|
Common Sense (For a New American Century)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Our path for the future is clear: it is the path that generations before us have taken. It is to change America the only way it can be changed�through the people.
When our country goes wrong, it is our duty to set it right. |
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/...ame=commonsense
Vote for this man. |
|
|
| rupert |
He isnt going to win. If it looked like Dean was going to win, the Republicans would cheat just like they did last time or just start sabre rattling against some other weak country like Syria come election time.
There was a politican who once said that "the people get the politicians they deserve" and the truth of that statement is clearly demonstrated by the Bush administration who hold their constituents with the profoundest and utterest contempt. The fact that a large slice of the US population believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 shows how easy the administration can dupe the electorate.
I personally have no sympathy for "rubes" if someone gets duped by a conman either out of greed or ignorance they DESERVE what they get. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
This is also from his website:
| quote: |
Friday, January 02, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN: Dean Leads Democrats, Trails Bush by Only 5 Points
Inside Politics reports on a new CNN/Time Poll of 1,004 adult Americans conducted by telephone on December 30 and January 1. Despite constant attacks from the inside-the-beltway pundits and campaigns, who keep charging that Dean is "unelectable," he now trails George Bush by a mere 5 points -- 51% to 46%.
Just to put that into perspective: in April of 1992, Bill Clinton trailed George H.W. Bush by 20 points.
The poll also shows Dean leading the Democratic field at 22%.
This morning, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that the other campaigns are now trying to use cell phones to try to prevent Dean from winning the Iowa caucuses:
Bill Carrick, one of Gephardt's advisers, said a Gephardt win is important in stopping Dean, or at least slowing him down. So other presidential hopefuls may be willing to throw last-minute support to Gephardt in the caucuses. The Gephardt campaign has even floated the idea of the non-Dean campaigns using cellphones to coordinate voting within the caucuses. "Every one of them needs us to win," Carrick said.
And if you're wondering why the other campaigns would work together to defeat Dean, it's because none of them seem able to do it on their own. CNN's poll looks at hypothetical head-to-head pairings that test what will happen when the race is winnowed down, and against any one of the candidates, Dean wins:
Dean vs. Clark: 46% to 32%
Dean vs. Lieberman, 50% to 32%
Dean vs. Kerry, 51% to 29%
Dean vs. Gephardt 53% to 28%
But we're not facing just one of the candidates. We're facing all of them, and they'll do anything to stop us, no matter that the latest poll shows Howard Dean is the best candidate to defeat Bush. We can't let up. Write letters to Iowans. Go to Iowa to help us win. If you weren't able to do so in the last month, please make a contribution today. We need everyone to participate. Only by acting together right now can we take our party back and defeat George Bush in November.
Update: Drudge has additional numbers: "Asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee if the election were held today, twice as many registered Democrats would choose Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (22%) over Mass. Sen. John Kerry (10%) -- or over Conn. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (9%) or Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (8%), according to a new TIME/CNN Poll." |
You can take that for what you will. Even if you are not a fan of Dr. Dean, you must give him credit for his brilliant use of the internet. Dean's and Clark's websites also have over twice the hits of GWB's reelection website. |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| 7 months ago I would have agree'd... Now I think Dean is an and not worth voting for... on the other hand his Campaign manager is a damn genius IMO... I think I will vote Socialist in these elections... No one is worth 2 s to me.. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
You can take that for what you will. Even if you are not a fan of Dr. Dean, you must give him credit for his brilliant use of the internet. Dean's and Clark's websites also have over twice the hits of GWB's reelection website. |
Well, you can't really compare hits at this point. If they only have double of GWB's, I'd say GWB is doing damn well. Bush isn't in a primary election - there's really no reason for most people to be going to his site.
As for Dean, the internet has skewed his message towards placating a group of people who are completely out of touch with the mainstream electorate. Dean's current policies are geared towards keeping the liberal base energized, but unlike previous Democrats who move towards the center in the general election, Dean has already closed a lot of the paths that will allow him to move towards the center.
If he can't grab independent voters - and there is no evidence that they're even interested at this point - the election is over. 60% Bush, 35% Dean, 5% other, 49 states for Bush except Vermont voting for him out of pity.
(BTW, I have no idea how CNN got their numbers - they're completely off base from even the stuff the Democratic pollsters are doing.) |
|
|
| imokruok |
The part about him trying to pass his brother off as a service member is choice, especially when he was found out to be completely wrong, and then berated the newspaper for printing the story exposing him.
| quote: |
Backsliding Dean
Does he have a firm stand on anything?
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, December 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean once knew that today's politics called for clear distinctions and moral stands. He surged to the front of the Democratic pack by taking absolute stands against George W. Bush and war in Iraq. But now the man who courageously (if also foolishly) proclaims his wish to bring America back to the 1960s is beginning a series of miniretreats.
All candidates develop a reputation with the media. In 2000 the story line on Al Gore was his wildly exaggerated claims. Mr. Gore may not have said precisely that he "invented the Internet," but his propensity to tell "whoppers" got him tagged with the line nonetheless. Unfortunately for Mr. Dean, that's the kind of story line that's now emerging about him.
After building a campaign on the anger of the Democratic electorate, the former Vermont governor can now be called "Backsliding Dean." He leaps forward with a bold statement aimed at pleasing his core supporters, but ultimately is forced to slide back because of the ludicrousness of his position.
He's already had several high-profile retreats. In August Mr. Dean filled out and returned a questionnaire for the Quad-City Times in Davenport, Iowa. In the part that asked "My closest living relative in the armed services is . . .," Mr. Dean wrote "My brother [Charles] is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead." In fact, Mr. Dean has told reporters flatly in the past that his brother opposed the Vietnam War and did not serve in the military. Charles Dean was in Laos while on a trip around the world. (His body was found and repatriated to the United States last month.) "Knowing that story tells us something about the candidate," Quad-City editors wrote in an editorial recently. "So does inaccurately implying a direct family connection to the armed services."
Mr. Dean's response was to retreat from the survey with an angry letter to the Quad-City Times. He wrote that he was "deeply offended" that the newspaper misconstrued his written statement. He didn't mislead the newspaper's readers, he wrote, because his brother's story was well known. Memo to campaign manager Joe Trippi: Revising a clearly stated (written out) position is a retreat.
Mr. Dean also recently retreated from his position on Saddam Hussein. Actually, he's been all over the map on this issue, so it's not clear whether he's retreating or returning to a former position. A year ago, Mr. Dean said that--as reported in the Washington Post--"there is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and our allies." He then spent the balance of 2003 opposing the dictator's ouster. Then after Saddam's capture, Mr. Dean said, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States." He also said, "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
The strangest part of Mr. Dean's comment isn't that he believes nabbing Saddam hasn't made America safer, but that he seems to think the well-being of America's soldiers has nothing to do with the nation's safety.
But that's not a theme he is still repeating. Quite a few people fell for the idea that Saddam couldn't run a terror campaign from a spider hole. The reality on the ground, however, proved otherwise. Coalition forces have arrested hundreds of insurgents in Iraq based on information found in Saddam's briefcase and reportedly from information "gleaned" from interrogations with the tyrant himself.
The most outrageous comments from Mr. Dean, however, came Friday. He told the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." When asked how he felt about most Americans wanting bin Laden tried and executed in America, Mr. Dean added, "I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
Mr. Bush wants bin Laden "dead or alive," leaving clear his preference. But apparently Mr. Dean sees the war on terror not as a military imperative to chase al Qaeda members to remote corners of the world, but as a police action in which infamous terrorists are given all presumptions of innocence even while they're still at large, presumably planning new attacks on American civilians.
That story line didn't play very well, of course. So, shortly after the Concord Monitor interview hit the newsstands, Mr. Dean was backsliding in an interview with the Associated Press. "As a president, I would have to defend the process of the rule of law. But as an American, I want to make sure [bin Laden] gets the death penalty he deserves." Standing up for a fair trial doesn't make him sympathize with the al Qaeda leader, he told the AP. "I'm just like every other American, I think the guy is outrageous."
"Outrageous"? How about evil? Once again, though, there's so much backsliding going on that it's hard to see where Mr. Dean stands. For months Mr. Dean has been pounding President Bush for being distracted from the war on terror by pursuing Saddam Hussein. And not two weeks ago Mr. Dean was complaining about an ad running in New Hampshire that said he was too inexperienced to be trusted on foreign policy, which used a picture of bin Laden to underscore the point. Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi flipped out about the picture, calling it an unfair scare tactic.
Unfair or not, Osama is out there as a campaign issue even if Mr. Dean can't decide exactly where he stands on catching or killing the terror lord. Mr. Dean has made himself out to be a snarling and possibly even rabid junkyard dog with a reputation of wanting to bite everyone. But good old Backsliding Dean appears not to want to bite the one man nearly every American wants to see get bit.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
|
|
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| No way I'm voting for either Dean nor Bush, they are both morons. Clark has my vote. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by anuneventrade
No way I'm voting for either Dean nor Bush, they are both morons. Clark has my vote. |
*Agrees*
Can you still vote in the primary if you're not a registered democrat?
:conf: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
You can take that for what you will. Even if you are not a fan of Dr. Dean, you must give him credit for his brilliant use of the internet. Dean's and Clark's websites also have over twice the hits of GWB's reelection website. |
That's because people already know Bush's policy, not necessairly because the websites are "good".
Considering less than 5% or something like that (can't rememeber the exact figure they taught me) of the voting public actually goes to a politician's web site... current campagining thought says don't waste your money on the web, espeically on the smaller campagins. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| CLark & Dean, or Dean & Clark <<< That would be bitter sweet.:D |
|
|
| mndeg |
eh, vote for dean
clark looks weird |
|
|
| imokruok |
Here we go! The mainstream Democrat assassination of Dean begins this week:
  |
|
|
|
|
