I agree. That is one of the most off-base political statements I have heard in some time. What is he smoking? Sounds like he's determined to bring the Democratic party up to same electoral percentages the Libertarian party has been getting. Republicans will certainly have a lot to thank him for in the next election if he keeps this up.
I'm glad he's against Kelo, but if he talks to his fellow Democrats, such as those in the "New York Times", he'll find out that most of them are for it, simply because it gives more power to government, which is what they're all about. Which is why I hope the Democrats do lose the next election, and then the election after that.... New Deal pragmatism is better than "moonbat" nihilism, but I'm still against it.
And, yes, it was Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and O'Connor who dissented. Thomas and Rehnquist also dissented in Raich and in F.E.C.. Sorry, Justice Kennedy, you were my hero in Lawrence &Garner, but you sold out to unlimited government since. Three strikes and you're out. Thomas for Chief Justice.
While Dean makes it easier for Republicans to get elected I wish the Republican party had a serious and stable opponent. Part of me wonders that should they not will they end up as directionless in 15 years or so as the Democrats?
Arguably, he's right. One of the majority was Souter, appointed by George H. W. Bush. If he had nominated a conservative instead, this wouldn't have happened.
As for being "right-wing," well, they are, compared to him.
It seems to me that Campaign Finance Reform did great damage to the Democratic Party by shifting so much money to the 527-type organizations. Combined with the rise of the internet. Now any loudmouth could buy a very big megaphone and spout off. This could happen before, but at the same time the official party began to lose its voice as the money shifted to the 527s. The Democrats appeared to become dependent on the 527s to get the message out, which mean the message had to be one the 527s would tolerate. Add in a good dose of BDS and the Democrats just had their message shifted into the non-visible spectrum.
This hasn't been good for the Democrats because while their base may be living on Planet Zabongo, most of the voters (who, frankly, have more important things to do than pay attention to politics outside of the actual week before an election) are not quite that way and are not impressed by frothing-at-the-mouth stupidity.
I don't think this will help Republicans unless the MSM points out that he's a blithering moron. I'm not sure that's happened or that it ever will happen.
Keep in mind that only people well acquainted with politics even remember who he is, and such people tend to have made up their minds before Dean came along.
Here's an out-of-left-field prediction: some time after Senator Clinton's comfortable reelection in 2006 (despite overall losses for the Democrats), Mr. Dean will be booted and replaced with a new party chair... A man with a proven ability at fund raising... A man who knows how to work a crowd... A man who is loved by the media... And a man who would love to get his hands on the party's pursestrings just in time for his Senator wife's Presidential campaign. Sure, it will be a step down from his last job in the public eye; but he'll do it for the good of the country. And after the Dean Debacle, the media will be glad to trumpet every word, every action by their favorite political star.
Improbable? Maybe. But if it happens, remember: you heard it here first!
Kevin D. wrote:
"While Dean makes it easier for Republicans to get elected I wish the Republican party had a serious and stable opponent. Part of me wonders that should they not will they end up as directionless in 15 years or so as the Democrats?"
I've long thought that, too. It would be good if the Republicans could have at least a worthy opponent. And the Lieberman Democrats (a.k.a. the old Truman Democrats), what few remain of them, are or can be allies in the War Against the Terror Masters.
But I've now found that FDR so corrupted our jurisprudence (see Raich and Kelo) that only his leadership (with Churchill) in the War Against Hitler prevents me from condemning him as the worst President in our history. I'm against the New Deal more than ever now. I don't want the Democrats to win any more elections. I've found that Democrats will do anything if it gives them more control over government and more government control over economics.
As to the Republicans, let them/us duke it out between the Santorumites, who want total government control over morals, vs. the Golwaterites, who want limited government and individual freedom and responsibility.
I'm glad he's against Kelo, but if he talks to his fellow Democrats, such as those in the "New York Times", he'll find out that most of them are for it, simply because it gives more power to government, which is what they're all about. Which is why I hope the Democrats do lose the next election, and then the election after that.... New Deal pragmatism is better than "moonbat" nihilism, but I'm still against it.
And, yes, it was Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and O'Connor who dissented. Thomas and Rehnquist also dissented in Raich and in F.E.C.. Sorry, Justice Kennedy, you were my hero in Lawrence &Garner, but you sold out to unlimited government since. Three strikes and you're out. Thomas for Chief Justice.
As for being "right-wing," well, they are, compared to him.
This hasn't been good for the Democrats because while their base may be living on Planet Zabongo, most of the voters (who, frankly, have more important things to do than pay attention to politics outside of the actual week before an election) are not quite that way and are not impressed by frothing-at-the-mouth stupidity.
That's my take. Your milage may vary.
Keep in mind that only people well acquainted with politics even remember who he is, and such people tend to have made up their minds before Dean came along.
Improbable? Maybe. But if it happens, remember: you heard it here first!
"While Dean makes it easier for Republicans to get elected I wish the Republican party had a serious and stable opponent. Part of me wonders that should they not will they end up as directionless in 15 years or so as the Democrats?"
I've long thought that, too. It would be good if the Republicans could have at least a worthy opponent. And the Lieberman Democrats (a.k.a. the old Truman Democrats), what few remain of them, are or can be allies in the War Against the Terror Masters.
But I've now found that FDR so corrupted our jurisprudence (see Raich and Kelo) that only his leadership (with Churchill) in the War Against Hitler prevents me from condemning him as the worst President in our history. I'm against the New Deal more than ever now. I don't want the Democrats to win any more elections. I've found that Democrats will do anything if it gives them more control over government and more government control over economics.
As to the Republicans, let them/us duke it out between the Santorumites, who want total government control over morals, vs. the Golwaterites, who want limited government and individual freedom and responsibility.