Kerry and Dean Set on a Collision Course

[Nicholas_J]

Pointed Toward Same Democratic Destination, They're Also Vying for Same Voters
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A04
HOPKINTON, N.H. -- They have circled one another warily for months, a study in political contrasts. One is the tall, cool Bostonian who exudes stature and experience in the world; the other the short, intense Vermont transplant who projects energy, passion and a determination to upend the politics of his own party.
Now Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean are on a collision course in their bids for the Democratic presidential nomination. They skirmished briefly in the spring over patriotism, courage and the qualities required of a commander in chief in an age of terrorism. With Dean's sudden emergence, a decisive clash appears inevitable, one that will have a significant impact on the outcome of the Democratic race...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48741-2003Jul12.html

[clar]

1. This baffles and

disturbs. They should all be there. No excuses.

[clar]

2. Oops, Please excuse me

I posted on the wrong thread.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

3. Screw Kerry

He gave up whatever integrity he had left when he neglected his responsibility to rein in the war-mad Bush administration. He is a whore and a political coward.

Fuck you John Kerry. Go to hell. Also - take your "Patriot Act" and stick it up your ass.

[paulk]

4. you should save those sentiments

for the real enemy - Bush.

I mean, really. "Fuck you John Kerry" ????
With Democrats like you, who needs Republicans?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

5. Hey

Kerry is one who enabled Bush - not me. Place the blame with the ones who deserve it. Bush is in the position he is in now because of Kerry's political cowardice, lack of vision, muddled thinking and lack of values.

Kerry is floating like a lost ship in the sea of political opinions, Howard Dean is a rock island, volcanic and dangerous. If Kerry isn't careful, he will founder upon Dean's rocks.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Another Deanie With Nothing But Ad Hominem and Emotional Appeals

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.

As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person's claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

[Nazgul35]

9. As a Dean supporter...

I have to wonder exactly how much of this is from agent provacatuers who throw in bombs about Dean and Kerry with the sole purpose of getting the two side to develop bad blood (what luck most dems dont see what goes on here)...

I suggest that you take the effort to place these people...from all side who bash candidate...on ignore and then see how many supporters of particular candidates are left on your radar....especially before you paint everyone who supports a particular campaign as being of the type from above...as I certainly do not hold Kerry and Kucinich responsible for what some of their supporters have done...

It was rather refreshing to see Nicholas_J offer up an article that provided information that could be discussed without it turning into a diatribe from both sides...kudos to him...

[Nicholas_J]

14. Whenever I post an article without comentary

If it suggests even in ANYWAY, that Dean is not the superlative candidate, I get accused of bashing anyway...

There are a number of people on DU who would consider even this article bashing, because it suggests that pople who MIGHT have supported Dean, are now considering, or even have decided to support another candidate.

AS a matter of fact, I really dislike Dean far less than you would suppose. Or rather I dislike him less than the overwhelmingly laqrge nuber of his supporters who are willing to attack anyone else, at any time, for any reason.

This bothers me abou Dean more than ANYTHING else.

Dean taps into voters anger, mostly over the fact that they cannot have what they want immediately and know little about the compromise nature of this government all of those who did not vote in 2000, and did not give Gore a CLEAR win, are now bitching about Bush.

And now they have a candidate PROMISING that he is going to be different. But Dean never was different. If there was ever a governor of Vermont who made little difference to the people of Vemront, it was Howard Dean. HE himself, his policies did little. And he claims credit for things he had nothing to do with.

Dean is living proof of the old addage "Three quarters of a lie is wanting do beleive it"

If Dean is elected, within a year, those who voted for him. will feel as betrayed as those swing democrats who fell for Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism"

Deans "Fiscally Responsible ,Socially Progressive" label, is the same lie. It will not occur. But then again, Dean never intended it to, It is a clever, glib image, created to decive the electorate, and not to accomplis thee ends that electorate wishes.

Thank you for the Kudos...

But again. largely my reputation on DU is a result of posting articles like this, in this way, and being gang flame raped by LOTS of Dean supporters. Same thing happened to BLM. And others.

Turn around is fair play.

But When I set myt mind to something, I do it VERY thoroughly.

[Nicholas_J]

13. Provide EVIDENCE

not opinion that anything that Kerry did enabled Bush...You will not be able to. Your opinion of the Iraq Act,or the Partiot Act is nott valid proof, but Deans own words area-----

What's up with Howard Dean?
Let me start by saying that I would not be criticizing Dean if he had not publicly criticized John Edwards and other Democratic candidates by name. However, given that he's started it, I think we need to drive Dean out of the primaries by showing him that the game goes both way. If you can give it, you can take it.

It seems I'm not the only one who's starting to wonder what Howard Dean is thinking. First he starts right off negative campaigning against the other Democratic candidates, something the rest have tried hard to avoid. Then he keeps shifting his own positions on issues depending on who he's talking to, and at the same time publicly accuses other candidates of doing the same thing, when they are not. He later apologizes for these accusations, admitting he did not actually hear what they said, and was merely speculating what he thought they might say. Then he keeps right on accusing them of the same thing.

From the very beginning, Dean has tried to establish himself as the candidate who represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party." First of all, this buzz phrase can have a dual meaning. Is he saying that all the others are actually "Bush lite" Republicans in disguise? Is he saying that he is just more liberal than the rest of the field? I think the phrase is designed to mean different things to different audiences and appeal to both the elite liberal wing and the progressive base at once. Pretending to mean two things at once seems to be a recurring theme in the Dean campaign.

Don't take it from me. Here's what some political journalists have been saying:

Now Dean is facing questions about his rhetoric surrounding the war.

Early last week, after Dean had been in South Carolina, Lee Bandy, a longtime political reporter for The State newspaper of Columbia, wrote that Dean ''will tone down his criticism of President Bush in the weeks ahead.'' Bandy quoted Dean as saying, ''It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field.''

The same day, USA Today reported, ''One of the most outspoken Democratic presidential candidates, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, calls it `the wrong war at the wrong time' and says he will continue criticizing Bush's policies.''..


"Senator Edwards has been clear and consistent about his position on Iraq everywhere he goes," Edwards' Iowa campaign spokeswoman, Kim Rubey, said. "He does think that Governor Dean has mischaracterized his position."

During a speech to the California Democratic convention the weekend before the war started, Dean accused Edwards and Kerry by name of supporting the war but declining to stand by their positions.

However, Edwards, in his speech to the convention, stated his support for the war and was angered by Dean's comments, according to news reports.

Dean admitted the mistake over Edwards' remarks in California and said Monday he had apologized to Edwards. But Dean came back to say Edwards was ambivalent about his position in another speech he had given the night before the convention in Sacramento.

"The night before, he gave a speech that basically was ambivalent, in which I thought he was trying to mitigate his position," Dean said.

"It seems to me that his position has changed. But I think he stood up for his position at the convention, and he deserves credit for it."

On Friday, Dean sought a correction from the Los Angeles Times after it published an interview that quoted Dean as saying he was ''uncomfortable'' offering his usual criticism of the war because it might be misinterpreted abroad now that the fighting has begun. The Times stood by its story...




Dean's reference to ambivalence the night before is directly contradicted by a first hand account from Lawrence Lessig, an Edwards supporter and chair of the Creative Commons project, who attended one of those events:



Someone asked him whether he would go into Iraq without a second resolution, and he understood that here in San Francisco, peace capital of the Americas, the “correct” answer is “no”. But he looked straight into the eyes of the questioner and said he would: he believed Bush had totally fumbled the lead up to this war, and he was sickened by how much we had lost in the build up to this war, but he believed the Iraqi president had to go.

I would not normally cite the National Review, as they are definitely not known for fair and balanced reporting, but Jim Geraghty has the most complete list of Dean's recent statements on Iraq, and why some describe him as incoherent:



On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

But a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

One Democrat, who is already supporting another candidate, is baffled that Dean is attempting to earn a reputation for principled views, labeling the former governor as "incoherent."

"Here's a guy posing as a McCainiac, but talking out of both sides of his mouth," the Democrat said.



Enough said.

http://www.topdog04.com/000071.html



Dean is hardly a rock. When you hear Dean say something it is firmly set in jello.

Dangerous, yes, but only to progress and libeerlaism>

And as for Dean promises:




Dean promises health coverage for all by 2002
October 4, 2000

By FREDERICK BEVER Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON - Gov. Howard Dean on Tuesday unveiled an ambitious goal for Vermont's health care system - enactment by 2002 of a plan that would lead to health insurance coverage for every state resident.

Appearing at a press conference at the Burlington Community Health Center, Dean said he would build on proposals expected from a $1.3 million, yearlong study of Vermont's health care system aimed at finding ways to get insurance to Vermonters who currently lack it.

"It will allow us to look at the infrastructure essentially for going to universal health care for all Vermonters," Dean said. "It's a complicated subject; $1.3 million is a lot of money, and I think we ought to be able to figure out how to solve the problem. ... We're going to look at some innovative things."

Those innovations might include a state subsidy to help small employers buy health insurance for their workers, or the expansion of federal or state health insurance programs. Although the study will emphasize building on existing programs, it may also include consideration of more radical changes, such as the "high risk pool" and "single-payer system" advocated, respectively, by Dean's Republican and Progressive opponents.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/13593.html

Gee, he really kept his word in Vermont. What can we expect of his presidential campaign promises about universal health care.

And best, out of ALL of the candidates for president, only one has hads LARGE support from Republicans, while causing whosesdale desertion from the Democratic Party ranks to the Progresive party because many democrats found Dean TOO conservative. But many Republicans do not:



By 2000, Dean COULD NOT WIN, in a fair election so:

Dean scraps public campaign financing

August 19, 2000

By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Gov. Howard Dean dropped his bid to publicly finance his re-election campaign Friday, saying the political stakes were too high to allow a potential opponent to outspend him.

"I regret this because I believe in public financing of campaigns," he said at a hastily scheduled news conference at his campaign headquarters. "I am not going to fight this campaign with one hand tied behind my back."

His decision makes him the top fund-raiser in the race with more than $300,000. Under the public financing system, Dean would have been limited to $255,000 as the incumbent.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/deanscraps.html


While this is from a libertarian press release, it accurately presents what happened in Vermont during Deans campaign in 2000, and to the Democratic party as a result of Deans conservatism in 2002.



In the 2000 elections, neither Democratic gubernatorial candidate Howard Dean, nor Republican candidate Ruth Dwyer accepted state political campaign money because it would have legally limited their campaign spending to $300,000 each. As a result, the Progressive Party’s Anthony Pollina was the only gubernatorial candidate who accepted nearly $300,000 in state taxpayer money.

Had it not been for the public campaign fund, Pollina certainly would not have taken so many votes away from the Democrats. Pollina’s campaign almost prevented Dean from securing a majority of the vote, which would have forced the election into the legislature. Clearly the Democrats wish to prevent the same situation in 2002, and do not want public funds to be available for any Progressive challenger to the Democratic candidate.

When the legislature enacted public funding of political campaigns, it portrayed it as an effort in the public interest to open up access to the political process to everyone. In reality it was a shameless way for the major political parties to get taxpayers to finance their own candidates. Instead, it backfired and almost caused a major party incumbent, Howard Dean, to lose. Now Howard Dean wants to torpedo public campaign funding lest it benefit anyone who might hurt his party’s chances in 2002.

http://www.vtlp.org/pr011213-DeanPublicFunding.html

Mr Dean is actually rather an odd champion for the party's Democratic wing. As governor of Vermont for 11 years the doctor- turned-politician was a pragmatic New Democrat in the Clinton mould. He resisted irresponsible spending increases, fought with the state's Progressive Party and vigorously upheld the right of Vermonters to carry concealed guns. He even defied a national trend by changing his mind in favour of the death penalty.

He continues to sell himself as a "deficit hawk" and "balanced budget fiend" (the Bush fiscal policy, he says, is modelled on Argentina's). His health-care plan is much more market-driven than the Clinton administration's plan, and much cheaper than Dick Gephardt's ($88 billion compared with $214 billion). His views on the Middle East are pretty close to the Israeli lobby's. He is against medical marijuana laws and the anti-global-warming Kyoto protocol.

So would Mr Dean be able to repackage himself as a centrist if he won the nomination? Hardly. His views on guns count for little compared with his strident opposition to war in Iraq and his determination to repeal "every dime" of Mr Bush's tax cuts. For good or ill, Mr Dean has decided to climb on the back of the leftist tiger. He cannot climb off without being eaten alive.

The sight of Mr Dean on the tiger's back is striking terror into the party establishment. On Capitol Hill Democrats worry that a Dean candidacy will not only allow Mr Bush to sweep the electoral college but also to cull vulnerable Democrats in the conservative south and the middle-American heartland. What chance has a liberal north-easterner backed by money from Beverly Hills and Harvard Yard of helping the Democrats in vulnerable Senate seats in Arkansas, South Carolina and the two Dakotas?

The Dean campaign is indignant about such arguments. Didn't me-tooism produce the debacle of 2002, they ask? Well, yes. But the only thing more dangerous for the Democrats than Bush Lite is McGovern Extra Strength.

http://www.mpp.org/states/site/quicknews.cgi?key=4539

Good comeback on Dean's Bush-Lite line.

And one of the greatest political truths stated in American history.

Finally....Howard Dean, the hero and champion of moderate Republicans, and the candidate that weakened the Democratic Party in Vermont:


Poll: Dean leads, but lacks majority
By JACK HOFFMAN

Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - With the election less than two months away, Gov. Howard Dean holds a 10-point lead over his Republican challenger, Ruth Dwyer, and a 40-point lead over Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina, but less than half the Vermonters surveyed said they'd vote to re-elect the governor.

If the election were held now, Dean would receive 45 percent of the vote; Dwyer, 35 percent and Pollina, 5 percent, according to a new poll done for the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX-TV Channel 3 News. The poll of registered voters found 15 percent were undecided about the governor's race.

This latest poll shows that the gap between Dwyer and Dean has narrowed in recent months. However, it also shows that neither Dwyer nor Pollina has gained support.

A similar poll conducted in late April showed that if the election were held then, the results would have been 55 percent for Dean, 36 percent for Dwyer and 4 percent for Pollina. Only 5 percent were undecided at that time.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/polldean.html

Some Republicans back Dean
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - Democratic Gov. Howard Dean got a boost from the other side Thursday when a group of prominent Republicans turned out to support his re-election bid.

Led by South Burlington attorney William Gilbert, a core group of 11 Republicans said they believed Dean has proven his ability to lead the state in a fiscally responsible direction and for that reason, and his nine years of experience, he is their choice over GOP candidate Ruth Dwyer..

Even Dean acknowledged that his fiscal policy was the common ground he shared with the nine men and two women at the table, most of whom admitted to voting for Dean in the last election.

The group, known as "Republicans for Dean" represents the first organized GOP endorsement for Dean in any of his five campaigns.

Michael Bernhardt, a former House member and past gubernatorial candidate, publicly endorsed Dean in 1998, but he was not part of an organized effort. On Thursday, he said he did not want to risk the state's financial health by ousting the governor.

This campaign is by far Dean's most difficult. In addition to the polarizing and emotional issue of civil unions for homosexual couples, he is facing Dwyer from the right and Progressive challenger Anthony Pollina from the left.

When asked, most of the Republicans on the committee said they supported civil unions and argued that their support was not about one or two issues.

Gilbert, a former member of the late Gov. Richard Snelling's administration, said he took the initiative to form the group, which boasts a membership of more than 30 moderate Republicans from around the state who back Dean.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/repbackdean.html

Fears of schism pervasive in GOP
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

The Democrats, meanwhile, have not had to contend with such public displays of conflict. They are hoping to capitalize the GOP problems and some Republicans are helping them.

Dean is holding a news conference today to unveil a "Republicans for Dean" committee headed by William Gilbert, who worked in the administration of the late Gov. Richard Snelling.

Gilbert said he wasn't worried about the future of the Republican Party, noting that every election there are issues that polarize and disputes that erupt. But this time around Gilbert is breaking ranks because he doesn't believe his party's candidate can do it the job.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/fears.html

Top GOP will stick with Dwyer, but some back Dean
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER - As some Republicans prepare to come out in support of Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, leaders within the party have lined up behind GOP nominee Ruth Dwyer


Gilbert was clearly breaking camp, however.

He said he started to organize the "Republicans for Dean" committee after learning that there were other Republicans who felt as he did.

"We're not a two-issue state, being governor means dealing with a lot of complicated issues," said Gilbert, who spent six years working as general counsel and later secretary of administration for the late Gov. Richard Snelling.

He said civil unions for homosexual couples and Act 60 were two polarizing issues in the gubernatorial campaign. "I know that a large number of businesses and moderate Republicans feel as I do."

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/gop_dean.html

IN 2000:

Top Vermont races at-a-glance

President

261 of 261 precincts - 100 percent




Governor

261 of 261 precincts - 100 percent



Howard Dean, Dem (i) 147,105 - 50 percent

Ruth Dwyer, GOP 110,941 - 38 percent

Anthony Pollina, Prg 27,756 - 10 percent

Phil Stannard Sr., Ind 2,025 - 1 percent

Joel W. Williams, VG 1,323 - 0 percent

Marilyn 'Mom' Verna Christian, Ind 1,112 - 0 percent

Hardy Macia, Lib 739 - 0 percent

Richard F. Gottlieb, LUN 344 - 0 percent

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/elec_night/top_races.html

By the end of the election, Pollina surged from 4 percent to ten percent, taking many democratic votes away from Dean, to the REAL progressive and Liberal in the pack. Anthony Pollina.

Dean's current aligning himself with Bush on the Death Penalty is more indication of Dean's EVER wavering position. Political analysts in Vermont for a decade have know of Dean willingness to SAY anything, to shift ANYWHERE, in order to gain votes. Dean is a conservative. His fiscal and social STANCE are more reminiscent of Newt Gingrich, than Bill CLinton. He has signed legislation that allowed "Civil Union" that he signed hidden away, and with GREAT discomfort, by his own admission. Now as presidential candidate, he is making great capital of an event he had, nor wanted, any part in.

A vote for Dean is a vote for Bush, as every day, it becomes clearer that next to nothing separated these two as men.

There is little differnce between a candidate who won with a minority of the votes, by fixing the election, and one who wins through total deception to get people to vote for him.

Dean and Bush are two sides of the same political coin.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

6. x

x double post

[Nicholas_J]

10. Thorstein is just mad

Because a lot of those undecided, are beginning to look at Kerry's experiece, and stop listening to Deans big mouth.

The person who this DU member has taken their User name from would have heartily disaperrovesd of Howaard Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I Love That They Are Painting Kerry As The Moderate!

When actually he is very progressive, along the lines of Ralph Nader without the wimpiness. Dean is the centrist in reality, but his heavy-handed rhetoric makes him seem like an eccentric liberal.

I am totally comfortable with the media portraying Kerry's progressive politics as middle-of-the-road. And if Dean's perceived liberalism wins the day, that's great too! It'll mean that more people align themselves with his Leftist rhetoric.

[Nicholas_J]

11. If you comnpare Kerry's record and Deans record.

Dean is not even a CENTRIST from the centrist arm of the party's own definitions of centrism, regarding fiscal policy:

We believe in expanding trade and investment because we must be a party of economic progress, not economic reaction.

We believe that global markets demand global rules and institutions to ensure fair competition and to provide checks and balances on private power.

We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.

We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.

We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.

http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926


The democratic party beleives in fiscal discipline, but follows the statement up with the means of doing so.

A progressive system of taxation, which faarily distributes the expense for supporting government and it programs.

Dean vigorously opposed such progressive taxation, and followed the trqaditional REPUBLICAN ideals for fiscal discipline, which cut income taxes, raised consumption taxes, and cut social spending. THIS and this alone is Howard Deans fiscal legacy in Vermont.

While Dena was governor, the rich got richer, the poor, poorer, the middle class stagnated economically. The gap between the richest and the poorest increased by nearly 15 percent under Dean. THe number of Vermonters who sank from middle class into poverty GREW by this same percentage.

Dean created more jobs, but they were low wage, no benefit, slave labor job union busting jobs for places like Wal-Mart

Howard Dean is the pimp of Laissez Faire capitalism.


Dean threatened to veto ANY attempt to increase income taxes on the rich. Stated that they were already taxed too highly, though all statistics show that the wealthy in Vermont pay much less of a percent of their total income than the middle class, and the poor still pay the most.

Of course, falling into that class of the wealthy, Dean made sure HIS OWN class was hit the least.

[Larkspur]

12. Dean is credited by Vermont

with turning a big deficit into a surplus and the surplus this year was over $10.4 million.

Kerry can't brag about that.

In these troubled times, Dean's past management of Vermont's budget is keeping Vermont a float. Most states, like my Connecticut, is swimming in red ink.

[mkregel]

15. This is the one thing that pisses me off about the Dean campaign

He's going after Kerry instead of Bush. I support Dean and will vote for him, but think Kerry/Dean or Dean/Kerry could be a kickass ticket!

So much more than Kerry/Whatshisnameneverheardofhim or worse yet Kerry/Lieberman (yechhh! might as well elect Ralph Reed!)

[Duder]

16. This was funny...

Kerry declared, "I'm going to build the greatest grass-roots effort we've ever had in this country in years, and we are going to go out and take back our own democracy."

Sounds like he plans on going to work for the Dean campaign. :)

[Guaranteed]

17. Personally, I like both of these guys...

I think both Kerry and Dean have advantages and disadvantages. Dean has an advantage in that he has clearly set himself apart from Bush, eating up a massive thirsty constituency with his passion and courage. But, Kerry has an advantage over Dean in that he has much more credibility....it seems to me that for any Democrat to beat Bush we are going to have to take him on, very aggressively, in the forum of foreign policy. Kerry would have much more success in this area, IF he had the passion of Dean, as Bush will merely label Dean as an "unpatriotic liberal" if he is to attack Bush aggressively in that area. Bush can not do this to Kerry....Kerry is a proven war hero, and if Bush dared to question his Americanism Kerry might ask something as simple as "Where were YOU when I was in Vietnam?" So, it seems as if Kerry has a lot more breathing room and opportunity to do what needs to be done....but, it also seems as if he is lacking that one thing that matters most right now...PASSION. If it came down to it...if I clearly saw Kerry was not going to set himself clearly apart from Bush, and fight hard, I would have no choice but to go with Dean. But, if Kerry gets some "balls," I'm going with him.
But, I like both of these guys. I think they both know what they have to do.
After all...ANYBODY is better than Bush. :smoke:

[DrFunkenstein]

18. Try These On

These are just a few I got in two seconds on Yahoo, but Kerry has been blasting Bush for months (although Dean fans here make it seem like he's sitting on his hands).


Kerry Calls on Bush 'To Tell the Truth' About Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030710/ts_nm/iraq_usa_democrats_dc_3


Kerry Raps Bush Policy on Postwar Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030711/pl_washpost/a40403_2003jul10

Kerry Criticizes Bush on Education

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030710/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_education_4