I wasn't even a Deaniac. But this writer is WAY over the top! [View All]

[wyldwolf]

"The story of how Howard Dean went from a supposed attacker, battering down the stodgy gates of the Democratic institution, to an insider hell-bent on weakening the party, further explicates that he and his party in fact helped reelect George W. Bush. What follows should serve as a dramatic warning of what the liberal end of the Democratic Party actually looks like, and why such a slight alternative to the Republican Agenda will not win important elections," wrote Frank (LO, p35).

How did Dean and his party help Bush? By driving down the same "super-highway to oblivion," only slower, a bit more cautiously; hence, "like" Bush, but not Bush. What "follows?" A detailed, description of what Dean and his party are really about, and it's not pretty.

First, Frank puts the real Dean, not the media inflation/creation, under the journalists' microscope and finds . . . a Republican in "Democrat Drag."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Engel0707.htm

Adam Engle - you try to make the case in your review of this book that liberals helped re-elect George W. Bush.

I would agree. But it wasn't liberals like Howard Dean and John Kerry. It was so-called "progressives" like yourself and Joshua Frank who keep propogating the myth that there is no difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party.

I wish you and yours would go the way of Henry Wallace. You'd be lucky to get the 2% he got in 1948.