He already did sober up. He went into New Hampshire all calm and collected and quiet and boring. It scared the bujeezus out of everyone.

You're all "wet" when you talk about an "ass-whupping." At this moment, AFTER New Hampshire, Dr. Howard Dean is ahead with 113 delegates.
Why don't you spend your energy and "Whup" Bush?
Comparing Howard Dean to Pat Buchanan is like comparing GW Bush to George Bush. Apples and Oranges. Well congratulations on having a website that the search engines will find... in the DUST!

He's new to this planet, aint he?

BTW, JR, how many delegates does Kerry have?

The comparison between Buchanan and Dean is apt on multiple levels. In fact, let's just put it in one pithy line:

"Polarizing, animosity-spewing ranter uses internet to organize moonbat base by feeding their egos and their paranoid delusions."

Buchanan, Dean, what's the difference? None.

Alan, right now the count is Dean 113, Kerry 94. This is something I blogged about myself not too long ago*.

I think we're going to have a wonderful summer.. Heh heh heh...

If Dean Esmay isn't going to say anything about my new blog, I bloody will!!! :)

So, if Dean gets enough delegates to cement the nomination without actually ever winning any states, does that mean we can spend the rest of the year whining that he wasn't "really" nominated? :-)

Nah, they'll call it a coalition or a broad concensus or something.

Dean,

You do put your finger on what might become a large problem...that none of the Democrats will gain a first-ballot majority of delegates.

As a GOPer, I pray for this daily.

:o)

Unless things get really wild, Mark, I think your hope on that score is vain.

Even if none of the candidates has enough delegates to cement the nomination, the candidates themselves, and the party leaders, will do their best to get together well before the convention so they can cut a deal and avoid a floor fight.

I do find it amusing that Deaniacs think that his lead in the delegates at the moments mean something. Mr. "I'm from outside Washington" had picked up most of the high-power insider endorsements and delegates when it looked like he was a shoe-in for the nomination. Now that he's not, watch things change.

Y'know, Gov. Dean balanced his state's budget, provided health insurance for 99% of the people under 18 in his state, and signed a civil unions law that provided equal rights for gays.

So I think the Buchanan dig is unwarranted.

Pat never treated sick kids, paid the bills, and protected egual rights for all Americans. Neither has Dubya, for that matter.

If you want to vote against Dean, fine. That's your right. I'm not sure what you have against balanced budgets, equal rights, and healthy children, but what the hell.

But comparing Dean to a hatemongering far-right Nixon-apoligist culture warrior like Buchanan is simply uncalled for.

Comparing Dean's pandering to anger and hate with Buchanon is right on target. It has nothing to do with his resume, it's all about his rhetoric.

Also, it's a less offensive comparison than comparing Bush to Hitler but that's just my opinion.

We've got both Dean's Law and Godwin's Law in this thread, and it's still early.

"It has nothing to do with his resume, it's all about his rhetoric."

So are you saying that style is more important than substance? That would certainly explain your support of Dubya...

Fwah! You mean that civil unions law that he loiudly opposed, then signed in the middle of the night with no ceremony and came out the next day and gruffly said he had only signed to prevent the courts from forcing actual gay marriage onto his state? I'm not impressed.

It's also mighty easy to "insure every child" when most of it came from Federal money, and in a state with a median income high above the national norm.

And, what, you think Buchanan had no reasonable positions? I can dig up a copy of his campaign literature if you like, and I can guarantee you I'll find things on it you agree with, AND that Governor Dean agrees with. Higher minimum wage was one, higher taxes on the wealthy, and greater expansion of the health care system were all among Buchanan's causes. Also, being less involved in foreign affairs, and stopping being so much in Israel's corner so much--all classic Buchanan positions.

The Buchanan dig is, more importantly, the poisonous whipping up of animosity and paranoia, playing to outright dishonest beliefs, the playing up to the moonbat element--and, oh yes, his "innovative" use of the internet which is not in any way different from what the Buchanan campaign was doing in the 1990s, not any way at all, except that it's a bit bigger--although not as much so as some people think.

The man absolutely deserves the comparison, as much as Buchanan deserves to be compared to him. The Democratic Party and the country deserve better.

And with any luck, we'll get better.

Don,

So are you saying that style is more important than substance? That would certainly explain your support of Dubya...

That is absolutely NOT what I said. I was simply explaining why the comparison is valid.

That also DOES not have anything remotely to do with MY support of Bush.

Of course, when you said, "But comparing Dean to a hatemongering far-right Nixon-apoligist culture warrior like Buchanan is simply uncalled for", you are admitting that style over substance is more important to you.

You betray yourself with that comment. Your animosity for Buchanan's style is exactly the same as Dean's against Howard Dean...

What exactly on substance...did you dislike about Buchanan?

Didn't we also get Kinsell's Law with the reference to Dean's signing of gay civil unions?

Don, I'm not going to bash Dean per se, but don't you think it's a bit excessive to brag about administering a state that has less population than Memphis, Tennesse? :)

Nathan,

It's close. If this thread delves a little deeper in the "gay" issue we will have invoked Kinsell's Law.

1. Howard Dean did not loudly oppose the gay union bill. Initially, he did say it was up to the legislature to take the lead. Dean acknowledged that he wasn't completely comfortable with gay marriage. So what.

2. Dean did not sign the bill in the middle of the night, but at 1:30 p.m. That he signed it in private may be simply be a recognition that it was time for the rhetoric to cool for a while. Only about 40% of Vermonters supported the bill.

3. Dean withstood a withering Republican attack for signing the bill. Signing the bill at all was a courageous thing to do.

4. Dean has significant gay support. His gay supporters aren't naive about the give-and-take of politics.

"Because money doesn't win elections. Never has, never will."

If true, that's certainly good news for whomever the Democratic nominee will be.

Well my numbers may be a bit off...but hasn't Dean raised more than Bush so far and he isn't even the nominee yet (ever)?

Saying “money doesn’t win elections” is like saying rocket fuel doesn’t get you into space. It’s a true yet meaningless statement. But the belief supports the notion that Bush (and other well-funded Republicans) wins on his merits or (in their worst nightmare) inoculates against even more humiliation in defeat by a less well-funded Democratic rival. It is also consistent with the belief that “sheeple” (Dean's dismissive word) can’t be moved by mass marketing (and not very surprising for proponents of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist socio-political orthodoxy).

No, Brian, it's not good news for the Democratic candidate. Because it means that candidates win on message, and the current Democrat message is that the entire country is screwed up. Since the majority of American's feel the country is on the right track, both with the War on Terror and the recovering and growing economy, their message won't resonate, and they will lose.

Oh, and the belief also allows them to go on to sight the agreement of the sheeple (at least when they agree) to the mass-marketed political message as evidence of the ideas validity – never the effectiveness of the marketing.

Shep, I found your missing second 'E' -- I know not having it has made you maaaaaaaaaaaaad.

dowingba:
Your numbers are waaaaaaaaaay off. Dean has raised about $40 mill, while President Rove already has $90 mill---and conservative estimates are that he'll have a $120 mill war chest by Labor Day. Add in soft money, RNC cash, and bogus issue ads, and we're talking $300 mill easy. The GOP will probalby outspend the Dems at LEAST 2 or 3 to 1.

Rosemary:
Pat's hard-right segregationist views are well-documented. His 1992 GOP convention speech was a scary screed against homosexuals, non-christians, that reads like a Jack Chick tract. DEATH OF THE WEST argues that the biggest domestic problem in the US is race-mixing. Plus he still believes that Nixon's only mistake was getting caught.

Casey:
While Vermont is small, Deans record there is pretty good. There is some (understandable) quibbling about numbers, but no one denies that Gov. Dean got MORE healthcare for MORE children, while Gov. Bush got LESS healthcare for LESS children (to pay for...what else?...tax breaks for the ultra-rich!)

Why all this concern about Dean at all? It ought to be perfectly obvious that Kerry, after winning both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, will be the Democrat candidate, not Dean. The odds of Dean winning any primaries at all are probably 8-1 against.

In the end, Dean proved to be just a pudgy-faced, posturing little man with a mercurial temper, a sort of New England Richard Daley with no real power base, whom people are now treating more as a joke than a serious candidate.

Unless he can win a primary election somewhere else, anywhere else, very quickly, he is finished. His backers are already drifting away, and his youthfully-adoring mob will follow. Nobody can run a national campaign for long solely on the strength of enthusiastic web-based meetups.

For the others:

Lieberman and Clark made fatal political errors ignoring Iowa. That was the domino the fell on them in New Hampshire, which in turn kills them in ... and in ... and in ..., etc. The cold and remorseless logic of victory vs defeat applies to them as well as to Dean. Unless either or both of them can win a primary election -- somewhere, anywhere -- in the next couple of weeks, their candidacies are dead.

Edwards, in my opinion, is running for the Democrat presidential nomination, but in 2008 and not in 2004. As a carefully trained and experienced trial lawyer, he must be aware the historical odds against unseating an incumbent US president running for re-election are about 10-1 against. You have to think he is saying to himself:

"Let Kerry take Bush's incumbency sucker punch this year, which will make him the Al Gore of 2004. I'll run a nice, clean not overly confrontational campaign that won't necessarily beat Kerry, but will make me look damned good for 2008. Just like John Kennedy did in 1956 to set himself up for his successful presidential run in 1960."

And in case, what about Kerry in November? He will bear the well-known cross of the fatal "M" word -- Massachusetts. When was the last time any New England senator get into the White House as a non-incumbent? It was 40 years ago with JFK, and that part of the United States is no longer a dominating power center. In addition, Kennedy was not facing on incumbent, but only Ike's not-overly popular vice president, whom he wiped out largely on the strength of a 5 o'clock shadow on the first live presidential TV debate.

All the conventional wisdom I have heard in recent months has been that Hillary Clinton could be drafted for the Democrat nomination, or that barring that, she will sweep the nomination in 2008. I think not. This woman carries the same kind of political baggage as Chappaquidick Kennedy, and in my judgement, she will wind up as the New York state version of her Massachusetts counterpart. About as far as she can expect to get in her patently-obvious longterm quest to compete with her own husband.

In 2008, I could easily see a race between Edwards and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican Senate majority leaders. Both soft-spoken but articulate southerners. Both professionally trained, the one in law, the other in medicine. No incumbent to weight the campaign one way or another.

As I have written here, the logic of elections is both cruel and remorseless, but because of this, the dynamics of politics -- in not the specific results -- are not as unpredictable as many would imagine.

Remember what Damon Runyon once wrote:

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to place your bets."

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Hey Arnie!

Did you know that out of the last 5 presidents to run as an incumbent, 3 were defeated? Kinda takes a little wind out of your whole "Incumbent=Invulnerable" argument, doesn't it?

And as far as Ms. Clinton "wind[ing] up as the New York State version of her Massachusetts counterpart," you must mean that she'll serve with honor and distinction in the Senate for 40 years, right?

There are some factors with which I cannot to agree.

No, Don,

Measured over a longer period of time, incumbency in federal elections is still the strongest factor in deciding who stays in office and who is bounced in the electoral process, and especially for the presidency.

Since the beginning of the 20th century alone, incumbents were victorious in twelve elections and were defeated in five elections. And nearly all of these five were highly anomalous situations:

1) William H Taft, the Republican, lost the 1912 election to Wilson, the Democrat, largely because Theodore Roosevelt, his Republican predecessor, decided to run for a third term under a third party that drained away much of the Republican vote.

2) Herbert Hoover, the Republican, lost the 1932 election to Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrat, largely because the economy of the United States had virtually shut down between late 1929 and late 1932.

3) Gerald Ford, the Republican, lost the 1976 election to James Earl Carter, the Democrat, largely because Ford was Richard Nixon's appointed vice president in the wake of the politically shattering Watergate scandal and because Ford had pardoned his predecessor.

4) James Earl Carter, the Democrat, lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan, the Democrat, largely because he was the economy had drifted in high unemployment coupled with inflationary interest rates of all but monumental proportions (the "misery index") and because Carter had become despised even by Boston Democrats such as the one who had printed the newspaper headline "Mush From the Wimp".

5) George H W Bush, the Republican, lost the 1992 election to William Jefferson Clinton, the Democrat, largely because Ross Perot, the third party candidate, drained away mostly Republican votes and because numerous base Republicans had grown to despise Bush over his broken promises regarding taxation.

In 2004, there are no third party candidates to take away Republican votes, and the Republican base is solidly behind George W Bush. Moreover, the economy is growing, not shrinking, and this Bush has cut greatly cut taxes and he has the strong trust of the investing community -- a community that more or less dominates the United States. Moreover, despite almost daily guerilla attacks in Iraq, American casualties are few, and the national response to the Iraq war has been -- and remains -- generally positive; in contrast to the Viet Nam war, in which public opinion grew generally negative.

Moreover, most Americans of this generation, if given a choice in an election, typically will vote for a folksy character such as Bush, who is considered likeable, in contrast to a slick, ponderous, coiffed liberal such as Kerry, who hails from a part of the country that no longer counts for much on the US political map.

There was an overwhelmingly large white southern vote for John Kennedy to help defeat Nixon (just barely!) in 1960. Now, the white southern vote is all but totally Republican, largely due to Nixon's "southern strategy" which he initiated in 1968, having learned a bitter lesson from eight years earlier.

As for Senator Mrs Clinton, yes, I am sure she will have a long and perhaps even distinguished career in the US Senate, from which it difficult to remove incumbents (and becoming even more difficult under the latest round of rules in the campaign finance laws). That, no doubt, is the fundament of her long-term strategy to get even with Bill for his thousands of thoughtless little indignities against this woman in their long and presumably loveless marriage.

So, all things being equal, you can safely bet on President Bush remaining in the White House and senators Kerry and Clinton remaining in the Senate.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Yeah, shep, aint it such a pain that the voters may vote for something you don't agree with. They should have that right taken away so they don't accidentally vote for something or someone harmful. How very Euro-elite. It must suck being a communist, because you just can't buy a clue.