or Ben Cayetano (sp?), but they're from the hinterland. And Parris Glendenning. Even a loser like Gary Locke would have been better than Dean. Plus Tom Vilsack, Ruth Minner, Jim Hunt, Jeanne Shaheen . . . come to think of it, most Dem governors have been defeated or are brand spankin' new or absolutely suck.

But he's a dang weak candidate for a governor.

[Kozak]

Given how far Left dean is I think he will make George Mcgovern look like William the Conqueror.