Vanity: An Open Message to the Republican Party Cheerleaders on this Forum...

12-10-03 | Vanity

[ambrose]

Vanity:

An Open Message to the Republican Party Cheerleaders on this Forum...

[Howlin]

the fact that he backed Bush regarding terrorists not being POW's

What difference does that make when he goes out and says that Bush knew about 9-11 beforehand and did nothing about it? And then denies he says it, in spite of EVIDENCE that he did?

Dean is a liar, plain and simple.

You need to read up more on him; appaerntly the man has no values, so he can be whatever you want him to be. In fact, there was an article saying just that today, but I can't find it right now.

But here is one you should read: Howard Dean: our man from Vermont

[Torie]

We forgot state lotteries, which are an evil scheme to separate the relatively poor from their money. Add that one to the list. It is too tempting to become a grump. One must endeavor to avoid that (note to self).

[Romulus]

Assuming you don't like Bush, what alternative do we have? Do you have another candidate in mind who can put up a viable primary challenge?

Two points.

First of all (and I trust I scandalise your practical American sensibilities), winning isn't everything. I am unable to accept the vision of statecraft as merely a technical problem in search of a technical solution. Statecraft does the best it can to get by with greater or lesser degrees of technical competence, but when it abandons principle and transforms itself into a sterile process, whose only raison d'être is self-preservation, it's lost me and (I trust) millions of others. I don't want to be part of any group that defines itself solely in terms of mere survival. It's slavish and (to use an undemocratic word) ignoble.

Second point: your questions appear to assume that politics is a static process. We all know it's really dynamic; that candidates can and do emerge and disappear as political fashion dictates. We needn't worry about finding an alternative, because even now there are alternatives worrying about fining us. If we'll only insist on principles we'll readily hear from candidates eager to conform their ambitions to our agenda, as opposed to the back-asswards approach in place at present. Till then, principled conservatives are not going to risk their careers courting the support of constituencies who don't care enough for those same principles to insist on them. "Build it and they will come" is good advice for a successful approach to principled politics. This may mean that "we" won't win as often. But we'll be heard from, clearly. Happy warriors are respected for their integrity even by their opponents, and in any event we can't expect to propose a vision to the country till we define one for ourselves. "Four more years" is a cry to stir the hearts of placeholders, not of patriots.

Bottom line is that the process exists to serve the people and be conformed to them, not the other way round.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Not only that, but if you've ever seen him do a sit down interview, he'll say one thing on a liberal show and contradict himself on a conservative talk show. His views are all over the place, and he spends time saying "well, I didn't say that", or "that's not how I said that", yada, yada. He's seriously lacking the Clinton gene in that retrospect.

[Howlin]

More:

The Mysterious Stranger

The New York Times ^ | 12/09/03 | David Brooks


Posted on 12/09/2003 1:19:11 AM EST by Pokey78


My moment of illumination about Howard Dean came one day in Iowa when I saw him lean into a crowd and begin a sentence with, "Us rural people. . . ."

Dean grew up on Park Avenue and in East Hampton. If he's a rural person, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Yet he said it with conviction. He said it uninhibited by any fear that someone might laugh at or contradict him.

It was then that I saw how Dean had liberated himself from his past, liberated himself from his record and liberated himself from the restraints that bind conventional politicians. He has freed himself to say anything, to be anybody.

Other candidates run on their biographies or their records. They keep policy staff from their former lives, and they try to keep their policy positions reasonably consistent.

But Dean runs less on biography than any other candidate in recent years. When he began running for president, he left his past behind, along with the encumbrances that go with it. As governor of Vermont, he was a centrist Democrat. But the new Dean who appeared on the campaign trail — a jarring sight for the Vermonters who knew his previous self — is an angry maverick.

The old Dean was a free trader. The new Dean is not. The old Dean was open to Medicare reform. The new Dean says Medicare is off the table. The old Dean courted the N.R.A.; the new Dean has swung in favor of gun control. The old Dean was a pro-business fiscal moderate; the new Dean, sounding like Ralph Nader, declares, "We've allowed our lives to become slaves to the bottom line of multinational corporations all over the world."

The philosopher George Santayana once observed that Americans don't bother to refute ideas — they just leave them behind. Dean shed his upper-crust WASP self, then his centrist governor self, bursting onto the national scene as a mysterious stranger who comes out of nowhere to battle corruption.

The newly liberated Dean is uninhibited. A normal person with no defense policy experience would not have the chutzpah to say, "Mr. President, if you'll pardon me, I'll teach you a little about defense." But Dean says it. A normal person, with an eye to past or future relationships, wouldn't compare Congress to "a bunch of cockroaches." Dean did it.

The newly liberated Dean doesn't worry about having a coherent political philosophy. There is a parlor game among Washington pundits called How Liberal Is Howard Dean? One group pores over his speeches, picks out the things no liberal could say and argues that he's actually a centrist. Another group picks out the things no centrist could say and argues that he's quite liberal.

But the liberated Dean is beyond categories like liberal and centrist because he is beyond coherence. He'll make a string of outspoken comments over a period of weeks — on "re-regulating" the economy or gay marriage — but none of them have any relation to the others. When you actually try to pin him down on a policy, you often find there is nothing there.

For example, asked how we should proceed in Iraq, he says hawkishly, "We can't pull out responsibly." Then on another occasion he says dovishly, "Our troops need to come home," and explains, fantastically, that we need to recruit 110,000 foreign troops to take the place of our reserves. Then he says we should not be spending billions more dollars there. Then he says again that we have to stay and finish the job.

At each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest. But over time he is incoherent and contradictory.

He is, in short, a man unrooted. This gives him an amazing freshness and an exhilarating freedom.

Everybody talks about how the Internet has been key to his fund-raising and organization. Nobody talks about how it has shaped his persona. On the Internet, the long term doesn't matter, as long as you are blunt and forceful at that moment. On the Internet, a new persona is just a click away. On the Internet, everyone is loosely tethered, careless and free. Dean is the Internet man, a string of exhilarating moments and daring accusations.

The only problem is that us rural folk distrust people who reinvent themselves. Many of us rural folk are nervous about putting the power of the presidency in the hands of a man who could be anyone.

[Born in a Rage]

Look, in the past I compiled well over a thousand links on the FR regarding homeschooling:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab8ef491345.htm

The article in the next link explains that situation. The lady was blatantly violating the law and then didn't even show up for court.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab8ef491345.htm

[buccaneer]

i'll back you up on that one.you hit the nail on the head and said it better than i would have !!!!!p

[Torie]

Dean is a bit more subtle than you give him credit for. He said that an interesting theory was that Bush knew about 9-11 before hand, and he could not prove that he did, but it was unfortunate that Bush was not telling all (actually Dean was behind the curve, because Bush has decided to go the info dump route), because it allowed such interesting theories to gain traction.

Dean has taken a vacation from any moral grounding that I can relate to. He is into that lean and hungry look, consumed by ambition. When he comes back down to Earth, he may regain normalcy, and be given the space to recenter himself. That is my psycho-babble thought for the day.

[Texasforever]

We forgot state lotteries, which are an evil scheme to separate the relatively poor from their money. Add that one to the list. It is too tempting to become a grump. One must endeavor to avoid that (note to self).

Hell I ain't grumpy. LOL I have freely partaken of every one of those items listed except for social security but that is not too far away. I am just not hypocritical enough claim they are not government programs used by the majority of those in my "class".

[Born in a Rage]

Oops, sorry the second link was the same as the first, here's the right one with the article about her....


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37b5315d134b.htm

[Jim Robinson]

Well, the reality of the matter is, in politics winning is everything. You can't effect change if you're sitting on the sidelines.

I am not willing to sit around doing nothing while allowing the Democrats the win and thereby conceding control of the legislative agenda and the judiciary, etc, etc, and through that rule my life.


Sure, politics is fluid. Life is fluid. It's also something you can't change overnight. You say it' upside down, but how are you going to right it? You can't. You have to live within reality.

I'd love it if nothing but principled conservatives could be elected. But what about the liberals? Doubt they're gonna sit still for that one. Guess that someone is going to have to compromise. Either that or offer full surrender to the other side. Sounds like those that are sitting out have surrendered.

[Mo1]

His views are all over the place, and he spends time saying "well, I didn't say that", or "that's not how I said that", yada, yada. He's seriously lacking the Clinton gene in that retrospect.

In the beginning Clinton was the same as Dean and as time went on, Clinton got better at it, just like Dean is starting to do now

WHY??? ... because like in 92, the media is not calling him to the matt on it.

Like in 92 and Clinton .. the media and the Dems are giving Dean a free pass

And why anyone would allow that nightmare to happen again is beyond me

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Look at the net income to tax owed ratios after deductions.

Since most middle class families only average 1.3 children, personal deductons are minimal. As far as qualifying for the minimum $7000.00 (Thanks to the Democrats) in total exemptions before a family can itemize, most middle class families are forced to elect standard deductions.

(refer back to the first sentence)The net income retained is quickly used up by increased realestate taxes, automobile, sales taxes, utilities,etc...all of which are not or only partly deductable. The middle class takes the lions share of the burden. It's a simple fact. Ask any accountant.

[BigSkyFreeper]

"The only problem is that us rural folk distrust people who reinvent themselves"

Did you see him and Gore in Harlem? He sounded like a civil rights activist. LOL

Talk about "reinventing oneself".

[Mo1]

I stand corrected .. finally someone is call Dean to the matt

[BigSkyFreeper]

The NY Times called Dean on the matt because he associated himself with a loser. The NY Times don't want Dean to lose.

[superloser]

"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

This is especially true if you're taxing away all the capital.

To be conservative, one has to have something to conserve.

What do you wish to conserve? For me, its my ability to be as self-sufficient as possible.

[Howlin]

Dean is a bit more subtle than you give him credit for.

Torie, don't insult my intelligence.

DEAN: ... which doesn't -- no, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that. But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know.

Now which is it? If he can't imagine a POTUS doing that, what is it he doens't know?

[Mo1]

Geez .. it's after 3am again .. It's been fun, but I gotta get some sleep before the kids wake up for school

I swear these elections are gonna do me in one of these days *L*

[Torie]

Same difference. Your quote is his damage control effort. You would like even less what he originally said. He just wanted to float the idea out there, without saying he knew it was true. He did not flat out accuse Bush; Dean is too smart for that. JMO.