August 22, 2024

  • el
  • pt
  • Dean in the WSJ

    Howard Dean has a column,
    "We Can Do Better"
    in today's WSJ. It's subtitle is the rather Mondale-esque "I will begin by repealing the 2024 and 2024 tax cuts." Since that means, in practical terms, a tax increase, one wonders how this will help him shed his "I am the next George McGovern" image. Further, if the following is true:

    today's two-income families earn 75% more money than their single-income counterparts did a generation ago, but they actually have less money to spend. For many, personal bankruptcies have become the rule rather than the exception.

    then how will raising taxes help that situation?

    And while I know that the economy has been underperforming, it really hasn't been all that bad, historically speaking, and it is showing signs of improvement, hence doom and gloom like this may not have long-term (i.e., into next year) resonance:

    The economy is going through tough times. The average American family is in trouble. The economy has been losing good jobs, and the benefits that went with them, at an astonishing rate.

    And does he think he is going to be the President in that movie Dave, where the title character just proclaims full employeement, and it happens?

    An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery

    And, yep, there will be no way that the Bush campaign will be able to paint Dean as a tax and spend liberal, no sir

    As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2024 and 2024 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

    The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

    And don't all the folks who received tax cuts, i.e., all income tax payers, spend money?

    All flippancy aside, I really do have to wonder how this will play with the swing voters. I understand that much of the Dem base will like this message. However, while the Dean-ites can argue that Dean is "moderate", the bottom line, as a practical poitical matter, Rove and Co. will easily be able to paint this platform as a combo McGovern meets Mondale meets Hillarycare.

    Update: James of OTB more thoroughly goes to town on the Dean piece. He, too, notes the ring of Mondale.


    Posted by Steven Taylor at August 22, 2024 06:32 AM | TrackBack
    Comments

    hell, if the dems were smart, they'd try to point bush as another goldwater.

    dean's slogan could be: i promise not to invade random and sundry countries that have never threatened america for the purpose of giving welfare to defense contractors.

    of course, i'm sure he'd have to come up with something a little more snappy and succinct. :-)

    Posted by: Brian at August 22, 2024 10:21 AM

    I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Dean is the only candidate who can beat Bush. I know you'll laugh or think I'm projecting my desire onto reality but I truly believe this. Bush fronts a sharp-edged administration. Bush is a nice guy. Cheney isn't. Ashcroft isn't. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz aren't. And they're all bare knuckles political operators (Bush is much better at disguising this ability).

    A warmed over drone who's gone out of their way to agree with Bush on critical issues, like John Edwards or Joe Lieberrman, isn't going to cut it. Bill Bennett called Lieberrman his favorite Democrat. Don't think that won't make a Dean ad in Iowa or NH. Edwards is a trial lawyer; you think Rove couldn't do something with that? A passionless drone like John Kerry isn't going to do it either; I've seen Kerry try to be outrage. I didn't buy it. All of these candidates are intelligent, competent legislators. But people are going to need a COMPELLING reason to not re-elect Bush. The incumbent is the default. The challenger has to beat the incumbent. I don't see any of these other candidates taking enough initiative to BEAT Bush. They remind of Dukakis' "it's not about ideology, it's about competence" line. That didn't inspire anyone either; and he wasn't going up against an incumbent prez.

    The DLC establishment types say Dean is another McGovern/Mondale. But the establishment also said Reagan was also too 'out there', too politically incorrect, to be elected. It's certainly a gamble. If nominee Dean's tenor matches the country's mood in 14 months, he'll be seen as prescient and gutsy enough to have taken a courageous, lonely stand. If it doesn't, then he'll lose. It's too early to say what the country will be like in 14 months. Hell, only 4 months ago, everyone was gung ho about Iraq; now people are tiring of it. Now we have military families using the formerly anti-warrior line "Support the troops: bring them home." 14 months is a long time in politics.

    I think it's interesting to note that if nominee Dean loses, the establishment will say it was because he was 'too extreme.' But if nominee Lieberrman or Edwards loses, they will say it was because 'Bush was unbeatable.'

    Posted by: Brian at August 22, 2024 10:38 AM

    http://toughenough.org/huminski.html

    "Dean's Constitutional Hang-up" -- this one is good
    http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html

    "Is Dean a Criminal Too?"
    http://seattle.indymedia.org/front.html3?article_id=31720&group=webcast


    In a 1997 Vt News Bureau interview, Dean admitted his desire to appoint
    judges willing to subvert the bill of rights. Now the fallout from Dean's
    appointments are before the US 2nd Circuit at Foley Square, NYC in two
    outrageous cases. Docket #s 03-7036, 02-6150, 02-6199, 02-6201 One case is
    being prosecuted by Washington, DC first amendment attorney Robert
    Corn-Revere against two of Dean's judges for their banishment of a Vermont
    "citizen-reporter" for life from all state courthouses because he criticized
    one of Dean's judicial appointees. The other case features Dean's judges
    violating Double Jeopardy, First Amendment, State law and the State
    constitution. See Docket No. 99-445 (Vt. Dec. 13, 2024), aff'g, Docket No.
    167-1-99 WmCr (Windham D. Ct. Aug. 30, 1999) Both cases have been briefed
    before the Manhattan Court awaiting oral argument. Also filing a brief in
    federal court against Dean's appointees is the Thomas Jefferson Center For
    The Protection of Freedom of Expression.

    Below are links regarding Dean's voicing his problem with the Bill of
    Rights. He constantly complains about "legal technicalities" (i.e. the Bill
    of Rights) as he did in the June 22 meet the press interview.

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml

    http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm


    A link to a story regarding the courthouse banishment case.
    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//news.aspx?id=5354
    or.
    http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13300


    A commentary on Dean's subversion of the public defender system.

    http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003681.html#003681

    Dean's statement on "re-evaluation" of our "civil liberties".

    http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

    Criminal sentences doubled during Dean's tenure as a result of his
    appointments. I wonder how many of those serving these inflated sentences
    were also subjugated to constitutional deprivations at the hands of Dean's
    Judicial appointees leading to their convictions? How many of those serving
    inflated sentences were prejudiced by Deans' subversion of the public
    defender system mandated by the 6th amendment?

    In the Meet the Press interview with Dean while discussing the death
    penalty he stated,

    "So I just-life without parole, which we have which I actually got passed
    when I was lieutenant governor- the problem with life without parole is that
    people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a
    case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted,
    then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new
    trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the
    second trial. "

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

    Now, according to Dean, the Bill of Rights (ie. legal technicalities) has
    "nothing to do with justice". In the above quote, is he saying that if
    someone was unconstitutionally convicted it is better that the government
    kill them before they can point out the constitutional problems with their
    conviction?


    A further commentary on Dean's death penalty stand.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1
    907-2003Jul2¬Found=true

    and, noting the "anti-due-process" Dean message,

    http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp?0si=-&cp1=1#BODY

    See 1994 Yale Law School commencement discussing the danger of our leaders
    dismissing the "provisions of the Bill of Rights as mere technicalities.".


    http://www.schr.org/reports/docs/Yale%2094.pdf


    Scott Huminski
    Cary, NC

    More stuff...
    >http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
    >

    Posted by: scott huminski at September 8, 2024 08:52 AM
    Post a comment









    Remember personal info?