Why Dean Can Beat Bush

[Darranar]

The answer is very simple - Bush is vulnerable, very vulnerable. A candidate who can show the American public how Bush's policies have runined the country can win, whether it's Wesley Clark or Howard Dean or John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich or even Joe Lieberman.

Dean has proven that he can do this. That is why he is now the front-runner - his bravery in attacking Bush resonates within people. I think he would be a great president and a great improvement over Bush/

As anyone can tell by my avatar, I'm not a Deanite. My support is fully behind Dennis Kucinich. But then again, I feel the need to counter arguments based on a single poll with little evidence to back it up.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. attacking Bush resonates within people

true, unfortunately it's not a majority yet.

[Darranar]

2. It doesn't matter...

anyone with the courage to attack Bush can show the American people the fallacy of his policies. Any one of the ten can do this, so I think that whoever gets the nomination has about as equal chance as everyone else. The nominee isn't going to change the outcome very much.

[tsipple]

3. Dean Is Looking Like the Oracle

I posted this summary in another thread, but it's worth repeating. The polls just flipped. A majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush's handling of Iraq. Does anyone think the Iraq situation is going to get better before the 2004 election?

We need a Democratic candidate in 2004 who is not tainted by his vote for Iraq (or ambiguity on where he stood, YEA or NAY, before the vote). And here's where our Democratic candidates stood (in alphabetical order by category):

Voted NEA: Graham, Kucinich
Contemporaneously Said Would Vote NEA: Braun, Dean, Sharpton
On the Fence: Clark
Voted YEA: Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman

I had to put Clark "on the fence" because I can't find a pre-Iraq Resolution quote from him where he says "I would vote no." Can anyone help me on that? I want to get this correct. As best I can determine, he had Kerry's position -- lots of reservations voiced at the time, but a YEA vote despite that.

I should also note that Gephardt has since repudiated his vote, saying that Bush lied to him (and us), and he would have voted NEA knowing what he knows now. While I have a problem with his vote obviously, he gets some points back in my mind for admitting his mistake and learning.

Finally, why is this stuff important? Robert Byrd had it right. The Constitution demands that Congress declare war. It's a binary decision. The Founders expected that politicians would try to weasel out of their responsibilities, which is why they had us, the voters, hold a referendum on what they did in that vote (and on other issues). It's why they didn't vest war making powers in a single individual, the President. And sure, that sucks if you're a politician. You actually have to be held accountable for sending young men and women to die in war. But you should pay a political price if you botch it. The Founders did not want a British-style empire of conquest. Maybe we're learning that lesson.

[tsipple]

4. By the way, I can't spell YEA and NAY

I think it's Yea and Nay, but I can't spell. :-)

[EagleEye]

5. The nominee can change the outcome...

One of the things we forget is that politics is also about leading, forming public opinion. Back in April 2002 when the Iraq invasion was a twinkle in GWB's eye, the public scoffed. Polls showed the people were not behind the war. Then Bush and his team took strong stands and convinced America to support the war while the Dems quaked in the corner (Yes, not all Dems, but most). With no one countering, Bush changed public opinion. The point is, a strong, articulate nominee can and will change hearts and minds.

[tsipple]

6. Ab-sa-Freakin-Lootly!

Which is why it's driving me batty (no pun intended) when we have wishy-washy Democratic candidates.

And they've all done it to varying degrees. (Though I would argue Dean has been by far the most direct of the leading candidates.)

Godammit, stop the BS! Voters' BS detectors are turned up all the way up. Take a freakin' stand! Piss off seven people somewhere, anywhere! Lead!

(OK, I feel better now. :-))

[OHdem10]

7. Or have we bought the Bush Line--with us or against us. good or evi?

War and its impications, prior to and following, are of such importance, do we and the media do a disservice to the country by refusing to permit candidates explain their position on the War.
The fundamentalism on the right demanding everythng is black or white:;denying extenuating circumstances or shades of grey; has led them into boxes. Absolutetim while it might make someone sound strong and decisive at a particular moment can cut off all kinds of possibilites. Look where it has us at the moment in Iraq. Because someone wishes to give a thoughtful answer, this does not automatically equate to weakness. However I do say that whoever the candidate they shoul put their thoughtfulness forward in a firm and unequivocating way.
The Media wants black and white so they can more easily attack.They are for the most part attorneys by training and looking for a chance to say one is not consistent.(except for GWB of course.)

[tsipple]

9. No One's Refusing Anything

The candidates can (and do) explain all they want.

But it's more than fair to pin them down on this issue. (And that's not my call. The press is and will do this anyway. All the candidates should expect it.) How would they have voted? It's a simple question. Sure, I'd like to hear the "why" part as well, but they must also answer the question.

War is a very blunt instrument. Do you invade or not? Do you cross the border into Iraq or not? (Part of the lesson in Vietnam was not to wage wars half-assed.) This really is a black and white question. If this isn't a black or white question, what policy decision is, then? The Constitution certainly is black or white. Congress declares war (or not). Full stop.

Is nuclear war some shade of gray? "Mr. President, do you plan to push the button or not?" Funny, I've never heard of half a nuclear explosion. So why is conventional war any different? What am I missing?

Yes or no. How would you have (or did you) vote? You're paid to make the big decisions. What's your decision?

[gully]

8. Here here....

Thanks! Who'da thunk Dean could raise the amount of $$ he has? Who thought he'd be the front runner?

The media certainly didn't. Why listen to them now?