Is it possible or allowed to have a non-flame anti-Dean discussion?

First, let me say I hate Bush, the Republican party and their fellow traveler Libertarians with a passion.

There are many practical reasons to be skeptical about Dean's candidacy.

First off, his strongest issue is yesterday, almost everyone is against the war now and the endless beating over the head of Dems who voted for this or voted for that last year is hurting the party.

# He has no military experience whatsoever, so he comes in at a disadvantage to getting America out of this Iraq disaster, to fighting the "War on Terrorism" and dealing with the Pentagon.
# He's from a state with few electoral votes.
# He's from a region with few electoral votes that we will easily carry with almost any candidate.
# He seems to consistantly poll less strong than some of our other candidates against Bush.
# He brings a lot of cultural baggage into tough for us to carry regions of nation such Vermont's image in the rest of the nation, his wife using her maiden name and signing the civil unions bill.
# He has affiliated with traditional enemies of the Democratic party such the Cato Institute and the NRA.
# The above is compounded by his coming from a vitually all white state and no history of civil rights involvement vis-a-vis between the races. His recent gaffes about this issue highlight this problem.

Bearing in mind the imperative of a Democratic victory, can other Du'ers elaborate why they think Dean is a poor choice?

Obviously something didn't take.

Nope.

If we are talking about the Confederate flag thing, I'm sort of on board with that idea. The south has been divided on racial lines for a long time. Southern Poor Whites vote Republican even though the Republican platform is designed to screw them. Dean wants to reach out to the poor, to explain to them why the Democrats are the party that will actually work for them. I think that's a better plan than writing them off.

Plus I like the Cato Institute myself. I disagree with them on most economic issues, but they had the right attitude on the war, and if we have to have Conservatives around, which we probably do, I'd rather see Conservatives like them (who can count, for example), rather than Religious ideologues.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

it's impossible

And, yes yes, isn't it charming the way he isn't scripted, or whatever Dean supporters say.

What his mouth will do is trip him up on stupid, minor issues and allow Bush to move around him.

on edit--
I don't feel that I'm flaming Dean, or whatever, to say this. In my view this is a valid concern.

The solution is not to run a more moderate version of Bush. That is, an unscripted and bumbling candidate.

A discussion has at least two points of view, not one.

Therefore the answer to your question

"Is it possible or allowed to have a non-flame anti-Dean discussion?"

is no, it is by definition impossible.

there must be flaming?

Discussions would require more than one point of view.

We could discuss what we think of Howard Dean, which may be pro OR con, but we cannot have an anti-Dean "discussion," which would be nothing more than a Faux-News style bash fest. All con, but no pro, which is the kind of "discussion" antiDean partisans confusedly desire.

Kerry, Clark, Sharpton flamefest seems OK.

613,090.

Black or African American persons? 0.5%

Any math majors out there? What's .5% of 613,090?

It didn't take much math to figure that one out....

what's your point?

He may be the next JFK of civil rights, but I don't see much to suggest it.

574,283.

Certainly, one of his charms is his fervor, but it's also a drawback. It's a drawback among his supporters, too.

While I feel for them on some levels, finally having someone in whom to really believe and seeing a groundswell, I have problems with him and some of that swelling ground. They need to remember that they aren't entitled to a damned thing; he is not above reproach, and by his constant misrepresentations, mistakes and vitriol, he's his own worst enemy.

It's too personal now, and his supporters give him too many breaks for his missteps, while not giving any slack to the other candidates. The supporters of other candidates are frustrated and fed up.

We all just have to chill a bit and accept these dynamics, while trying to change them somewhat. If Dean and his people refuse to ever admit errors or dirty pool, they're in for a long hard slog.

were used againste Clinton in '92 (small state with few electoral votes, "liberal" wife, Arkansas "image", polled less than Bush #1 early on, viewed as a centrist, the "bimbo" problem, etc.) Yet look at what happened.

You know, when I first came to DU it was with an almost child-like excitement that I had found a place that shared my enthusisam and values. Living in a very conservative area, surrounded by Bible-thumping, ignorant repukes, I was relieved to be "among my own." Although I'm a strong Dean supporter, I would certainly support whomever the democratic nominee is. However, I have become incredibly frustrated lately with the continuous, vicious attacks on Dean. The viciousness on display here against the democratic front runner must be making the repukes fall over with laughter. I am incredibly disappointed. :(

While it's obvious where my sentiments lie, I can certainly concede your points as valid. IF it were 2000, which it is not.

Warts and all , Howard Dean is a phenomena when the dems are very short on them. True, much of what youu posted probably doesn't poll well with republicans. But I don't see the points you made as resonating with democrats.

MY concern is that despite media spin, democrats flock to Dean thinking he's a liberal savior; and he's not. It's just that since NO ONE ELSE was articulating the feelings we had about Iraq, and no one was actually attacking BUSH, he got painted that way. I recognize that Dean is not the liberal left's answer to any prayer. But is any Dem in the race except possibly, Carol Mosely Braun?

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.



Thanks,
MrsGrumpy
DU Moderator