Let's follow the analogy through--if Dean is the modern McGovern,

. . . (I don't necessarily buy this, but give them the point for argument's sake), then Dean will lose to Bush in a landslide. Then it's 1973, and a corrupt Nixon involved in an illegal war walks way over the hubris line, indulges his fascist whims and resigns to avoid impeachment (of course, they didn't have a puppy-dog whore press back then). The McGovernites, meanwhile, become increasingly radicalized, the country lurches into near civil war, and, oh yeah, we end that fucking war.

Bring it on.

Then why can't Dubya be Bush sr? I mean, we are talking about history repeating, aren't we? I see a lot of signs of a Bush 2 Repeat, but no one wants to mention that one. It's just McGovern all the time. I say "To hell with you!" If people want to play Cassandra, well, then I'm predicting that Bush will turn out just like his father during his attempt to run against a small state Governor.

How's that for history repeating? It's as valid, if not moreso, as the McGovern one.

duo of presidents (Adams) only served one term each as well.

...we see a President Dick Cheney, followed by a one term Democratic president, followed by twelve years of Republican Presidents.

No thanks.

If Dean is Mcgovern & Bush is Nixon, then Cheney is Agnew and he'll be forced to resign in Disgrace before Bush goes. etc etc.

the problem with hypotheticals....

we'd be looking at President Dennis Hastert? Still, no thanks.

Actually, Nixon with a big dose of Hitler.

The Internet will insure they can't stop People Powered Howard.

Dean will kick Bushco's ass.

But we'll still incarcerate the Bush conspirators in the ensuing investigations. "Bring it on" indeed.

someone who doesn't have all kinds of issues that can be exploited and turned against him. Someone who has been consistent in their record and positions.

:-) since he's been consistent on his record and positions unlike Clark who was never voted into any office and has no track record on domestic policies.

EDITED for typing

Nixon faced a Democratic congress with cajones and a press that didn't act like it was owned by the same people who owned the White House.

Otherwise, Dean isn't McGovern. McGovern was far more liberal and much less telegenic.

Dean is the one with "cajones."

and we all snort massive amounts of cocaine while grooving at the disco to the likes of the Village People then drive in our Glemlins to our yoga theaphy class where the woman with the Farrah Fawcett harido tells us all to be mellow and to have a nice day as our kids OD on soda and PopRocks while playing Pong.

Perfect response to this nonsensical attempt at silly analogies.

if Bush does win, it will mean a severely divided and radicalized left, now without hope. That was the analogy I really was pointing to.

then yes, that could happen.

But since you were making your point based on one candidate only in the general election, as opposed to the yet to be nominated candidate, then that's my response.

more is the unthinkable.

but puppy dogs are cute and lovable! They don't take no stinkin' money!

He is NOT McGovern, Dukakis, Clinton, Carter, Mondale or anyone else.

He is Howard Dean. Let's think clearly and originally.

George W. Bush, meanwhile is not George H.W. Bush or John Quincy Adams or Rutherford B. Hayes. He is George W. Bush: The most incompetant man ever to occupy the White House.

But his people on the streets did NOT end the war. In fact, due to the violence committed by some of the more radical protestors (NOT McGovernites), like bombing campus buildings and so forth, the protests lengthened the war, because it increased the resolve of Nixon and his henchmen on seeing it through. It was a policy of defiance. The McGovernites had a zero net effect, at best.

I have found it one of the most historically irresponsible myths that the protests - valuable tools that they are, I participate in them myself - ended the war. They give a needed voice of opposition, but they don't change policy. It is highly naive and self-centered (which is common among the boomers who protested at that time) to think they ended the war.

What ended the war was the realization from those on high, that it just wasn't winnable. They, and only they, decided to end the futility.

As for Dean, he isn't a McGovern. McGovern served this country with distinction in WW2, was a principled person, and didn't waffle on the issues. Dean is a corporate whore and a fake liberal waffler extraoridinaire. His nomination would set back the party for who knows how many years.

out.

Nixon had to be a paranoid control freak because he was getting it from the left and the far right. Nixon would have never been taken down if there weren't super-fascists who thought he should be giving them more. Remember, Nixon thought protecting the environment was a good idea. He thought that a higher minimum wage was right. He thought that workers deserved workplace safety protections. And Deepthroat was probably Poppy Bush.

I don't think there's anyone farther to the right than GWB. If Dean goes down, nobody's going to be taking out Bush because he isn't enough of a fascist. Furthermore, it would probably do the Democratic party serious damage if they can't beat Bush in 2004. There will be lots of recriminations and it will set the party back to to 1984.