Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
United States

Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig 1246

Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig

Comments Filter:
  • Well he has my vote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by javiercero ( 518708 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:34PM (#6426153)
    I have seen a few of his appearances, and I must admit I am quite impressed with this guy. Then again maybe is that after 2.5 yrs of Mr. Bush my expectations for POTUS have been dramatically lowered.
  • Odd behaviour (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aeinome ( 672135 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:35PM (#6426154) Journal
    Why would anyone let someone else keep their daily journal for them? And giving it away to a politician - that just begs for deep, dark secrets to be revealed.
  • There's a thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:35PM (#6426156) Homepage Journal
    Check out http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

    it tells you which president to vote for based on your stance on the issues. I tested it out and it's very accurate. It gave me a reccomendation for green party 100% and Dean 96%. Since I really want Bush out and 3rd parties don't win, guess who I'm voting for? I'll probably read a few of his entries on Lessig's blog, and unless he's really unkosher this seals the deal.
  • by Zergwyn ( 514693 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:47PM (#6426205)
    Overall, he didn't do that bad a job. In some ways Dean is actually an interesting mix of left and right. He is a former doctor, which partly explains a lot of his very strong positions with regards to health care. He certainly has come across as one of the strongest left standing democrats in many ads and articles, but he has an A grade from the NRA as he was not at all anti-gun ownership in Vermont. He is also reasonably fiscally conservative. Our state didn't go too overboard with spending, and we actually still have over 10 million dollars in our "rainy day fund," for what it's worth. My biggest quibble with his term was actually in regards to education, but a lot of that was the fault of the legislature and the courts (which ruled our old method was unconstitutional). Of the candidates, we could do a lot worse (come to think of it, we have been doing a lot worse) then Dean. Having met him, and lived with him as head of the state, I think he has some good ideas. I was actually kind of pro-war, but Bush has screwed us so badly on the domestic front in virtually every field, from economics to scientific research (VERY important to me) to basic civil rights, that I would vote for virtually anyone over him. I would recommend people look at his stands.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:49PM (#6426219)
    You've got to be kidding. Have you done some background work on Dean? I live in VT, and the guy is as slippery as an Arkansas governor. If you look at his history on the issues he supports he's actually proposed and pushed the EXACT OPPOSITE over the last five years. He is, in fact, a centrist dem and not a far left evangelist.

    I may not think Bush is the best option, but the better of two evils Dean is not. Basically Dean has repackaged himself to appeal to the far left which, because of the centrist nature of modern politics, has been disenfranchised by the dem party.

    You could say hes trying to pull a reverse bush; solidifying his base with the democratic hearland and then moving out to centrists on specific issues... he'll probably make the push sometime six months or so before the election.

    HOWEVER, there's a fundamental problem with that plan; the left isn't nearly as cohesive or well organized as the right, and he's depending on a skittish bunch.

    He'll lose, but he'll guarantee no other democrats win either.

  • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:53PM (#6426233) Journal
    Go to deanforamerica.com [deanforamerica.com] and read his economic plan? Well, what about his education plan? What plans???

    My point exactly.

    Kerry has a several plans to create more jobs, lower the deficit, and improve education and lower the cost of college education. Dean's only economic package is lowering the defecit. Thats it! Go to his website and prove me wrong?

    Dean is popular because alot of liberals are very upset at the whitehouse and Dean loves to bash bush. He is more liberal.

    Kerry is more moderate and has better appeal for middle of the road voters and has a better chance at unseating Bush. But the primaries are not the elections. Moderates tend to have more plans outside their special issues. For example Bush's economic plan is just more tax cuts. Clinton who is a moderate had several plans which created jobs.

    If a president is on the far left or right the primaries will usually throw in opposites from angry voters that sometimes are too extreme for the general public. Recent examples include

    1.)Jimmy Carter-> He was very liberal and Reagan emerged from angry conservative voters. ( He won because he was an actor and a great speaker) Majority of Americans hated his policies but did not think of Reagan himself as an extremist even though he was.

    2.)Reagan - > Mondale. Mondale was too far from the left.

    3.)Bill Clinton -> Need I say more. Bush is the anti clinton as you can get. He only won because of a blowjob. Incredible! Lieing about a war is not as bad as a blowjob.

    4.)Bush - > Dean. If dean wins the primaries he will probably lose the elections. Americans fear and loath Managed health care and the right to see their own doctor. How did the republicans came to power in 94? It was the government manadated health care that scared them. Go to an ER in Britian and watch the long lines. Yes more Americans can now have health care but the quality will go down for the rich and those who already have it. Infact even Canadians prefer our system to their's in critical care. General care its the other way around.

    The pendulum swings from angry voters on the far left and right. However Bush did run as a moderate and turned out to be more conservative then Reagon himself. This might be a weakness but a far left candidate has just a less appeal upon middle road voters, that they will vote for Bush because they are comfortable with someone who is more experienced. 64% of Americans claim that they will probably vote for Bush unless a democratic candidate appeals to them according to CNN.

  • Shame on /.

    Howard Dean has used the Internet, specifically blogs, better than any presidential candidate. Every day, you can read their official blog or countless other personal blogs that give up to the minute info on what doing on the campaign trail. I have never felt more involved, or informed in a presidential campaign until Dean's.

    All this use of blogs and such as created a tremendous amount grassroots support. Unlike other candidates that have raked in 1000s of dollars from big interests, Dean's campaign raised more than any other Democratic candidate last quarter mostly via the web with the average donation being $66 dollars..

    Anyway, I feel that no matter what Dean's positions are (btw.. I think they are great) /. should give a thumbs up to how he is doing biz..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:03AM (#6426270)
    In US, the service sector produces 80% of the GDP. The service sector is based on human labor and IT infrastructures which, all together, consume less than 2% of the total US energy consumption. This is the new economy: low energy consumption, low environmental impact, high productivity.

    This scared Mr. Bush (who first made money when he won a oil contract from Bahrain when is father was playing the first gulf war), Mr. Cheney (who was CEO of Halliburton and still gets money from it), Mr. Rumsfeld (who was director of ABB when it sold 2 nuclear reactors to North Korea) and Ms. Rice (who was director of Chevron).

    They are doing everything possible to protect their old industry (energy, oil, nuclear) at the expense of our industry (information technology), the future of the US economy and the US environment.

    I believe Howard Dean may be on our side.
  • by manyoso ( 260664 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:24AM (#6426348) Homepage
    I am much more liberal than Dean, but his aggressive adherance to the facts and his penchant for standing up to the current administration have made me a solid supporter. I've been blogging [likelystory.net] for Dean (various sites) and have volunteered for his campaign for various activities including the New Hampshire Democratic Convention. For more information on Dean, check out Blogforamerica (Dean's official blog [blogforamerica.com], Unofficial Dean Blog [blogspot.com], The DailyKOS (Great left leaning blog that covers the primaries) [dailykos.com].
  • by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:24AM (#6426350) Journal
    1) Socialism could be improved here. Higher taxes are a small loss compared to the gains in education, health benefits, and social security. Capitalism is beginning to corrupt.

    We continue to throw money at education and have no results. Raising taxes and throwing even more is not the answer. But God help you if you dare cut the money that's not doing any good - if you do that, you must hate children.

    National health is a bad idea in a country this large. I support the idea in smaller countries, and in fact there are some countries that I would like to move to after college that have national health. But the larger the country is, the less effective national health is. Compare Scandinavian countries to Canada. Re-thinking the country's health care would be a good idea, but a socialist approach to it would not be.

  • by Elf-friend ( 554128 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:29AM (#6426371)
    Okay, I know, don't feed the trolls, but it's too hard to resist:
    We need a strong president who will stand up to the nutcases and ban and confiscate all individually held guns and imprison those who don't turn them in
    Not to defend Dean (see my other post on the subject). But Dean has always been anti-gun control. Actually, Vermont has the most Libertarian gun laws in the country (according to the NRA). To wit, as a Vermonter, I have a legal right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit as long as I do so without intending to commit a crime (I think that's how the law puts it). We don't even have a law barring convicted felons from owning/possing firearms (they can't, though, because of the federal law).
  • It's simple.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FooGoo ( 98336 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:42AM (#6426423)
    Dean wants to be the internet candidate. He can't afford to compete in other media so he is pulling this pseudo grassroots crap. It's too early for all this election crap.
  • by HanzoSan ( 251665 ) * on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:46AM (#6426444) Homepage Journal

    If you look at Fox News, or any of the other conservative news stations, they will say hes far left because they'd rather you vote for him than for Kerry or Gephart, the real far left.

    Dean is actually a moderate, but thats what I want because I'm an independent, not a liberal.
  • by Funksaw ( 636954 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:50AM (#6426469)
    To paraphrase Dean: "Talk about gun control in Vermont and you talk about taking people's hunting rifles away - talk about gun control in LA and you're talking about taking uzis out of the hands of gangbangers. Gun control needs to be decided at the local level."
  • by dspeyer ( 531333 ) <dspeyer@wam.u[ ]edu ['md.' in gap]> on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:53AM (#6426481) Homepage Journal
    Voting reforms can help but they won't solve everything. Every voting system is abusable at a mathematical level. Take the following example:

    33% of voters prefer candidate A, tolerate candidate B and detest candadate C

    35% of voters prefer candidate B, tolerate candidate C and detest candadate A

    32% of voters prefer candidate C, tolerate candidate A and detest candadate B

    Common sense says B should win

    In our modern current system, B would win unless 3% worth of C voters decided that it was hopeless and they should vote A, in which case A would win

    Under instant runoff voting, C would be eliminated and A would win with 65%, unless 1.5% worth of B voted C so that A would be eliminated, in which case B would win with 66.5%. Now that's even more freaky.

    I think game theorists have actually proven that nothing works right regarding elections. Some improvements can be made (and I suspect IRV's flaws are less likely to become of practical importance than our current system's) but the real changes we need are an independant media and an informed public.

  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) * on Sunday July 13, 2003 @01:17AM (#6426575)
    >. The Democrats are desperate for the voters that went Green last time, because they know they need them.

    The dems don't want him, they want their boy Gephart or *shudder* Lieberman. The DLC publically flogged Dean supporters by calling them "the activist elite" [ndol.org] and tried to compare them to politcally impotent ultra-lefties. Dean supports responded back here. [deanforamerica.com]

    The green vote simply isn't important. I'm sure that more than half of those votes are permanent third-party protest votes and regardless of what the Dems want you to think it was a bad ballot and a piss-poor Gore campaign that got Bush into office.

    Regardless, everyone who isn't in the GOP wants an electable Democrat. I can't see why Dean wouldn't fit the bill, especially with Iraq turing out to be a quite the quagmire for Bush.

    Sorry, but there's no ploy. Dean is fighting influencial (read: very wealthy and very connected) members of his own party right now and in interesting ways (appeal to the populace, net-based action, etc) just to get heard.
  • Dean on healthcare (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) * on Sunday July 13, 2003 @02:08AM (#6426722)
    >Americans fear and loath Managed health care and the right to see their own doctor.

    Much of the democratic base is part of that 40 million of uninsured Americans. Yeah, managed is a scary word yet what does the M in HMO stand for? Maintence/Management its the same thing. What plan does your company offer you? What plans do most companies offer? Highly managed plans.

    Public healthcare, especially in a wealthy country like the US, is very doable. Its not just Europe's way or the US's way. From what I understand Dean's plan [deanforamerica.com] is more about expanding medicare to include children and poor people up till age 25 and helping small business insure its employees. Not exactly Denmark.

    > Canadians prefer our system to their's in critical care

    That's a pretty general statement. I'm sure they would be scared shitless if faced with the real possibility of not having insurance for years. Not to mention they have money in their pocket to spend on American specialists because they aren't paying through the nose on every doctor's visit or saddled with debt after some accident. The number 1 cause of bankrupcy is medical bills. Its also fiscally responsible to insure as many people as possible. Either way you're paying for it. Might as well get something in return.

  • by Ragica ( 552891 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @02:51AM (#6426865) Homepage
    The great strength of the Republican party is that they fully realise just how sheltered (some may say stupid) and gulable and eager to be lead the American people are. The Democrats only have a slight inkling of this fact.

    The thing the Democrats have going for them is a certain amount of optimism, pig-headedly believing that "ordinary americans" will magically become less short sighted and understand the complex ramifications of their choices; whereas the Republics are just utterly cynical in their every action (though they paint it with a righteous face).

    Me, i'm sadly disgustingly cyncial myself, and yet admire most the optimistic point of view. Where does that leave me?

    Some will think this is a troll, and it can't help but be in a way. It is an over simplification, and it is dangerous using terms like "ordinary americans". But I think in this case the thoughtful americans have noticed these patterns also (just witness the retarded parrot cliches of the lies which were the basis of american support for the Iraq "war" still here on Slashdot): it's just that it seems even the Democrat optimism is failing and they just have no idea what to do.

    BTW, i am a Canadian... so flame away on my socialist ass!

  • by Ragica ( 552891 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @02:56AM (#6426882) Homepage
    Oops, i forgot my final point, which is how my previous post relates back to the topic at hand: Howard Dean's blogging campaign. It seems to me that Dean is by far doing the best of any candidate to use grass roots technology to energize the optimistic heart of "Democratic" support. That's all.
  • by CrowScape ( 659629 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:02AM (#6426900)
    Well, it's quite simple, really. When the tax level on the upper class gets too high, the upper class simply move all their accounts overseas. Granted, it's a bit more complicated, but through loopholes and legal manuevers, it happens. It's one of the reasons why the government takes in more money from the wealthy when they cut their taxes. There's simply less incentive to dodge the IRS.
  • MOD PARENT UP! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:12AM (#6426928)
    Dennis Kucinich is the real progressive candidate and is infinitely more electable vs. Bush than Dean.

    Dean is simply (and somewhat regrettably) better at using blogging and other NewMedia-style tools to generate support among young voters.

    Dean is in bed with the NRA and has embraced some serious conservative positions in his past. This makes him unelectable... Outside the Internet, demos understand (and will hear more about) the true Dean (a conservative) and of course repubs won't vote for him when they could get a more honest version of same in Bush.
  • by tlhp514 ( 602372 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:13AM (#6426931) Homepage
    While I certainly had my initial reservations about Dean (he is, after all, something of a moderate on gun control, fiscal policy, and health care while I tend to be further to the left) I decided to support fully and even started a forum [deantalk.com] which is now fairly active.

    For those who have not been following the election carefully so far, Dean first distinguished himself by opposing the war in Iraq. This position is looking rather good now that the Yellowcake scandal is brewing in the media. Yesterday he made the particulaly astute move of calling for those responsible for inserting the false claim into the Presidents State of the Union to resign. He is also backing up his claims with some excellent research on his website:

    Then and now quotes [deanforamerica.com]
    A timeline [deanforamerica.com]
    A chart contrasting claims with evidence (pdf) [deanforamerica.com]

    For a long time I have been impressed with Dean's use of the internet which includes the much publicized meetup [slashdot.org] (slashdot story). Dean now has by far the largest meetup with over 60,000 signed up: Dean Meetup [meetup.com]

    Dean's fundraising over the internet has also been exceptional - he raised over 800,000 in one day at the end of the last quarter. In addition the campaign manager, Joe Trippi, frequents the blogs - he will surely read this so be aware that any advice will be noted - and seems to have a keen vision and sense for how the internet can help the campaign.

    Even if you don't agree with Dean's policies, it is probably worth watching just to see how political campaigns of the future might change with the internet.

  • True. And look where California is now. 30 billion in the hole. Billion!!! California is a perfect example of liberal ideology come to fruition. Take money from people that work hard all of their lives and give it to scum who sit on their asses, do nothing with their lives but makes babies, and and feel that they have some inate "right" to government services. The reason that conservative media is so popular is that the liberal agenda sickens most working americans. Personally, I make a very good salary and end up paying close to half of my income in taxes ( once you factor in the outrageous california state income tax). I went to public school and I am intimately familiar with the people I am supporting with those taxes. Living in Cali for the last few years has turned me into a conservative. By the way, I have a new wellfare plan for America. Go to school, work hard and get a job. If you can't find a job, break rocks into smaller rocks at a government job center and take min wage. If you don't want to do that, get a job or kiss my ass.
  • by gnurb ( 632580 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:55AM (#6427032) Homepage
    >>Dean a centrist? Ha!

    The NRA gives him a A rating, he's for the death penalty, in favor of the 'drug war', and wants a balanced budget.

    He calls himself a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

    And Nader has said (paraphrasing) that he liked Dean's speeches, but not his past performance in Vermont.

    Nader won't run if Kucinich gets the democratic nomination, but most likely will if Dean (or anyone else) does.

    This coming from a liberal, I love Dean's use of the internet, and the fact that he has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but I like Kucinich's stance on issues better.

  • Social Security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ClarkEvans ( 102211 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:59AM (#6427044) Homepage
    xI'm convined that Social Security is the biggest scam in the history of mankind. Think about it. What other scam has screwed hundreds of millions of people out of 15% of their life's income only to give them a piddly amount back if/when the retire?

    Social Security is above all a "saftey net" so that children without both parents and those who are no longer productive (elderly) can be housed, clothed, and fed. It is really _not_ a retirement plan. It is a mechanism to prevent widespread poverty.

    Social Security is a generational transfer, that is, you pay for the generation of your parents and grandparents (and disadvantaged children) for the society they have built. It has *nothing* to do with retirement, the money isn't locked in a box and isn't invested and isn't saved (although it is often used in the general fund as regular tax money...)

    Social Security is an extra tax (15%) paid by the working class (after 80K you don't owe any more social security) so that the very wealthy don't have to shoulder the burden of those who are not yet (children w/o parent) or are no longer (elderly) productive members of society. In times where the take-in is very high and the pay-out is very low (the last 10 years), it is a *huge* boon to the very wealthy since the money collected goes directly into the treasury; with it in the calculation the average tax rate of your middle-income american is *far higher* than those in the million dollar brackets...

    If one were to be fair about use of Social Security money, extra money should be used exclusively for the education of the children who later on will have to support you... ie, if you arn't spending it on those in retirement, it should be spent making sure that the next generation is educated enough to compete in the global marketplace so that they (collectivly) can provide the security net for you and your generation. Use of this money for the military and other general spending is a severe abuse of the whole idea.

    So. I half agree with you. Social security is a scam to increase the effective tax rate of the middle and lower class with respect to the upper class. And that politicians talk about it as a "retirement account" is absolutely nonsense.

    However, it has its purpose. And without social security really awful things would be common in our society... children w/o parents starving and those who have built our roads, infrastructure, and other societial assets being left in the streets to die... ick.

    1. Social Security is meant as a humane way to handle those in society who are not yet productive (children /w missing parents) and who have past their productive stage (the eldery).

    2. Social Security is a saftey net since

    1. Social Security is nothing more than an extra 15% tax on those who make 80K or less Social Security is _not_ a retirement plan, money is not saved nor are you necessarly gaurenteed to get that money at any point; it is extra tax... tax that the wealthy don't pay.

    The first thing to note is that Social Security is _not_ a retirement plan. The current generation pays for the previous generation.
  • by Anenga ( 529854 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @06:17AM (#6427348)
    I think everyone who likes Dean should read this article [weeklystandard.com]. While I think he is the most vocal and stands out the most from the current democratic canidates (and of course earned a LOT more money), I think he is too mysterious and won't give his real opinions on a lot of issues. For example (from the article):
    • He was asked if he'd vote for the Medicare bill with a prescription drug benefit that is likely to pass Congress soon? Dean wouldn't say. Why?
    • Is he still for a balanced budget amendment? He said only that he's "tempted" to be for it.
    • Should a gay marriage in Canada be recognized in the United States? He refused to give a responsive answer.
    • Would he name the Democratic candidates who he said need a "backbone transplant"? No, he wouldn't.

    While I'm not crazy about everything Bush has done so far, I support him a lot more than any of these other democratic canidates. I think the appeal of the democratic party is fading out in a lot of Americans, they're now more interested in national security rather than domestic issues. If the economy is "good" & WMD/Saddam etc. is found by 2004, Bush will win in a land slide.

    Another problem for the democratic party is that nobody knows any of the canidates. I've asked a few people I know (who are democrats) who'd they vote for, and everyone responds with "Is Hillary running?" or "Probably Gore".

    Howard Dean needs to be more open about what he supports and what he doesn't, he's too worried about what people think of him. (Like on the Gay Marriage issue) If he isn't honest in these interviews, how can Americans trust him?
  • Bush lite? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Heisenbug ( 122836 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:13PM (#6428289)
    I haven't seen anything 'lite' about Dean. Whenever I actually look into his stance on an issue, I find that he's thought it through very carefully, and that he seems to be taking a principled stand -- while being open to discussion. He doesn't go for the simple answer -- he goes for one that makes sense to him, whether or not it looks good. It helps that I agree with many of his stances, once I understand them -- but it helps even more that I respect the way he thinks and speaks. That's one way that he comes in way beyond Bush in my book.

    But the important thing is that his views usually make more sense once you look into them. For example, he's often labeled as 'pro-gun' -- because he thinks that Vermont, with roughly 3 murders a year, should have a different set of gun laws than New York. That's not entirely crazy, is it?

    I've looked into a few other issues that you name:

    "Pro-choice, but refuses to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges."

    I read that interview. Basically, he was saying that he would assess judges based on a wide array of issues, of which abortion was just one. Are you saying Dean is like Bush because he refuses to take a simplistic stance? Come on ...

    "Kyoto treaty
    Says we must "take another look," but has "concerns" about some provisions."

    Specifically, that the treaty might go too easy on third-world pollution. Is that too soft on the environment for you?

    "Patriot Act
    Would repeal "parts," but also wants to expand intelligence agencies; praises Russ Feingold as only Senator who opposed the act, ignoring Kucinich's vocal House opposition, falsely implying no other candidate opposed the Patriot Act"

    It is unfortunate that the House Democrats are so underplayed in general -- but now are you saying Dean is like Bush because he's going to apply standards of constitutionality to the Patriot act?

    "Medical marijuana
    Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation."

    So he's going to overcome his own prejudices, and apply the same standards of medicine to marijuana that are applied to other drugs. Shocked, shocked am I.

    "Bush would be delighted to run against Dean who is simply a watered down version of Bush."

    I simply don't buy that. Gore was watered down, the middle-of-the-road boring candidate. That seems to be what the Democratic Party wants again -- and I agree with you that such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance against Bush.

    But Dean comes across as honest, intelligent, daring, and willing to take principled stands. He's neither boring nor, as you suggest, conservative. Although I think you've nailed the problem the democratic party faces, Dean is the solution and not the problem.
  • That's not true. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @01:23PM (#6428675)
    The dems don't want him, they want their boy Gephart or *shudder* Lieberman. The DLC publically flogged Dean supporters by calling them "the activist elite" and tried to compare them to politcally impotent ultra-lefties.

    The DLC, and the ndol.org website you linked to is part of the New Democrats. That is the centrist Democratic coalition that was brought together by President Clinton. Neither group is "The Democrats", they are part of the Dems, but not the whole. The Democratic party is not really a organized well-oiled machine like the GOP, it is a coalition of a variety of interests of which the DLC and the New Dems play a signifigant role.

    Regardless, everyone who isn't in the GOP wants an electable Democrat. I can't see why Dean wouldn't fit the bill, especially with Iraq turing out to be a quite the quagmire for Bush.

    Wishing and hoping that Iraq turns into a bad situation isn't going to win you a Presidential election. You have to think and speak positively. Attacking might win you a congressional seat, but not the Presidency.

    I'm a Democrat, but I'm not a Dean supporter. I don't like him, and I don't trust him. The campaign I see him trying to run is one of being opportunist, like the parent poster stated. His performance on Meet the Press was abysmal, and he simply cannot win a Presidential election.

    And it is absolutely critical for the future of this nation that GW Bush is out of office come 2005. Never in my lifetime have I seen a President who has done more to harm this nation. Nixon and Reagan are looking like they should have their likenesses put on Mount Rushmore by comparison.

    Sorry, but there's no ploy. Dean is fighting influencial (read: very wealthy and very connected) members of his own party right now and in interesting ways (appeal to the populace, net-based action, etc) just to get heard.

    I think this is insulting, because Dean is also fighting people in his party who are intelligent and understand the issues and the politics. To win in 2004, you have to address national security concerns, and Dean is not doing that. But keep in mind that you can address this issue in a strong manner and still address domestic liberties and economic issues. The public as a whole is solidly behind the Democrats ideas regarding liberties and economics, and the key is to advocate those positions strongly, not cave into the GOP criticism and play to their game plan.

    Protesting Iraq at this point and time is a non-starter, it won't win additional votes. Why? Because the votes Dean is going for are part of the Democratic base, and they're already committed. The votes which are critical are the swing-vote, the middle ground, the ones who could be swayed to vote GOP if the Dems don't show that they have better ideas.

    If you feel the left-wing or the Greens are being ignored, they aren't. It's just that they are only part of the party, according to the ndol.org they represent 33% of the Democratic party, which itself only represents 33% of the nation. A third of a third, but you need a good solid half to win a Presidential election. That means some 35-40% of the nation in addition to the left-wing and greens has to be swayed by your arguments and I don't see Dean being able to do this.

    Listen, Iraq is over, it happened and there is no turning back. At this point what it is critical for the Dems to do is take over the issue. Show not how they opposed the war, and their proof is that it's an utter disaster... but state that things are in bad shape, and it is clear that this Administration is bungling the job so we need new leadership to take over and carry forward with our nations promises to rebuild Iraq.

    I've already made up my mind on who I want to see running, and he isn't in the field right now. Based on my understanding of the situation, I think he'll announce in about two months and come in looking like the adult to these children which will help us sweep the elections.

    The on
  • by Joe Trippi ( 689074 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @02:02PM (#6428904)
    Thanks for the welcome -- and I will try to post on other issues -- my problem is not having the time -- its tough enough just keeping up with everything as it is! Personally I have spent the better part of the last three to four years working on a lot of issues discussed here and with a lot of the technology. I advised Progeny Linux Systems -- the Debian flavor, it gave me alot of insight as to what open source politics would be like and how the same principles could be applied. Really a lot of the same forces are at work if you think about it. Entrenched and flawed system, closed to everyone except the few that aim to keep control etc vs open dialogue, open collaboration, and a better solution emerging from the common actions of many. The country was not founded on the principle of self interest -- it was founded on the principle of the common good. And its fascinating to me how on every front its the commons we need to build again. Joe Trippi campaign manager Dean for America
  • by slux ( 632202 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:33PM (#6429585)
    My opinion is that the fact that large-scale charity exists in any society is an indication that the government isn't doing it's job properly.

    The government is created by humans and hopefully (in most modern societies) for the people in it. It is not a inhuman structure serving some higher purpose than the people itself.

    It is supposed to guarantee the safety and well-being of it's citizens and all the critical infrastructure. It can be argued what various things these include and different countries in the world have different systems.
  • by HanzoSan ( 251665 ) * on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:55PM (#6429668) Homepage Journal

    Warren Buffet says the tax cuts allow him to live tax free.

    Voodoo Economics [tjm.org]

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.