Transcript: Howard Dean on 'FOX News Sunday'[good read if you missed it]

I watched Chris Wallace's interview of Howard Dean and I thought Wallace did a good job. Howard Dean on the other hand is a koook, The fact that he leads the other 8 candidates speaks volumes about the abyss the democrat party finds itself in right now.

Can anyone tell me what proposals any of these candidates have offered on the economy? or the War on Terror? or our energy Independence? or trade? or anything else?

All I hear out of these 9 ankle biters is how they would turn over our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to the U.N. even though the U.N. was given every possible opportunity to be involved and they refuse. The fact is that the U.N. is a dying organization that will take its rightful place along side the League of Nations. NATO on the other hand is prepared to act with us, and they are right now in Afghanistan. I believe we should drop out of the U.N. and direct the funds we give to the U.N. to NATO.

These democrats believe America shouldn't act in its own interest, they apparently feel that we shouldn't strike out at terrorist where ever they live and strike out at all who harbor them. What will Howard Dean say when he is asked about this? will he say that only the Taliban of Afghanistan should have been confronted, despite the fact that Al-Qaeda operates in several country's on the State Departments terrorist supporting country's? What will Howard Dean or any of the other spineless democrats suggest we do about Iran's ongoing development of Nuclear Weapons and North Korea's willingness to export anything in their arsenal to the highest bidder, including long range missiles capable of delivering Nuclear tipped warheads? Will they entrust our security and our children's security to a feckless bunch of polite, soft spoken diplomats at the U.N. to draft countless resolutions that do little more than amuse those they direct them to, in fact, all these empty threats the U.N. calls Resolutions do is run cover for these murderous dictators.

We need leadership right now far more than we need cooperation from a bunch of stuffed shirts at the U.N. This is something the Democrats can't see or understand and it will be the reason why George W. Bush wins by a landslide next November

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: I am tired of coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays. We're going to fight this election on our turf, which is going to be jobs, education and health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: What do you mean by that, when you say that you don't want to talk about guns, God and gays?

DEAN: What the Republicans have been doing since 1968 was actually the subject of a speech I'm about to give in a couple of hours here in South Carolina, is dividing us along racial lines by talking about quotas, dividing us about abortion or guns or other issues like that.

Well, let me tell you something about South Carolina. There's 102,000 children here with no health insurance. Most of those kids are white.

White people and black people in the South have a common interest. Their jobs are going offshore. They haven't had a raise because health-insurance premiums have eaten up all their money. They need -- $70 million was cut, got cut out of public health insurance -- public education here, because the president's economic program has been such a disaster.

Everybody deserves a break -- not just in the South, but everybody else. And working people, no matter what color they are, need to vote together, because their economic interests are not served by the Republicans. And I think that's why the election needs to be about health insurance, economic opportunity and jobs, and better educational opportunities for everybody.

WALLACE: Governor, I don't think anybody would deny that those are very important issues, but why take the others -- abortion, guns, God, gays -- off the table? I mean, it sounds like you're uncomfortable talking about values.

DEAN: I'm very comfortable talking about values, but we're never going to agree on some of these issues. I actually have a more conservative positions on guns than many Democrats, although I do support the assault-weapons ban and background checks and all that. But...

WALLACE: But aren't those legitimate issues, whether it's a woman's right to choose versus right to life, whether there should a national ban on assault weapons, gay rights?

I mean, aren't those issues -- I have to say, I remember back in 1988, because I was covering the campaign, when Michael Dukakis said that the campaign is about competence, not ideology, and the Republicans killed him on that.

Don't American voters care about values?

DEAN: They care about values. And there are a lot of different kinds of values. My attitude is, each state's going to make their own kinds of decisions about these difficult issues that we're -- you know, the social issues that divide us.

My question is, what we have in common is what we ought to look at. This president ran as a uniter, not a divider, and that was a complete falsehood. What he has done is use words like "quota" to send race-coded words to folks, talking about scaring them into thinking somebody from a minority community is going to take their jobs. On and on it goes.

What about what we have in common? What we have in common is we need better education for everybody. We need health care, health insurance for everybody. Every industrialized country in the world has health insurance except for us. We don't have to have a complicated government-run system. But we ought to have it, like we do, for the most part, in Vermont, at least for all our kids.

So why can't we talk about jobs, health care and education, which is what we all have in common, instead of allowing the Republicans to consistently divide us by talking about guns, God, gays, abortion and all this controversial social stuff that we're not going to come to an agreement on?

I really believe that states ought to have a role. My gun policy basically is let's keep the federal laws, let's enforce them with great vigor, and then let's let every state make additional laws if they want to. You're going to have states that want gun control making more, and you're going to have states like my state saying, look, we'll enforce the federal laws and leave it at that.

Why can't we take that kind of an approach to these issues and stop getting exercised about them? That's what cost this election. Why can't we look at what we have in common: economic opportunity, educational opportunity, health insurance? Those are the things that I think are value-driven.

Translation: "I'm never going to convince you rubes that I'm right and you're wrong, so I'm just going to impose my beliefs on guns, God, and gays on you and to Hell with your personal opinions. And if you try to change the local state laws to suit your personal beliefs, big whoop. You still have to take whatever laws I pass on the federal level up the @$$."

What a pathetic joke this man is! To break it down.

is dividing us along racial lines by talking about quotas

Democrats did that particular bit of dividing, by saying one racial group is to be favored over another.

dividing us about abortion

I think Roe V. Wade did a good job of that, all on its own.

or guns

So trying to eliminate a Constitutional Right to Bear Arms by not allowing people to arm themselves isn't divisive? Riiiggghhhttt.

My attitude is, each state's going to make their own kinds of decisions about these difficult issues that we're

Unless, of course, it's an issue at the Federal level in which case the states CAN'T make their own decision about these issues. Roe V. Wade turned abortion from a state issue to a federal issue. It's the federal government which is doing its best to infringe on Freedom of Religion. And it's the federal government which is playing a large part in putting up roadblocks to firearm ownership, like the Assault Weapons Ban. Can't do much about any of that at the state level short of seceeding.

Dean pretty much defines the crux of the problem in this quote.

My gun policy basically is let's keep the federal laws, let's enforce them with great vigor, and then let's let every state make additional laws if they want to. You're going to have states that want gun control making more, and you're going to have states like my state saying, look, we'll enforce the federal laws and leave it at that."

What if a state wants LESS restrictions on gun laws then what the federal government is proposing? What recourse do they have? If the federal government pretty much eliminates the 2nd Amendment, then what're you supposed to do? Can't make Abortion illegal if the Federal government says it's a Constitutional Right and so must be legal in all 50 states. Can't make Gay Marriage illegal if the Federal government says that the each state must recognize marriages in other states.

Either he's an idiot and doesn't see the contradictions, or he's purposefully trying to deceive people. Myself, I think it's possible he's both.

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.