The GOP wants Dean. Let me explain.

The *entire* Republican strategy through the 90s has been to attack, smear, and bash. They did this to Clinton intensely with no effect, and technically did not defeat Gore with the same tactics. Nevertheless, this is how the DeLay types think. They Republicans aren't like, "who can we beat in the ideas race," it is, again, bash, bash, bash. They also believe Dean is error prone, which will make it easier for them, again, (sigh) to bash him.

Don't get me wrong, the Republicans will bash everyone. With Gephardt the plan is merely to repeat 'big government' over and over again, Kerry is 'liberal elitist Dukakis,' Clark is the 'phony incompetent general', et cetera. But with Dean, they believe there are stronger and more ways to do the bashing, the game plan being going after the Iraq stance, Taxes, and Gay People.

I don't believe attacking Dean on Iraq or Taxes is going to get the GOP a lot of traction, given the debacle in the Middle East and our polling superiority on the tax issue. Bashing Dean on civil unions may or may not work. Since the polls show opposition to gay marriage but support by equal margins for equal social security rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. for gay couples, it is unclear how that will play out.

While the Republicans want Dean, I want him too. The Republicans usually think of ways to attack, smear, and bash, and the Democrats are preoccupied with how to defend themselves. With Dean, we get an individual that can effectively attack, smear, and bash the Republicans for a change, and make them play some 'D'! Dean has been consistent about Iraq, has a great record in Vermont with jobs and health care, and has a good sense of "rhythm" as to where the American people are, and isn't afraid to expose Bush on the environment, trade, defense, and other failures. Also, Dean has been through organized hate campaigns before and has the nutz, experience, and composure to deal with what is coming our way. Lastly, Dean has the organizational and fundraising thing down, which renders him, in my opinion, more effective against Bush's quarter Billion in cash.

tell me again why I should vote for him?

They tried it against Clinton and they tried it against Gore.

Why not pick the best candidate to go toe-to-toe with Bush instead of trying to find a bunker to hide in?

It is used to weaken the oppenent, if they win great, but a weakened victim is just as much as a tool as the office he/she holds.

Why?

Becuase they are more likely to cow under pressure and give concessions to the Republicans, while also be a willing scapegoat for all their problems.

Clinton was a great example of this, so in a way it works

and Gephardt either.

who can do the job effectively and pave the way for the retaking of Congress and putting our nation back on a rational course.

The Dems are strongest in Congress where you expect them to be strong, the north and the west, and weak where you expect them to be weak, the south , much of the midwest, and the moutain west.

Could you please explain to me how having Dean at the top of the ticket helps us in states like Texas, Virginia,North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Idaho, Nebraka, Kansas, Louisian. Oklahamoma, etcetera?

Look at how Landrieu won her Senate seat in 2002 in comparison to how Cleland lost his.

is what cost Gore the 00 election....

Gore smashed Bush in urban areas, hold his own in the burbs, and got his clock cleaned in rural areas....

Those are the folks Dems need to reach out to...

When Coehlo was running Gore's campaign early in 2000, Gore said a lot of stuff which made gun owners jumpy. With Dean, we don't have that problem.

This election will be about Jobs, Security, and Jobs. The GOP is going to have the fight of their life in electorally juicy states like Ohio, for instance.

Gore got "gored" in 2000 all around and still beat the boy king.

They think Dean can't rally the Dems or attract the independents. It could be a fatal mistake on their part.

i guess they can't see Dean cojones.

The Repugs aren't totally stupid. If they say they want X-candidate it's likely they want Y.

they picked a chimp to be their big man.

they have completely underestimated him.

The Republicans are complacent. They cannot believe that anyone can beat their precious King, and they're not used to real, grassroots support of any candidate. (Some clown on CNN just said, "We've never seen this before!"--as if he'd never seen how democracy is supposed to work in a democratic republic.)

When Dean's $$ numbers come out in the next days, this might change. But for now, King George is immortal to his supporters.

THEY STILL HAVE NO IDEA!

I think at least 3, and maybe as many as 5, of the Democratic candidates scare the Repugnicrats sh*tless! Trust your 'gut' on this one, folks! :)

Some food for thought there.

... how deft he was politically, and because he was perceived to be 'a moderate'. He stole away many of their issues: tax cuts (for middle class), welfare reform, free trade, death penalty,... Thats why their bashing didn't work; it was all personal attacks, not on the issues. With Dean it'll be the opposite, and thats why I believe it'll work. Hean seems fairly likeable, but he's running as a liberal. In the debates yesterday, he sounded protectionist on trade and for higher taxes. He wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts, even for the middle class. Their gonna have a field day with that. Dean also has no military experience at a time when national defense is foremost in americans minds. I dont know that they'll trust a gov from a small state like vermont to be commander in cheif during this period in the nations history.

I admit though that Dean is not as bad as many make him out to be. He was more of a centrist as gov than people realise. But now he's running as a leftist, and as as I said before, I just don't think the time is right for a gov of a small state to be president.

On the tax issue, when people are asked if the government should improve health care, even if it means raising taxes, the polls are consistently 65-25 in *our* favor, which is why the Dean campaign refuses to flipflop on the issue and Kerry gets no traction by attacking this. Plus Dean can spin it in his favor as being a guy who "tells the truth" and contrast himself with Bush.

The "protectionist" talk is designed to steal underemployed GOP-leaning white collar workers.

The only possible weakness is the national security issue, but if we're still talking about Iraq next summer, that is extremely bad for Bush, not us.

Dean has been branded a "liberal," which is a blessing for a centrist candidate running against true liberals like Gephardt and Kerry. Dean has the credentials to pivot seamlessly once the election starts.

...will buy into higher taxes for gov run health care. But I'll have to look into Deans plan further since I don't know exactly what he's proposing. But if it seems like something that can be labeled 'socialised medicine', people will reject it.

The protectionism issue works until the other side starts to fight back and remind people that thats one of the things that caused the great depression. We're gonna enforce the standards of the rest of the world on the U.S.? Is that what Dean is suggesting? I don't think thats gonna fly at all. I'm not an expert on trade but I know that many other countries are overburdened with gov regulations. Thats one of the reasons their economies cannot match ours. Businness people are gonna raise holy hell over this.

You say Dean will 'pivot seamlessly' once the election starts. That seems easy now, without the GOP using all his statements during the primaries against him. I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Clinton ran as a moderate from the get go; thats what worked.

The polling data says we have a 65-25 advantage on the issue. Go to pollingreport.com and look for yourself -- health care vs Bush tax cut, and health care vs raising taxes. Both are 65-25 in our favor.

There is a reason why the Dean campaign has staked out this position.

They are going to get him in spades.

I wonder if they will still want him when he is taking the oath of office.

"be careful what you wish for..."

I can't believe the things Dean supporters are saying in objecting progressive taxation.

The Republicans must LOVE that.

I do object to large budget deficts, as a younger voter. I do *not* want to be saddled with trillions of baby boomer debt, which WILL come out of MY pocket, twenty years from now.

problem, and part of the solution will be fixing a tax code which is as regressive as the tax code was in 1928. Soon it will be more regressive than it was in the first year of income taxation. We decided to tax income because we realized that allowing the rich to get super rich whithout asking them to contribute to the infrastructure was SLOWING PROGRESS, SHRINKING THE ECONOMY, AND PREVENTING SOCIAL WEALTH FROM ACCUMULATING.

If you want to shrink the defecit, we need to create a wealth-producing economy, and progressive taxation is a major part of being able to do that.

There is a ton of untapped wealth-producing potential in the middle and working class, and it's untapped because those people are totally burdened by this economy and fighting an unfair battle with people who are super rich and not bearing any burden. When you take the burden off them, they're going to be able to produce social wealth which will then reduce the debt.

For me, if I can make the dough I was making during the Clinton economy, I'll be a happy camper. PAYROLL taxes hurt average workers far more than income taxes, but regular people who are concerned about progressive taxation already know that.

Keeping any middle class breaks (whether you got them or not) while rescinding breaks on top income earners inmproves the slope of progressivity.

Did you see how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer in the last two years? Going back to the Clinton rates (which weren't all that progressive then, but people didnt' complain because they all felt rich) would be even MORE regressive now than they were then. Ie, superimposing a 3 year old code structure on today's distributiono income is even more regressive.

It is so unbelievably disturbing that DEMOCRATS (espeially a couple running for president) either don't know this or know it and don't care enough about it.

It was regressivity in the tax code which made America less wealthy than it could have been in the 1920s. It was progressivity in the 40s which made America incredibly wealthy in the 50s. It's increasing regressivity in the last 20 years which is returning America to the nation it was in the 1920s.