OK, say Dean got the nomination. What woud the campaign be like today...

...with Dean as the nominee rather than Kerry?

Would Dean's position on the war have given him a higher ground from which to attack Bush? Do Dean and Kerry's different positions on the war (and Kerry's IWR vote) matter at all?

Would Dean's bad back and draft status have hurt him? Does that matter?

Would the things that Dean's supporters thought were his strong points be greater strengths, or would they have turned into weaknesses relative to Kerry?

I ask because I was just thinking about how passionate the arguments and counter-arguments were about Dean, and I wonder if they hit their targets, or if they were off -- ie, if DU'ers were prescient or perhaps confused by their passion.

passion back into the Democratic Party, and he also had republican and independent crossovers during the primary season.

Every candidate is claiming that they got Rs and Is.

Also, would the passion on the left have driven moderates to the right?

Do you think Dean would be beating Bush the way Kerry is in most polls (and Kerry is only beating Bush because the moderates are crossing ofer to the left)?

In my meet-up about half the people were Indies, Greens or Republicans.

There are actual exit polls, and I don't remember Dean doing well in the exit polls with Rs and Is, and, anecdotally, I know many people who work with Republican who said their colleagues said they'd vote Dem unelss it was Dean.

i'm basing this on states edwards competed in only . in new hampshire kerry did well and in iowa also. but later on edwards did the best among independents and republicans. especially when you look at wisconsin and georgia which came in close and had more open voting.

this is from what i remember about the exit polls. kerry also did well in the south by winning a strong coalition of women and minority votes. i was nervous about the tennessee and virginia elections because i knew if kerry could not do well in those states it would leave open the criticism that he can't win in the south and his opponents (clark and/or edwards) would be able to use this as why kerry is not so electable or they are more electable. kerry winning those states allowed him to claim he plays well everywhere.

but would overtake Kerry as Iraq gets worse and Kerry finds less and less defensible his IWR vote.

My $.02.

however, the only people who still care about it are the anti-war groups who he betrayed and the Republicans who still think the American people are listening to them. The truth is that the average American voter doesn't even remember there was a vote.

Bush is running (for lack of anything better to hang his hat on) as a "war" president. Dean would be crucified for his lack of foreign policy experience, his personal military non-experience (Bush's record would look good, in comparison), and I'm sure his over-all sanity would be questioned.

Hey, I'd happily vote for Dean, but I think he'd have been drowned out by the RNC disinformation wurlitzer.

Deep down, I think Deocrats considered the current media reality and chose a candidate whose character was bullet-proof. Even so, the RNC has tried mightly to smear Kerry's character...I can only imagine how they'd have gone after Dean.

They're calling Kerry "Waffles," connecting him to Fonda, twisting his post-Vietnam actions to call him a traitor... what would they have gone after Dean for? Being an ultra lib and having no defense experience?

Doesn't matter who you have running. Anyone can be made to look bad.

After all, it was DEAN that was right about the war- not Bush, and not Kerry.

He doesn't have a three year record of supporting the Bush regime

He would have maintained his solid record of supporting G/L rights and women's rights.

His mid-east policy was practical and his views on Iraq were prescient.

But most importantly he offered a hope for change rather than more of the same.

He was the most liberal Senator in 03, and in 5 or 6 other years since he was first elected.

And I cerrtainly don't think there's a perception today that he's anything but anti-Bush. As of today, no voter seems to feel that way.

"As of today, no voter seems to feel that way."

While I don't think that Kerry=Bush or that Kerry is a bad guy, I do feel that he has supported this administration on far too many issues and votes in the last 3 years. Even worse, the areas in which he has gone with BushCo have been some of our (Dems) most important issues- the Iraq war and education to name but 2.

And most damning of all is the impression that he has done so with his presidential run in mind. Yes, Kerry has a very liberal voting record over his 30 years in public life. But the feeling (yes, just my own) that he abandoned many of his principles to run for president doesn't sit well with me.

Add to those votes his recent comments about giving Shrub "space" while Iraq spirals ever downward into the death trap we knew it would be and the notion that he would consider the appointment of pro-life, strict constructionist judges, and maybe you can see why many of us are not thrilled with this man's candidacy. Yes, Kerry's much better than Shrub- but so is Lieberman. That doesn't mean I want him in the White House either.

I don't know that Dean would be doing any better or worse than Kerry (or how any of our other candidates would be doing either). None of us really knows the answer to that.

But now we have a presumptive nominee who in the eyes of many voted for the Iraq war resolution but maybe doesn't support the war now but who maybe thinks we're still better off without Hussein in power but who won't vote to fund our troops. While I understand Kerry's positions on those issues, many people I know do not.

So just imagine where we could be right now if Dean, Clark, Kucinich or another who opposed the Iraq invasion were our presumptive nominee rather than Kerry. Just imagine the moral authority and clarity we could have as a party on *so many* issues if the Dems had actually acted like an opposition and presented a fairly united front against this administration. Just imagine the force our party could be if we had taken control of the debate 3 years ago rather than running scared and letting them write the script. *sigh*


"Of all sad words of tongue or pen
The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'" - Whittier

which even hints at this.

I really don't think there is a perception among anyone except die-hard supporters of anti-war candidates who feel that way.

I doubt a single moderate or Republican feels that Kerry is too close to Bush.

Compare Bush and Gore. Bush ran on the idea that they weren't very different, and Nader compounded that notion, and Gore actually was a little bit neoliberal, and very supportive of big businesses (especially the telecoms), so there was some room for people to have that perception.

Perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to paint Kerry the same way, but I really think there's no mass perception of that being the case.

In fact, I *specifically* stated that I don't believe Kerry = Bush. However, without using the terms, I pointed out that many see Kerry (and Dems in general) as weak and wishy-washy, not really knowing where we want to stand on certain issues.

And for the record, you and your opponent don't have to be miles apart on an issue for a strong stand to be taken. Dean and Clark were moderately left, but they held firm in their stands against the invasion. Edwards, Gephardt and Lieberman held firm in their support of the Iraq war. To many, Kerry has been back and forth- and is therefore a fairly easy target for the repubs to paint as a waffler on an issue that, depending on how much worse things get over there, may end up dominating the campaign.

Kerry seems like a good guy, and is really more a symptom than the actual disease, so it's unfair of me to lay all of this at his feet alone. But the man represents Massachusetts for heavens sake! He of all people could have afforded to show more backbone than he has for the past 3 years.


And I think there is something that keeps getting missed in these discussions. Most Dean supporters I see on this board aren't demanding that our party exclude centrists or adopt the Green Party platform. In fact, most Dean supporters actually understand that he is a moderate on many issues. We're simply asking that our party act like an *opposition* party rather than the proverbial whipping boy for the repubs. That doesn't necessarily mean taking a "liberal" position on an issue. Given how far right this administration is, it could very well mean taking a centrist stand on something in opposition to their fascist/hard right proposal. But it does mean actually taking a stand and defining ourselves, rather than letting them do that for us.

Dean was my personal favorite for a long time because he spoke his mind and didn't mind shaking things up. Even though it's personally appealing to me I'm not sure how Dean would have held up under the kind of scrutiny now being focused on Kerry.

They would have brought up his skiing trip, his doctor's excuse for getting out of the military service. They would trash Judy for not being a "first lady" type, a woman who wanted to continue her career as a doctor. Then, there was the yeeeeaaaaarrrrrhhhhh -- probably the biggest media faux pas attributed to a candidate.

Dean was too honest and straightforward for the dirty game of politics. He wasn't seasoned enough for the rough-and-tumble Washington insiders and I do think some behind the scenes maneuvering worked against Dean even though I can't prove it. It was apparent that the DLC and the DNC didn't want Dean and I have some angry feeling over that. Maybe they were right, and maybe not but it's water under the bridge and we need to move on.

I was a big Dean-iac back in the day (and those were the days...)
My theory was the exact opposite of an earlier post:
That someone like Kerry plays exactly into the kind of story the media wants. A story about rich insiders who come from the same school, etc. Kerry also failed to inspire anyone early on in the primary...remember when EVERYONE thought he was over?

My theory was that Dean didn't fit into the media paadigm and they wouldn't know how to deal with him...and so people would really make their own opinions of him. I think if that were the case, people would appreciate his honesty, they'd admire what he did in Vermont, and they'd get a kick out of listening to him RAIL the Bush regime...something Kerry only does in the cryptic bullsh** that the media can comprehend and that everyday people interpret as just another politician whining about something. No one ever thought of Dean as just another whining politician...he had fire and passion I've never seen before. He spoke like I'D speak if I were up there. I can't say that about Kerry at all.

Dean spoke to everyday people with the voice of a caring human being. I think people love that. It got Jimmy Carter elected...

I think if people didn't expect so little from politicians we'd have candidates like Dean all over the place.

the media sure pushed it and those who supported other candidates liked to believe it.he was slowed down by his prostate cancer surgery but it had been almost a year by the time the caucuses and primaries started and he was as well as can be by that time and when people actually started paying attention to the campaign and candidates he won. and of course where were people like myself who were longtime supporters of his who continued to support him all the way through.

about kerry's campaign being over .

was the subject of a David Broder piece in the NY Times. He argued that Dean and Bush are born to lead because of their backgrounds -- privileged, episcopalian, boarding schools.

It was a stunning piece of crap. If the press wanted two people from the same class (if not from DC) then Dean would have been just as suitable as Kerry.

However, I acknowledge that Dean went a different way than Kerry (but he actually went a way very similar to Bush -- going off to another state, going into the private sector, then going into politics, and then going to DC only at a very late stage).

By the way, maybe Kerry's cryptic bullshit is just strategy. Maybe it's supposed to contrast with Bush's speaking in tongue (or whatever it is that he pretends is language). Maybe Kerry will have stiff, verbose language for a couple months, building up a contrast, and then will become really warm and normal in the last two months, to make the criticisms sound silly just when people are paying attention.

I think if he did that, (1) he'd have people all talking about communication skills, which is a discussion which REALLY hurts Bush, and (2) if he changes then people will be wondering what the press has been talking all these months because they can understand Kerry, but they have NO idea what the hell Bush is talking about.

As we have seen from the media:

If you do not define your image yourself, and clearly, the media will do it for you. The media defined Dean as angry and unstable, and that would likely not have changed.

for one thing.

I also think Dean had hutzpah enough to have gone to visit troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also think that Democrats would have a much clearer message and John Stewart and the commedians would not be calling Dean boring.

You think that would disappear just because it was general election season?

by this time Dean would have shown he wasn't angry. Even the scream wasn't an angry scream, it was a rally scream.

I don't think Dems would have wondered so much about what was up, so much. Kerry seems to have floundered since he became the projected nominee, taken time off, not ran rebuttal ads, etc.

I think Dean would have gone on about 4 across country tours between March and now.

People just can't seem to get fired up about Kerry. *yawn*

Julie

at least not fired enough to vote for him in as large numbers as they did for kerry.

Where are these millions who did as the media told them, hmmm? Where is the excitment? Why is there no Kerry campaign organization in the battle-ground state of Michigan? None. Nada. Zippo. Why is the strongest known Kerry supporter in my area calling ME and flattering me and telling me how fabulous I did for Dean and hinting I'd be a great go-to person for the Kerry campaign here in the north of the state? Why not call a member of the legions who actually voted for the guy?

And besides, Iowa....<snarf> oh yeah, that was a straight up clean, no manipulation sort of thingy wasn't it? New to politics are we?

Julie--who keeps waiting to see this wave of love from the Kerry supporters across the country become visible

and i'm not the one claiming a candidate who only won their home state and lost every other state would have got people excited unlike the candidate who actually did a lot better. i never claimed everyone liked kerry. i know there are people who don't and never will. but he still did a lot better than dean in every state but dean's home state.

as for iowa, i don't know anyone that forced dean to run attack ads against others and then cry about being a pin cushion anytime someone criticized him.

and your defensiveness is telling.

Iowa started ball rolling FYI. The media took it from there. BTW did Kerry ever send a Thank You to Geppy for throwing his votes into Kerry's camp? Wonder what was promised for that?

Anyhow, I know it's all so upright, honest and good clean electoral fun, right. ;-) Dean was just a bad guy and he deserved all those knives in his back. That mindset reminds me of a formerly abused child I know who still tries to curry favor with abuser by assuming all blame. "I was a bad kid" "I deserved all I got" etc. Here in America every day is backwards day.....

Still, there is no enthusiasm for Kerry. None.

Explanations? Spin? Excuses? Blame-placing? Finger-pointing? Anyone?

Julie

and caucus rules allow people to change their votes. edwards and kucinich did the same thing. if gephardt people went for kerry then i'm glad they did. maybe mosely braun supporters went to dean after she dropped out. and i have nothing to be defensive about. i know kerry isn't popular among all. but i know there are many who do like him very much and worked hard to help him in the elections. and will work hard to help him try to win in november.

You keep saying that the media told primary voters who to vote for, but you seem to have forgotten that in Iowa, the media was calling Kerry a loser.

...(and I'm not sure how you measure love) it's clear more voted for Kerry because they place other qualities than love higher on their list of priorities.

The big reason I ask this question in the orinigal post is because we know the events that have occurred up to today, and we know the mood in America today, and a lot of the reasons people had for picking candidateas last year were based on predictions of the future, so I just want people to think about the arguments they made last year, and think about events that have occurred up to today, and look at the fact that Kerry actually looks like a pretty strong candidate, and I want to debate precisely that question about whether the list of priorities people made and according to which people voted turned out to be a sensible list of priorities (I think the answer is yes in that the list of priorities produced Kerry as the winnger, and I thik his trajectory as of today suggests that that's the case).

So, if "love" was a top reason for many people thinking Dean was the best candidate, where do people think love would have gotten Dean today?

just vote for him.

What does it matter if he "bores" you? Juggling balls and tap dancing are not prerequisites for president.

If he's not firing people up, it's working.

He doesn't have the right all excited and organized, he's got the moderates leaning towards him, and the left is really energized about getting out Bush (see, eg, Nader's meeting with Kerry yesterday -- very productive, I say, and established the organizing principle: let's get rid of Bush).

He couldn't come to any equilibrium in the primary, but if he had been able to do so, I think he'd be doing modestly well at this point, more or less as well as Kerry.

Who can tell? It's all speculation.

So yeah it would be easy for him to go right - and lots of us would probably be struggling with disillusionment. But I think he'd be getting beaten up every day by the media, and he'd often make himself an easy target with his blunt-speak.

I think that although some of us would feel more inspired and excited, the election would be a landslide for Bush and we'd have four more years of crying in our contaminated water.

Sad, but I do believe true. (That's probably why a fair number of us democrats didn't choose Dean in the primary.)

He pretty vague and issues generalizations instead of allowing us specifics.

The E-voting issue is probably the biggest and most overlooked issue facing Americans. It is also being avoided by Senator Kerry and it appears he is trying to sideline and block the most important issue facing our Democratic system.

I will vote for Kerry, but I want ON RECORD his position on this issue and answers to why he is not supporting paper ballots and an proper auditing trail.

Bev Harris/Black Box Voting posed the question a few days ago because their apparently has been some unfavorable actions by his team towards the implementation of halting these machines for 2004.

What is that about?

Yes, he was anti-Iraq-war and pro civil unions, but he was a fiscal conservative, and his stance on guns earned him a good rating by the NRA as governor.

We would not have the debate over getting the troops out of Iraq sooner or later - whenever one of these guys decides to get around to it.

But then again we might have missed the debate about the Nader factor, because chances were far better that he would not have run if Dean was the nominee.

Kerry, by not taking provocative positions, has avoided the media onslaught. On the other hand Kerry's poll numbers have been relatively static in spite of the fact that bad news is all Bush is getting. Kerry has been fairly bullet proof, but it seems so only at the cost of being able to capitalize on this opportunity.

That being said, Dean is doing what he can to get Kerry elected. As a Dean supporter, I am pleased with this and will join Howard in the effort.

That being said, Dean is doing what he can to get Kerry elected. As a Dean supporter, I am pleased with this and will join Howard in the effort.

Im with ya QB.

Even so I can make a few extrapolations:

1. It would have been nasty. The GOP smear machine is going full force against Kerry--they would be doing the same against Dean. Dean's draft deferment would come in for some heavy criticism--he'd need to have those x-rays that got him out of the army ready.

2. The mainstream media would probably take potshots at Dean. He'd be criticised for his temper, his views, his wife, his clothes--actually pretty much the same thing they're doing to Kerry except Kerry gets if for being boring and being a flip flopper as opposed to a hothead.

3. Nader might not be running (but you never know with an egomaniac) Lefty and liberal Democrats would be for the most part delighted with Dean's hard hitting style. Moderate and conservative Democrats would be seriously unhappy. Dean's fiscal conservatism might pick up some deficit hawk republicans and independents. Others would be put off by his antiwar stance.

4. Dean's outspokenness (which I love, incidently) would get him in trouble.

In the end I think that this is all about Bush. If the voters--and/or the powers that be--decide that Bush must go it won't matter much who the Democrats run.

...no doubt a decorated veteran, probably Wes Clark.

And Clark would have been goading Bush/Cheney on their military credentials since April.

and what he would do as President.

which evidently Kerry only is beginning to build now. His Ohio organization is just getting started and his MI is non existent. This wouldn't pay dividends until later though so it wouldn't be showing up in the polls.

Dean would likely be getting more coverage than Kerry but who knows if that would be for good or ill. It should be for good given what is going on now but the press is master at telling lies so who knows.

Fundrasing would likely be about even or maybe a little lower for Dean depending on where Kerry is getting his money.

Poll numbers would likely be close to the same but Dean would be more polarizing (higher positives and negatives) at this point. That might translate to more of a gain for him than Kerry got.

Bottom line this races is more about Bush than it is about Kerry. But Kerry needs some floor of excitement and acceptability to compete and get his voters to the polls. That was one of Dean's strengths IMO. Kerry can make this up but he is running out of time and if his supporters here are any indication he is in bigtime denial. The strategy appears to be waiting for Bush to implode instead of actively helping that implosion. That may well work, so far Bush is imploding spectacularly well. But I would prefer to count on something the Democrats have control over.

there is only one thing that matters this year and that is winning. Kerry is laying back right now and that gets some people nervous. That said, all you need to do is read or watch some of the post mortems to realize that Dean may not have had the resources or organization to fight Bush. His records would have been a problem too.

Opposition to the war, and faears of his comlete lack of experience on national security and in particular, his lack of any leadership in the area of handling terrorism would have led to many undecided voters selecting Bush. His advocating gay marriage would have caused many who are supporting Kerry because he decides that it should be left to the states would have been Deans death knell.

Exit polls from Iowa cited that his draft record had a significant effect on the final decision not to select him as the nominee for the demcratic party.

those state referenda being pushed in all the battleground states might be getting on ballots with the help of a poster boy like Dean to make Christians nervous.

How many times have you claimed that Dean and Kerry have the same position on gay marriage, and now you say the exact opposite? Go ahead and deny that I will post some of the literally hundreds of examples.

No longer. Dean started up on Kerry and others once Kerry started coming out stating that he did not support gay marriage, but leave it to the stated. At this point Dean came out overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, attacking Kerry, attempting to salvage his floundering campaign by trying to diverty gay support from Kerry by starting to support gay marriage. Dean's stance kept changing, as polls started indicating that he was going into crach and burn mode. In December of 2003, Dean stated that he was against gay marraige, but supported civil unions, by February, when Kerry was trouncing him Dean came out totally in support of gay marriage, attacking Kerry for not doing so. So it is not me who has problems keeping the story straight, it is Dean.

and you full well know it. And you know I can find things from FEB where you said the direct, exact, and total opposite.

dated in Feb, where you said the exact, total, and complete opposite (post 52 of this thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=323750#324422

That gays couldnt get married. Or that he would support an act that prohibited gay marriage. Not that he would consider such and act, but that he would sign it. He hasnt yet.

Dean on the other hand, did prevent an act from passing, which would have allowed gay marriage to be legal in Vermont and sided with the "Civil Union" solution, at a time when there were enough votes to pass the marraige legislation in the Vermont Legislature.

Dean also cited his opposition to the gay civil rights bill that was presented to the U.S. Senate in 1986.

Out of the two, Kerry has a far more consistant record of supporting gay rights than Dean.

Dean was forced to sign one ill or the other, by the Vermont Supreme Court, which only gave him two solutions and is extremely ultraliberal. SO ultraliberal that they simply would have declared any amendment to the Vermont Constitution to undo either Civil Unions or Gay Marriage unconstitutional if conservatives in the Vermont Legislature tried to do so. When the Vermont Legislature passed a proprty tax law that was based on a simply flat tax rate, which Dean and the Republicans supported, the Vermont Supreme Court declared such a tax, which is pretty common in other states, as unconstitutional, and forced the legislature to create a progressive property tax, which Dean avoided taking part in, leaving the legislature to create it, Dean signed it.

Same thing with Civil Unions. Dean actively spoke out against the alternative for gay marriage, and without the Governors support, conservatives were able to push the lesser of two evils, with the wing-nut brigade that spent the years between 1996, when Baker v State Started, and 2000, trying to pass an "Anti gay marriage act;Which failed to get anything close to enough votes to pass for 4 years in a row. Dean had an opportunity to support gay marriage, the first legislation sent to the Vermont legislature after the Supreme Court decision was for gay marriage, not civil unions (Bill Lippert wrote this legislation between December 20th 1999, and the opening day of the Vermont Legislature on the day it opened for the 2000 session in January of 2000.

Members of the gay community as well as the Vermont Legislature stated that Dean was "out of touch" in not supporting the gay marriage legislation .



BTW as often is the case your post is rife with in accuracies including the utter howler that a Supreme Court can declare amendments to a constitution to be unconstitutional. That is the whole point of amending a constitution to change what it says and thus make what was once unconstitutional, constitutional. In addition you are flat out wrong on the property tax issue. What they declared unconstituional was local property taxes. In point of fact what VT now has is a flat rate property tax at the court's insistence. But the valid point is that no where in that post do you say one word about him coming out fully for gay marriage.

Dean opposed gat marriage, until THIS year, after he started losing big time to Kerry, and then became a supporter of gay marraige, and then started attacking Kerry's stance.

The supreme court can declare ANYTHING that Congress does unconstitutional. Example, A state legislature could try to pass an amendment for that state reinstituting slavery. The U.S. Supreme court could declare such an amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. State Supreme Courts ,dependent on the state can declare any attempt to amend a state constitution in violation of federal laws.

State Supreme courts can declare any attempt to amend a state constitution unconstitutional, If it violates the basic principals established in the constitution. Such as denying civil rights to a particular group of citizens.

It still begs the question that Dean has been totally opportunistic. Within a period of less than three months he went from being in total opposition to gay marriage, to supporting it.

The US Supreme Court can't rule amendments to the US Constitution unconstitutional and the VT one can't do that with the VT Constitution. And you claimed Dean did this in Feb. I sighted a post from late FeB and you, as usual can't back it up. Yet again you either are totally ingorant, utterly forgetful, or dishonest.

I didnt claim Dean did anything regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the act in February. And courts can rule amendments unconstitutional if they are in violation of the BODY of a constitution. It would be totally within the power of the supreme court to reinstate slavery, either by repealing the amenedments to the constitution which ended slavery, as this is a violation of their interpreation of who rights are extended to by the basis of the constitution, which is one of the reasons that there are frequent discussions about reconvening a constitutional convention in order to change the body of the constitution in order to change the rules that govern how the constitution can be amended, who can amend it. Amdnedment to the constitution must fall within the framework set up in the body of the constitution, amendments are designed to reinterpret or extend the constitution as times require, but they cannot set up conditions which are contrary to the constitution itself. Thus the it would be unconstitutional to amend the constitution, to end the office of the presidency, and establish a life time dictatorship or monarchy. The court could declare such an amendment unconstitutional.

Thus, and amendment to deny gays the same rights established for citizens of the United States, or of any particular state within the United States could be struck down by the high court. The power to do so was not supplied within the constitution of the U.S. itself, and the U.S. Constitution over rides state constitutions in such cases.

All amendments can do is re-interpret the application of the body of the constitution itself, not change the base rules established within the constitution. The issue is whether an amendment denying gays the same rights as other citizens, who pay the same taxes, and are beholden to bear the same responsibilities as other citizens under the constitution is allowable under the constitutional guarantess of equal treatment under the law for "ALL" citizens. In the amendments giving the right of universal sufferage to blacks and women, the amendments were not creating a new right to vote, but were establishing the fact that women and blacks were equal citizens under the law. Amendment can also not move backwards and remove rights, but only forward by clarifying the definition of "citizen".

Any attempt to amend the constituion in such a way as to remove the state of citizenship from any particular group would be a violation of the constitution itself, and so could be opposed and struck down by the courts.

First, go back and look at your first post. You mention an ultra liberal Supreme Court. That can only be Vermont's. Let me be as blunt as humanly possible. Vermont's Supreme Court can't rule any amendment to the Vermont constitution as being unconstitutional (as to the Vermont constituuion). It is remotely possible they could claim some sort of federal provision makes it unconstituional. But then there would be an automatic appeal to the federal courts. And no federal court anywhere, anytime has applied the 14th amendment to gays. No federal court anywhere, anytime has stated gays have a right to marriage. I have 0 expectation that such a holding by the ultra liberal Vermont Supreme Court would be upheld. So again, you are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.

Incidently all of the following have been upheld by the current Supreme Court. A referendum taking away all political rights from gays in Cincinnati, the outright banning of gays from the military, and while it got overturned recently the criminalization of sodomy. Not once has any justice, save OConnor in the Lawerence case, made any equal protection arguments on behalf of gays in a majority opinion. The rest of the justices in Lawerence relied on privacy.

As usual you are in the most literal sense of the word unbelievable.

I really would have let this go but your profoundly dishonest post here and below I just can't let go. Since we discussed this last I bought the book Civil Wars by David Moats who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of this issue. Sadly I didn't have this when it mattered. I honestly would have let it go but you just couldn't resist that one more dishonest post. What you say is in bold, what Moats says is in italics. All page numbers are cited and all text is exact but for typos.

That gays couldnt get married. Or that he would support an act that prohibited gay marriage. Not that he would consider such and act, but that he would sign it. He hasnt yet.

Dean on the other hand, did prevent an act from passing, which would have allowed gay marriage to be legal in Vermont and sided with the "Civil Union" solution, at a time when there were enough votes to pass the marraige legislation in the Vermont Legislature.

Here is what Bill Lippert, the only openly gay Vermont legislator, said about this. Lippert understood that members of the Legislature were terrified of the issue of gay marriage and they would be hardly less terrified of domestic partnership. He had spoken privately with some members, hoping if there were ever a bill to make gay marriage illegal, they would vote against it. Fellow members of the Judiciary Committee had agreed they would oppose such a bill, but some wanted Lippert to promise they would never have to vote on a bill which would legalize gay marriage. Lippert has assured them they wouldn't have to do that. That was being taken care of in the courts. Or so he had hoped. (pp 21-22)Is he lying?

Here he is again on page 154. Bill Lippert also understood the difficulty of pushing for marriage, but he felt additional pressure becasue the gay community was looking to him as their man in the Legislature. They saw him as the one who could make marriage happen. He knew otherwise. It was possible they could win support for marriage from a majority on a divided Judiciary Committee, but he believed it would be impossilbe through the full House. It was Tom Little's (Judiciary Chair) estimate that there were only thirty to thirty-five votes in the House for marriage. Are they both liars?

Here from page 186, By this time (Feb 7), many of the committee members had concluded that marriage was the right thing to do but that it would be impossible to win passage for a marriage bill in the House. Represenatative Michael Vinton, like Edwarss, was a retired state trooper and was part of a small group of conservative Democrats who called themselves the Blue Dogs. He had sat in the committee hearings waiting for the opponents to give him a reason to oppose the bill, and he continued to be disappointed. "I would have gone right ahead for marriage but I didn't think we could have got it through the House." Is he a liar too?

Page 187 John Edwards, Michael Vinton, Cathy Voyer, Alice Nitka, Michael Kainen, and Diane Carmolli (Judiciary Committee members) all made statements recognizing that domestic partnership was a compromise, but a necessary one. More liars?

Here we are left to believe that either pretty much every member of the Vermont House Judiciary Committee are craven liars, or incompetents or that you are flat out wrong. Gee, that is a really hard choice.

Dean also cited his opposition to the gay civil rights bill that was presented to the U.S. Senate in 1986.

Out of the two, Kerry has a far more consistant record of supporting gay rights than Dean.

Dean was forced to sign one ill or the other, by the Vermont Supreme Court, which only gave him two solutions and is extremely ultraliberal. SO ultraliberal that they simply would have declared any amendment to the Vermont Constitution to undo either Civil Unions or Gay Marriage unconstitutional if conservatives in the Vermont Legislature tried to do so. When the Vermont Legislature passed a proprty tax law that was based on a simply flat tax rate, which Dean and the Republicans supported, the Vermont Supreme Court declared such a tax, which is pretty common in other states, as unconstitutional, and forced the legislature to create a progressive property tax, which Dean avoided taking part in, leaving the legislature to create it, Dean signed it.

A state supreme court can't overrule a state constitutional amendment. An amendment changes the meaning of the constitution. You are either being profoundly dishonest or ignorant I don't know which. To site one example:

Hawaii was instructive because in 1993 the Supreme Court there had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, leaving the legislature out of the process. The people of Hawaii responded with a referendum amending the state constitution and allowing the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, which the legislature had done. By involving the Vermont Legislature in the resolution of this case, Amestoy hoped to reach an outcome that would have firmer political support. page 29. I could site many other examples if I really need to.

Same thing with Civil Unions. Dean actively spoke out against the alternative for gay marriage, and without the Governors support, conservatives were able to push the lesser of two evils, with the wing-nut brigade that spent the years between 1996, when Baker v State Started, and 2000, trying to pass an "Anti gay marriage act;Which failed to get anything close to enough votes to pass for 4 years in a row. Dean had an opportunity to support gay marriage, the first legislation sent to the Vermont legislature after the Supreme Court decision was for gay marriage, not civil unions (Bill Lippert wrote this legislation between December 20th 1999, and the opening day of the Vermont Legislature on the day it opened for the 2000 session in January of 2000.

Members of the gay community as well as the Vermont Legislature stated that Dean was "out of touch" in not supporting the gay marriage legislation .

See above. The votes weren't there. Either the Vermont House Judiciary Committee is wrong or you are. I know who I believe. Again, I didn't want to do this. I really didn't but you just don't know when to quit.

In January, the votes to pass gay marriage were there. In early February,on Vermont Public Radio, Dean stated he would oppose a bill that allowed gay marriage, Once Dean stated he would oppose it, votes started disappearing.

I have sited, via a Pulitzer Prize winning author, the one and only gay member of the Vermont House, and close to the entire Judiciary Committee. You have sited nothing. You have no link, you have no date, you have nothing. And let us not forget what you really think of gays.

I see maore pathetic arguments here, and as much bigotry out of supposed liberal than I do on Free Republic. And as much ignorance.

The Catholic Church has no more power to control actions and behaviors of its priests and bishops,nuns or laiety at the local level than the the U.S. Congress does from having cops who shake down tourists at speed traps or cops from stopping those pretty little ladies who are speeding and then suggest sexual favor,or flap out raping them. Bishops move pedophiles phile priests around, but cops rape women, and beat prisoners to death at a far higher rate that priest behave as pedophiles and YOU are paying for that. Does not matter. I live in a city where the BAPTISTS RUN EVEARYTHING. A LARGE CITY. The local government can urines test on demand and if you were DRINKING the night before and it shows up you can be fired becasue drinking can effect your work behavior hourse, even days after you drink. One of their highest members was just also caught for diddling little boys and they local church organization =was covering this up for 30 years. Same thing just happened here with the MORMON church. A youth leader forcing his young charges into sex was recently uncomevered and the churche knew about and covered it for years..

The Catholic Church has no more LOCAL authority, than the Mormon Temple in Utah, or the Southern Baptist Convention. As a matter of fact, the rates of pediphilia in the Catholic Churches are no higher than in the general population. But anti-catholic bigotry makes it more a front page issue. The Catholic Church has no police force, or any other such brutal S.S. like organization to support it or enforce obedience, They got rid of the enforcement arm of the Inquisiion Centuries ago. Sorry, this is just left wing version of catholic basshing, I can go to the Free Republic to see it done more skillfully if I want to.

All coverups are local coverups, outside of the authority of the Church Leadership or regulations. The rate of such sexual crimes within the church is probably more publically dealt with than the exposure of it outside of the Church.

Would you have them go bavk to medieval methods, Seaching to contraception and burning those caught at the stake. By the way burning of witches at the stake or those posessed by demons(which is how pedophilia was described before the 18th century) was far more often done by protestants than Catholics. For th most part, the church has tried to deal with these human problems humanely. They have tried to deal with the issue of GAY pedophelia(as most of those accused have been gay) in as humane a fashion as possible. trying to get the sick priest away from a situation in which he would engage in pedophilia again...

ANd you forget about the guy in California who accused priest of pedophilia,and was caught scamming them, and lost the case. Or the Mc Martin family, wrongfully accused of pedophilia, and exonerated years later, leves ruined

We have yet to determine if and how many of those priestsaccused of pedophilia, may simply be accused , and as innocent as trhe McMartins were.

Considering the nature of anti-catholic bigotry in the U.S., so strong that it occurs rampantly on a supposed progressive site, as well as the nature of the U.S. legal system , which has been found to have condemned hundreds of innocent people to death in the last decade. I would tread carefully before opening ones big mouth about the Catholic Church. If you are a Catholic Priest or the Catholic Church in the U.S. your constitutionaly rights are revered on DU...you are guilty before proven innocent.

I find that among Catholic bashers, ex Catholics are the most ignorant about the organizational structure of the church.

Rules are made at the top, but as in any organization, the rules can be ignored at the lower levels


end of quote

Your profound ignorance or dishonesty, I have no idea nor care which, is chief among the reasons I won't listen to a word you say. I think the posts here speak for themselves. You took advantage before I had the book. No more.

Howard Dean would capture the hearts and minds of the American people in precisely the same manner he did with his primary supporters.

I refuse to support John Kerry just because he got more votes than anyone else in the Democratic Primary! Even though Dean didn't get as many votes, it should be obvious that he would be able to get more votes in the General Election. After all, I loved the guy! Shouldn't everyone?

If only the American people could hear his powerful message, they would flock to his campaign.

But Dean was mugged by the media whores and the Repuke-lites, who made totally unfair attacks against him, like he was a pincushion. In the General Election, Dean would neutralize the whore media and the Rove machine, who would not be attacking now for the things that sunk him during the primary.

Dean is exciting and would be leading in national polls by about 70% to 30%. Compare that to Kerry, who is boring, and is only leading by about 50% to 45%.

Which is better: 70%-30% or 50%-45%? Case closed!

Look, I liked Dean, too, and Kerry wasn't my number one choice. But if you think ANYONE could lead Bush 70-30, then I NEED to get a hold of whatever you're smoking.

I thought the last line was a dead giveaway.

The point I was trying to make is that we have no clue how Howard Dean would be doing, and to many of his supporters there is a tendency to assume the best possible thing about the man. They simply cannot imagine that Howard Dean might not be doing as well as they imagine in their own heads.

We're comparing John Kerry's campaign -- which we know -- to a mythical Howard Dean campaign -- which is whatever we to it to be.

It is an unfair comparison. Dean, his style, and his message have never been tested in a General Election. For some reason, there seems to be blind faith that Dean would be doing better than Kerry, but he didn't even do better than Kerry in the Democratic primary.

People might as well say that Dean would be winning by 70%, because all of these too-good-to-be-true claims about Dean are just stuff that people made up in their own heads.

The main thing would be that Nader wouldn't be in the race. The media would, as many of you have said, be white-hot (not just medium as with Kerry) at trying to destroy Kerry, and they would be amazed that their efforts so far hadn't been successful.

Sure, we'd lose a few in the center, but we'd have Nader's five percent solidly in the fray.

We'd have excitement, something, someone to believe in, something to get up about. For me personally, the destruction of Dean by the media was the worst thing to happen to this country since the SC, Jeb, and Kathy conspired to corrupt the 2000 election.

People keep crediting Dean with putting "backbone" back into the party. I don't see it. In effect, the media pointed out that the people don't have the power, or at the least they choose to not wield it, opting instead for the media's choice, which was Kerry. After Kerry locked it up, of course their coverage changed, and they are utilizing all of the stuff they knew they had on Kerry. We, the most inspired part of the electorate are no longer in the fray. And most of all, Kerry's positions on the war, on a living wage, and on other issues are at best, indefinite. So where's the backbone, I don't see it.

I think Dean and Kerry are two different men and each effective in their own ways. I think Dean would be running a more "in your face" campaign than Kerry has but that is based more on his personality. I think Dean would be able to say that much of what he predicted or said about Iraq including that we are not safer with Saddam captured is true and would give him more credibility on that issue.

Bush would have gone after Dean the same way he went after Kerry by trying to label him a soft on defense liberal. I don't think he would have been any more effective than he has been with John Kerry. Dean could point to his own reputation as a budget balancer and obviously would be repeating his own line about the republicans "can't be trusted with our money."

As for the bad back and not going to Vietnam--frankly, I don't think that would have been any more of an issue with people as Clinton's allegedly dodging the draft was. The Vietnam war was years ago and while it may count for something with some people--mostly those who wouldn't vote democratic anyway. Besides if I know Dean if Bush were to push that line he would be right on top of it with the allegations of AWOL against the chimp.

I'm not sure Dean would be doing any better or any worse than Kerry is right now. I think Dean would have more support among those independents and others who are leaning towards Nader because of his position on the war. On the other hand, Dean might not be doing quite as well with mainstream independents--but I don't think he would be doing substantially worse either. I think the problems Bush has had of late would enhance nearly any credible democratic nominee--including Howard Dean.

:hi:

(speculation, of course)
1. The candidate would be working for the people.
2. Donations would be flooding in.
3. It would have been much more exciting because Dean had a way of putting his finger right on the pulse of the issue and speaking about it.
4. I would have faith in the system because the DLC and the media would NOT have picked our candidate(I support Kerry but if you talked to anyone who voted Kerry they did so because they bought the 'he is electable' line. I hope he is and it would have taken a leap of faith to believe Dean would win and be something really special. Instead IMHO we settled for 'electable'
5. Dean would have been a uniter. Even though he said he represented the democratic wing of the party, he appealed to many moderates and republicans-at least ones I know.
That said, what is the purpose of wondering? We'll never know and Kerry is the man now-for better or worse...

1. Although donations would have been flooding in, they would have been misspent.
2. It would have been mush Less exciting because Bush winning would be a foregone conclusion.

sorry, but there's more than one possible view on Dean (as shown by the primary results).


Don't mean to be a total downer here, but let's try to think just a bit realistically.

Dean would have the upper hand in the war, but if they catch Osama or find WMD's at an opportune time, Kerry will be in a better position.

Kerry will wait until this summer to take a firm stand on X as he is cautious.

It's a give and take as I see it. Both men have their advantages. I am simply glad to see them working together.

I would like to see some of Dean rub off on Kerry, but each man is an individual and Dean is not the nominee.

I'm ready to move forward frankly, ALONG with Howard Dean. :hi:

Dean's style of campaiging - attack, attack, attack - would actually help Bush. By sitting back and letting Bush self-destruct, Kerry is taking probably the best course of action.

Research in poli-sci has shown that voters tend to tune out of political debates if they think that it is just partisan sniping. If Dean were the nominee, and he were running his general campaign like his primary campaign, his attacks would make voters feel like the stuff happening right now doesn't really matter. Hence, Bush doesn't suffer from the latest scandals, and it's probably a closer race.

and most likely no Nader worries.

Dean has a record of being pro-gun, cutting taxes, pro-death penalty, anti-government spending, and being pro-business. In addition, Dean's war stance would definitely have been an advantage against Bush.

On the downside, Dean made too many errors during the primary (e.g. the confederates, yeeearrgh, strongest military, etc.) that would have given the RNC a lot of ammo. In addition, Dean comes across as very secular, and it is difficult to determine how energized fundies would be voting against him.

Add the Nader vote, add some of independent voters, add the fundraising, and subtract the damage inflicted by the Bush machine, and I think we'd be doing as well or better than we are now. Kerry however has advantages as a candidate that will help us in the 9th inning such as being well prepared, not being error prone, good debate prepping, and an excellent bio.

and the confederate flag. Not pretty.

Dean was already shifting his message back to the middle in January. Nader would still be in the race and pointing out how liberals were betrayed by a fake pretending to be one of them. Dean would keep making amatuer mistakes and saying stupid things for Bush to attack him with.

If you think back to the polling during the primaries, Dean had a core of supporters who stuck with him, but among the more casual voters, he had high negatives. It's impossible to say for sure what might have been, but I wonder if Bush's attack blitz would have been more effective against Dean for this reason.

positive & negative

not so with Kerry. we decided to play it safe w/ Kerry so it'll be a slow and steady rise to a narrow victory or defeat.

with Dean it would be a more dramatic & volatile rise - a landslide one way or another.

with Shrubco screwing up as badly as they are, I'd actually feel more comfy with Dean at the help at this point. But that's just because Shrubco's screwing up & I don't like to leave things out of our control. With Kerry, we are in more control of things. Looking back, Kerry is probably the best nominee: (or Edwards or Clark).

People are voting Democratic largely cause they can't stand Bush, not because who of the candidate is.

when primary season started, Dean fared weakest in all head to head matchups. Kerry was beating * here in Minnesota, while * beat Dean by 10.

Dean's biggest weakness was the one everyone made the least fuss about. it wasn't his opposition to the war, or civil unions. I think those would've been fairly minor issues. It was the fact that he wanted to repeal the entire * tax cut, not just for the rich. While the difference probably isn't much, the whole * campaign would spin the election as a referendum on whether you wanted high or low taxes.

THAT was what kept me away from Dean.

But that doesn't seem to be working for them in the polls.

I found him incredibly boring, and completly laking any depth of knowlegdge about the events currently shaping the nation, and a man without a single original idea.

I was excited about Howard Dean, I found it easy to talk with workers who voted for the Smirking Chimp in 2000 and have them like Dean because of his ideas on hot topic issues.

I cannot, to this day, figure out how he dropped like a stone in the primaries. I think Dean's anti-war stance, his obvious honesty and integrity was so refreshing it made alot of us political war weary types feel new again.

That said I think Kerry will win and stopping the Smirking Chimp and his bloodcrazed agenda is the most important thing at this time.

Dean will be back and I think he will help make the Democratic party renew itself.

mean absolutely nothing.

Based on how his campaign unraveled due to the pressure and how he was pretty much a gaffe machine in January leading up to the Iowa primary, I'd say he'd be in low numbers right now.

The proof is in how many delegates he has right now. Kerry has 2162. Dean has 170.

Don't get me wrong. Dean is a good man. But when the rubber meets the road in a presidential campaign, the best candidate wins.

Based on that premise, Clark or Edwards are candidates with much stronger showings as VO possibilities.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/images/primaries/gc_005_server.swf

the energy and the drive to stir up voters unlike Kerry, who to be honest has a charisma vacuum, and also I think Dean's fiscal conservatism as demonstrated in Vermont would have made Bush's tax cut carrot far less tempting, for starters.

Would have been a very different election, that's for sure. Would have been a lot more exciting. Our candidate would have gotten a lot more coverage.

I think the main difference would have been that Dean would be slamming Bush on a daily basis for starting a needless war and soiling our good name, not to mention wasting so much money and leaving us open to attack by distracting from the war on terror.