To: jmcclain19
Only a Liberal dupe, predisposed to beleiveing Liberal lies, could read this without gagging.
2 posted on
08/05/2003 12:39:23 PM PDT by
John Valentine
(In Seoul, and keeping one eye on the hills to the North...)
To: jmcclain19
Comparisons are in order, but not to Ronald Reagan. Reagan felt the pulse of a pent-up conservative backlash against serious challenges to this country's social and economic values by reigning liberal Democrats. Dean is best compared to Walter Mondale, who attempted to get a relatively stable and sucessful nation to vote for him by promising more of the same economic malaise and social decay the people rejected by voting for Reagan four years ago.
Howard Dean may think he is running to win by bucking his party's more prescient members, but he is in fact doing the exact opposite of what Reagan did, from a purely political point of view. More like Mondale, he is asking the American people to vote for the same decay that Al Gore represented, and I personally doubt it would have worked even before September 11. Heck, I think I may contribute to him, just to see another 49 state landslide.
Tasty Manatees
3 posted on
08/05/2003 12:46:14 PM PDT by
TastyManatees
(http://www.tastymanatees.com)
To: jmcclain19
Wait I thought he was fiscal conservative
4 posted on
08/05/2003 12:57:17 PM PDT by
luckydevi
To: jmcclain19
The comparison to 1980 is preposterous, on many levels. First of all, the incumbent in 1980 is widely recognized as one of biggest Oval Office failures in history. Without speculating on the specific numbers, a significant portion of the electorate would have voted for a hamster before voting for Carter.
Secondly, Reagan was an optimist and champion of the human spirit. Voters wanted to believe that things would be better again. Dean is a polar opposite, who believes that the answer to this country's problems is taking responsibility away from the individual and expanding government. That's not inspirational; that's defeatist.
6 posted on
08/05/2003 1:11:52 PM PDT by
Mr. Bird
To: jmcclain19
10 posted on
08/05/2003 1:32:21 PM PDT by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: jmcclain19
I'm glad I ate a light lunch. Dean is not even close to Reagan. He is a loudmouthed, glad-handing huckster. Raegan would NEVER had sealed all of his records as a governor for 10 years.
12 posted on
08/05/2003 1:48:37 PM PDT by
.cnI redruM
("If you think no one cares about you, try skipping next month's car payment" - Daily Zen)
To: jmcclain19
"Liberal Revolution"As if liberals aren't already revolting enough!
13 posted on
08/05/2003 2:01:40 PM PDT by
capt. norm
(How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hand...)
To: jmcclain19
Actually, Dean is the Democrats' Barry Goldwater. He is hollering a full throated defense of basic ideological principles. Also, he cannot win against the popular incumbent.
The jury is still out on whether he can create the liberal equivalent of Ronald Reagan 16 years later....
14 posted on
08/05/2003 2:17:27 PM PDT by
Uncle Miltie
("Leave Pat, Leave!")
To: jmcclain19
Ahhh, a nice after-dinner-giggle ;-)
15 posted on
08/05/2003 3:33:05 PM PDT by
Tamzee
(I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson