How Dean Could Win . . .

The Alpha Goron, prepares to be Metro Sexual Howie's Secretary of Defense. Alpha Goron pledges to make our Defense Department Green before anything else.

As with Clinton, if this country elects Howard the Dean, then it will deserve who it elects.

I could be wrong, but wasn't the last democratic president to win with a majority of the popular vote Johnson. I thought that Carter (49.5?), Clinton (43 & 49) and Gore (49) all received less than have the popular, even when they won (except Gore) the electoral college.

Bush has got to start getting out there and start campaigning soon if he wants to beat Dean.

The man has raised approx. $100 million!! His campaign is investing a ton of time and money into grass roots organizations. He's been busy for months. He just can't, as President, say "Yeah, I'm focusing on re-election eleven months from now."

> Oklahoma was favored by two touchdowns. Kansas State, of course, won, 35-7.

College football is notorious for upsets. But this is a horrible analogy. We are 11 months out from the election. What were the prospects or the Oklahoma-Kansas State game at the beginning of the year?

> The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm.

Thanks to Perot, twice. Gore is a hard left liberal, but who had incumbency and a good economy behind him, and we barely got Bush in. And besides, the case is made by some that Bush might have lost if he had gone more conservative. While America is generally becoming more conservative, the 2000 election IS a puzzle.

> And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.

What? 1- Bush is the best Republican vote-getter among Hispanic voters, regularly getting 35% plus and getting better. 2- Using the same 2000 election vote results, Bush would have something like 10 extra Electoral votes merely due to reapportionment. All but 1 Bush state (I forget which) gained an electoral vote. All but 1 Gore state (including my state of Wisconsin) lost 1 vote. Sorry Dems, but the growth in this country is NOT in your areas. What trends is Kristol talking about?

> the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.

Considering how far we have come in Iraq in what, 7 months, what will happen in the next 11? What if there is any terrorist actions in this country? Bye-bye Dean. Bush might suffer initially with a terrorist attack, but voters will realize "What would Dean have done instead with terrorists?", and coalesce around Bush.

> The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994.

Sure, and when the voters were faced with a Northern DemocRatic liberal who wanted to increase taxes in 1984 (and 1988). And the result was . . .

> with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?

If the economy continues to improve, this helps Bush. Notice also that a DemocRat gains IF the economy goes down?

> Dean has run a terrific primary campaign, the most impressive since Carter in 1976. It's true that, unlike Carter (and Clinton), Dean is a Northeastern liberal.

Dean has run a terrific primary campaign? Oh sure, by appealing to the very hard left of the Democratic party. That overt appeal to your base is always used against you in the general election by your opponent.

Also, notice that other than Ford (by Nixon resigning) all Presidents since KENNEDY have been from the South (with Nixon being even further away in the West), and you have to go back to FDR for a Northeasterner. Even Bush I was at least half-Texan (and half-Northeastern) and he LOST re-election, and he only got in as Reagan's VP and "supposed" heir.

> But he's no Dukakis. Does anyone expect Dean to be a patsy for a Bush assault, as the Massachusetts governor was?

His comment on Bush knowing about 9/11 last week is very odd.

> And how liberal is Dean anyway? He governed as a centrist in Vermont,

Really, how would we know? His records are locked. (somehow)

> Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate.

Sure Bush is deficit-expanding, but how is Dean getting into office? By pandering to every extremist group in the DemocRat party who will then come back to Dean and ask for what in return? Unfortunately, the difference on the budget is . . . ? You have to provide a (at least perceived) difference for voters.

> *Bush is a* constitution-amending (on marriage) radical,

A difference! But is this a problem?

> federalism-respecting

All power to the federal government, a sad long-term trend, and the differentiation from Bush is?

> compassionate moderate.

How Dean's P.R. WILL portray Dean. Again, and the differentiation from Bush is?

> Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two.

Just like even Hillary is saying. (now)

Bush is not perfect. From the budget to Powell to judges I expect more from him.

And a Dean administration would be . . . . ?

Bush gave us tax cuts. Banned Partial Birth Abortion. Signed the Forest Initiative (big deal out in the West). Pulled funding for Abortions overseas. Executed the War in Iraq which will have one very important effect - neutering OPEC. Affirmed the personal right to own a gun. Opening up Oil production in Alaska.

None of these would have happened with a Democrat in the Office.