Is one of the most liberal journals in the nation...It so plaeases me to see them pointing out the ONE pathological liar in the entire democratic nomination proceess.
Much, Much Much more to come from what I hear:
It’s a bit odd to begin an article about Dean, written supposedly from a Democrat’s perspective, by quoting the right wing media. Why should we given any credence to what they say about anything? These are, after all, the people who still claim that the U.S. is going to find weapons in Iraq, who believe that defunding the federal government via massive tax cuts for the rich is good for the economy, and who say with a straight face that Bush is a man of integrity and intelligence.
The glee Dean inspires among Republicans is exceeded only by that of his supporters. He has attracted a cultlike following, similar to that of John McCain or Ross Perot, although it is largely confined to liberals. Dean is soaring mainly because he has tapped into the intense anger Democrats feel toward Bush. But, in this case, anger has gotten the better of reason. Democrats' justified desperation to unseat Bush may, paradoxically, render them less able to do so. The trouble is not Dean himself (he is a decent man) nor even necessarily how he might govern (more responsibly than some would think). It's that he has come to represent a political delusion: that on every issue Democrats have a moral and strategic obligation to oppose Bush diametrically. This delusion could enfeeble the Democratic Party in 2004, whether or not it makes Dean its nominee.
The heart of Dean's appeal is his audacious claim that he, alone, has the guts to criticize Bush. "I think that, for too long, Democrats have been afraid to take on the president," he told National Public Radio in March. "The only hope Democrats have to beat this president," he told a Los Angeles rally earlier this month, "is to behave like Democrats and stand up for what we believe." Liberals not only find this talk cathartic, they believe it holds the key to victory. As actor Alec Baldwin told a Newsweek reporter, "I want to know who's the person who's going to take it to Bush. We've got to get rid of this guy."
The fallacy underlying Dean's argument is that Democrats in Washington have gone along with Bush's policies rather than resist them. "We are not going to beat George Bush by voting with the president eighty-five percent of the time," he likes to say. Dean seems to be implying that his opponents supported Bush that often, but actually Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman all had presidential support rates in the sixties and seventies. And even that dramatically overstates their agreement, since many of those votes--say, election reform or defense reauthorization--were, properly, uncontroversial. Most congressional Democrats have held fast in opposition to Bush's conservative agenda. On post-Enron reforms, the patients' bill of rights, campaign finance reform, homeland security spending, judicial nominations, oil-drilling in Alaska, and other issues, they have formed a fairly unified bloc. Most of the time, though, Republicans have rolled right over Democratic opposition. That's the way things tend to go when one party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress.
http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Anti_Dean_TNR_July_28_2003.htmYup. as I alway say, supporting Dean becasue of this fire in the belly, he gets me enthusiatic stuff, is the most dangerous reason to support ANY candidates.
When the Dean of 1973 won the nomination, literlly hundreds of thousands of Democratic Party workers walked out on doing party work during the election to punish the party for backing an McGovern, creating a Nixon landslide. Dean is doing the same.
Dean 2004 = Bush 2004