Why Not Dean?
I said before that there was no way in Hell Dean could win the nomination. Looks like I was wrong on that, he’s coming out pretty strong. He has a better chance than most people thought. I still contend that he couldn’t beat Bush, but we’ll have to see about that.
Readers will know that I’ve not been a fan of Bush or Republicans recently. So, why not Dean? Here’s why:
He supports the assault weapons ban.
He wants to raise taxes.
It seems every politician is supporting the ban these days, which is totally unnecessary legislation. The support could be a ploy since they could be relying on the ban not even making it through Congress and, since there’s little likelihood they’ll have to vote on it, their support for it will never culminate into any sort of action. So, given Dean’s history on gun control (i.e., he’s never been for it), he could be entirely catering to liberal gun-control nuts. Whereas Bush has said he supports it, most likely to appear moderate.
The raising taxes thing also annoys me. Lowering taxes is one of the things Bush and company get right. I pay too much and would like to pay less. I definitely don’t want to pay more.
And that’s why not Dean. I will very likely vote for a third party candidate this time around.
September 8th, 2003 at 9:30 pm
Dean is creating a lot of buzz, and looks like he’s a juggernaut that will sweep the rest of the dem field in the primaries.
At least, that’s what his campaign wants you to think.
Once he has to start answering tough questions from his primary opponents, like the one Kucinich asked him at the first debate, his candidacy will dry up and blow away.
Kucinich pointed out the basic flaw in the Dean campaign: He’s living in a fantasy land.
He says he will continue to fund the reconstruction of Iraq, create a national healthcare program to cover everyone in the US, double spending on education, and balance the budget.
Short of confiscating every dollar made by everyone who makes more than poverty level, it’s a pipe dream. While Dean has energized the far left, the mainstream left will reject him as an extremist.
With the rest of the dem field so lack-luster, expect a centrist left candidate to announce a late entry into the race. He/she will fight fiercely, lose gallantly, setting the stage for a Hillary! campaing in 08.
Or I could be totally full of it….we’ll just have to wait and see!*grin*
September 8th, 2003 at 10:23 pm
Lowering taxes is one of the things Bush and company get right.
but uncle, how else we gonna pay for Bush’s $87 billion boon-dogle ?
either ya raise revenue or ya borrow…. I’d rather have the cash in hand than put it on plastic. I ain’t no fan of taxes either (who is?) but gonna have to pay the piper sooner rather than later.
September 9th, 2003 at 9:13 am
Hmm. I’m betting $87M could be rounded up by making the defense dept pay for it (since they are defending us, right?).
Or cutting vote buying, err pork.
Streamlining some ineffective social programs?
Or by congress not giving raises to itself?
Or, ya know, any of the millions of varieties of other ways.
September 9th, 2003 at 9:57 am
I’m curious – “liberal gun-control nuts”…. What exactly makes a liberal in favor of gun-control a “nut”? Is it that they interpret the second amendment incorrectly (in your view), or that they don’t believe in the necessity of guns in society, or that they are as safe or secure as you perceive them to be? Or do you just think that someone who doesn’t love the concept of a firearm is “nuts”?
I’m really not trying to be facietous (sp?) – I’m just curious at which direction you come from in your beliefs.
I’ve seen posts on your site — and Les Jones’ site, among others — extolling the virtues of different models of firearms, comparing their similarities and differences, and speaking of them in terms that others might use to discuss vintage cars, bottles of wine, or great works of art. Does the passion come from there, as well? The firearm as a symbol of artistic merit, as well as utility?
Again, just curious.
September 9th, 2003 at 10:07 am
What exactly makes a liberal in favor of gun-control a “nut”?
Because the right to arms is guaranteed. Anyone infringing on it is attempting to take freedoms.
Is it that they interpret the second amendment incorrectly (in your view), or that they don’t believe in the necessity of guns in society, or that they are as safe or secure as you perceive them to be?
You can only interpret the collective right by being dishonest. It is exactly like creation science (hahaha at the science part) in which you develop your goal and work back from that goal to acheive your desired end.
As for people being against guns, i can at least respect that. Challenge the second amendment but don’t lie in a false attempt at justifying something that isn’t there.
Or do you just think that someone who doesn’t love the concept of a firearm is “nuts”?
See above.
September 9th, 2003 at 11:15 am
Rich: touting a financial fantasy didn’t stop Bush from being elected. It was widely known that his growth numbers were wildly optimistic, and wouldn’t support the programs he promised.
The Bush deficits weren’t a surprise. They would have happened without 9/11 or the war in Iraq. The $87 billion for Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the total Bush deficit.
September 9th, 2003 at 11:33 am
Barry: I don’t think that people who are anti-gun are nuts.
I do think that some of the politicians and celebrities who are in favor of gun control are hypocrites. Many of them have their own guns and/or their own armed bodyguards. Denying gun ownership to other people when one practices it oneself is hypocritical.
If you were threatened with bodily harm or death by a criminal, would you call the police? If so, why not deal with the situation yourself? Having the police shoot an intruder is morally equivalent to shooting him yourself.
Admittedly, it might be physically and legally riskier to face an intruder rather than waiting for the police. However, you might not have any choice. You could be dead by the time the police arrive.
Here’s an analogy. If there’s a fire, I can call the fire department. But I also have fire extinguishers in the house. That way I can put out small fires on my own. My house could burn to the ground waiting for the fire department, so I take primary responsibility for preventing my house from burning down. Same thing with having my own guns to protect Melissa and me.
September 9th, 2003 at 11:35 am
And there’s no way the police can arrive on time. And courts have ruled the police are under no olbigation to protect you.
September 9th, 2003 at 7:17 pm
SU: you’re failing to address the underlying problem of how this administration spends money.
first, it was $78 billion last April, and now it’s an additional $87 billion. Congress today has already said it will deficit spend to clear the appropriation request.
this will push the current budget deficit to an excess of $550 billion.
you ain’t gonna make that much up by cutting and trimming spending. ya gots to have the revenues first before ya spend it.
besides, the ‘Pubs who control both houses seem clearly unable to restrain federal spending during all of this, also adding to the current deficit load.
September 9th, 2003 at 7:26 pm
ya gots to have the revenues first before ya spend it.
Uhm, if you ain’t gots the revenue, you shouldn’t be spending it. And you will make that much by cutting and spending. Politicians are loathe to cut spending because spending = vote buying.
I agree that the pubs (administration) are out of control, they’re just out of control on different things than the dems. Kinda like the recent addage that the minority party is always the party of smaller government.
September 10th, 2003 at 2:09 pm
I too am not going to be happy when I go to the polls and vote for President. But when I weigh what my vote for Perot did against what having another Democrat in the White House would do, I think I’m going to hold my nose and vote Bush.
“Protest” votes just get us the greater of two evils, unfortunately.
“I always want to vote for the best candidate, but he never runs.” – paraphrased quote.