Comments on: Howard Dean Again Ratchets up Anti-Bush Rhetoric.

Howard Dean Again Ratchets up Anti-Bush Rhetoric.

dsquid — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:40:11 -0800

this time blaming the President's right-wing supreme court for the recent Kelo ruling. These comments strike some as confusing, seeing as how none of the justices at the time were appointed by the President, and 3 of the dissenters are considered to be the most conservative members on the bench.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:43:55 -0800

What an idiot. His handler needs to stop letting him out of his cage.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:43:57 -0800

I'm sorry, is this your political blog? I was looking for MetaFilter. I think this is amberglow's fault. Nevertheless, if Dean actually said this: "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is..." ...in reference to Kelo, it is completely false.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:47:40 -0800

Yes, it's sad but true. The Lefties on the court are responsible both for Kelo and (Along with Scalia) for overturning California's medical Marijuana laws. The rest of his statements are resonable, though.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:48:12 -0800

Remember that the same SCOTUS responsible for the Kelo ruling is also responsible for installing Bush in 2000. In light of two upcoming judicial seats opening up, Dean's insightful, relevant comments make perfect sense to me, insofar as they draw attention to the consequences of rulings made by this oft-overlooked third wing of government.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:48:55 -0800

I wonder how Roberts feels about Kelo and, um, that other one.

By: dsquid

dsquid — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:49:45 -0800

Ethereal sez: "I'm sorry, is this your political blog?" Excuse me? What?

By: deanc

deanc — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:50:55 -0800

Well, I, personally, don't know if the president thinks it's 'okay' for the government to take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is, though, given Bush's experience with the Texas Rangers, I think it's a reasonable inference to make. And I don't want to hear anyone who ever supported Bush get all into a hizzy because someone said something that sounded good but was at odds with fact-based reality.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:53:02 -0800

Damn straight, deanc.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:09:30 -0800

are you kidding? townhall.com ? lets have a look at their columnists: Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Oliver North, Chuck Colson, Larry Kudlow, Robert Novak ? this post sucks.

By: destro

destro — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:14:57 -0800

Holy wow. Dean Said that??? Stop the presses!

By: TetrisKid

TetrisKid — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:17:59 -0800

Dean is great. He's the second coming of Kruschev... Up is down, black is white, the evil republicans did this not us, blah blah blah

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:18:37 -0800

Hmm. Y'know, dsquid, I saw this article five days ago, and germanely mentioned it in a thread, What I didn't do is post it to the front page, because people who do such things should GTOBFW.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:19:43 -0800

"A pro-life Democrat, unlike a pro-life Republican, cares about kids after they're born, not just before," Dean said. This comment is highly irresponsible on his part, if it's an accurate quote. He basically just acknowledged what pro-lifers have spouted all along, which is that a pregnant woman is, in fact, carrying a "kid" or baby, or person. To his defense, though, he probably got all hysterical after reading MetaFilter one too many times.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:24:33 -0800

This comment is highly irresponsible on his part, if it's an accurate quote. He basically just acknowledged what pro-lifers have spouted all along, which is that a pregnant woman is, in fact, carrying a "kid" or baby, or person. If I had said "A pro-sex Democrat, unlike a pro-sex Republican, cares about kids after they're concived, not just before," Dean said." Would that then mean I belive people are people before they are concived?

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:32:36 -0800

He called an embryo and a fetus a "kid". As a pro-choice politician, that type of comparison is irresponsible. And the particular problem with his terminology is that he said "born", which represents any of the nine months of pregnancy, including the day after conception. But be my guest and blindly defend that raving lunatic.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:33:34 -0800

He basically just acknowledged what pro-lifers have spouted all along, which is that a pregnant woman is, in fact, carrying a "kid" or baby, or person. Read the quote more carefully. He compared a pro life Democrat with a pro life Republican, both of which believe that life begins at conception. The distinction he was trying to make was the Democrats also care for the health, welfare and education of the child once it's born. Republicans... not so much.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:34:55 -0800

"Howard Dean Again Ratchets up Anti-Bush Rhetoric" I don't think this rhetoric is any more anti-bush than his previous rhetoric. I do think that you have an axe to grind, and that you're using my favorite website to do it. This post sucks, GYOBFW.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:35:20 -0800

I'll acknowledge your point, psmealey, but I still don't believe that Dean did women any favors with that comment.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:43:21 -0800

To GTOBFW or not GTOBFW ? That is the question.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:43:25 -0800

kwanstar: I know I should stick with reading the shit they send me from AARP, but can you tell me what GTOBFW means? Is it, Get The Off Because Fucking What? Really, I might even agree with you, if I knew what you effing said.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:46:21 -0800

BTW, I forgot to say, "GODAMMIT!" Thank you.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:46:31 -0800

GYOBFW.

By: dsquid

dsquid — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:47:23 -0800

Baby_B: Axe to grind? What are you basing that on? My one Dean post...ever? I found the posts over on Kos interesting, which is why I linked it. Seems sort of strange to me that partisans from both sides are raising their eyebrows this time. If you don't like it...sorry. I'll try harder next time, just for you.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:49:18 -0800

dsquid, don't sweat it. This place was insanely pro-Dean before he got spanked in Iowa.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:59:17 -0800

I parse it as "Get your own blog, fuck-wit". I'm pretty sure about the "Get your own blog" part. The "FW" I'm not so sure about. He called an embryo and a fetus a "kid". As a pro-choice politician, that type of comparison is irresponsible. And the particular problem with his terminology is that he said "born", which represents any of the nine months of pregnancy, including the day after conception. But be my guest and blindly defend that raving lunatic. Yeah, only a raving lunatic could have given his state universal health care and an balanced budget. Sane people would have just run the state into the ground while paying back their political cronies. After all, that's how most states are run, right? Howard Dean is painted as an "Insane Liberal" because he obviously doesn't like Republicans, even though his policies are actually quite moderate (which is why I liked him, before all the Dean Hoopla started up). Dean says what a lot of democrats really think, and that's why he brings in the big money. Every time dean says something "stupid" cash pours in, especially if he gets bashed by the right over it. "Before their born" not only applies to the 9 months of gestation, and the 14 billion or so years before they were conceived. "Jesus died before I was born" is a perfectly acceptable thing to say, and doesn't imply that Jesus was died between august of 1979 and may of 1980. You can logically parse the comment from here to infinity, but It's a statement consistent with general usage, and doesn't mean anything. It's not a piece of legislation, it's not a court decision, it's just an offhand comment. Offhand comments don't hurt anyone, and I seriously doubt any conservatives are going to run around spouting off about how Dean believe life begins at conception, therefore we are right. Or something. What people like about dean is that he says what he thinks, rather then coming across like a smooth talking politician sounding pretty and meaning nothing. Then we get people like you who run around claming that because he's not 100% on message, he's clearly a lunatic.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:02:44 -0800

GTOBFW is a less common variant of GYOBFW, which are (respectively) short for "get their own blogs, fuckwits" and "get your own blog, fuckwit." I don't really think that you're a fuckwit, by the way-- but many of us (as you can tell by the comments in this thread) think this isn't really anything close to The Best of the Web. Some here would correctly guess that I loathe Howard Dean (IMO a disingenuous commie) more than I loathe the Republicans, but I try to be an equal opportunity critic of shitty posts.

By: Mick

Mick — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:09:24 -0800

This post does not fit with the collective metafilter agenda, get your own blog so we can ignore opposing views.

By: Mick

Mick — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:10:54 -0800

Also: MetaFilter isn't your blog, it's Y2Karl's.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:11:16 -0800

only a raving lunatic could have given his state universal health care For children under 18, but it's clever how you forgot that. What people like about dean is that he says what he thinks, rather then coming across like a smooth talking politician sounding pretty and meaning nothing. You could say that about President Bush as well. They're both idiots with too much influence. Dean says what a lot of democrats really think, and that's why he brings in the big money. Dean definitely brings in a lot of money, but not because of what he says, but how he says it. He's willing to play dirty; a characteristic that Kerry and Edwards were unable to pull off. THAT'S why he has influence; he's able to piss of Republicans. It's a sad state of affairs when the head of the Democratic Party is a juvenile name-caller. But enough about him; he doesn't deserve the attention.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:11:34 -0800

Unfortunately, I'm too outrage-exhausted to be bothered by much anymore, so whatever BS dean is spouting gets a "meh, whatever" free pass, due to the current Administration having already ground me down into dust :-)

By: deanc

deanc — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:14:00 -0800

Some here would correctly guess that I loathe Howard Dean (IMO a disingenuous commie) Ah, yes, because any Democrat whom you disagree with is a commie. Really, you couldn't you have come up with something better than that?

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:16:56 -0800

So let me see, you link to a pseudo-news site that quotes half-sentences more often than even giving the context of a single sentence. In fact, the only recent "news" is a half a sentence that is hardly ratcheting up the rhetoric. This post is a waste of energy. If you want to Dean bash, do it semi-competently, or stick to a no-thinking blog.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:20:23 -0800

"get their own blogs, fuckwits" and "get your own blog, fuckwit." Thank you!! I couldn't agree more!

By: RavinDave

RavinDave — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:23:47 -0800

You have know idea how it warms my heart to see FW's like dsquid wet themselves over Howard Dean. It increases my admiration for Dean 10-fold and proves that the Dems are finally getting back on the right track.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:24:48 -0800

What people like about dean is that he says what he thinks, rather then coming across like a smooth talking politician sounding pretty and meaning nothing.

You could say that about President Bush as well. They're both idiots with too much influence. Bush's misstatements mostly revolve around screwing up words or grammar. I don't remember him being "off message" even once. I really don't see how you can compare the two. I'd guess you'd rather democrats be polite while Rome burns, rather then calling out the idiots fiddling. I don't see that as much of a virtue.

By: MrLint

MrLint — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:32:11 -0800

harlequin, i agree totally, i cant even muster a good froth anymore. Of course i've already determined that we are screwed. Doomed, armageddon. dark age.. the whole bit. I still blame the GOP, but once you have internalized your own likely premature mortality, it helps you carry on.

By: wendell

wendell — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:33:01 -0800

Oldnewsfilter. The townhall item is from THREE WEEKS AGO. Dean got raked over the coals on the right-wing blogs for this THREE WEEKS AGO. I heard the story and made up my mind about it then. The attempt to keep the story alive at non-right-wing sites like Kos (FIVE DAYS AGO) and here now smells like Rovian Disinformation Campaign.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:39:16 -0800

What people like about dean is that he says what he thinks what i don't like about him is that what he thinks is plainly illogical, at least in this particular case ... i'm not a fan of townhall.com by any means, but in this instance, they're doing the public a service by pointing out the incoherency of dean's statements i'm beginning to think that dean is more demogogue than anything else ... and not even that good at it

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:40:00 -0800

By: davy

davy — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:43:32 -0800

I still don't see the Democrats as fundamentally different from the Republicans -- remember Dean is a Republican Lite rather than the Commie Menace they painted him as -- but it's sometimes amusing to see y'all partisans bicker.

By: mosch

mosch — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:53:28 -0800

A Dean-trashing story sourced from CNSNews.com (tagline: Right News, Right Now), via a right-wing website. That's about as credible as if I posted this as news.

By: bshort

bshort — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:10:35 -0800

Townhall? Come on.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:16:24 -0800

You guys keep attacking the site, which I'll admit is questionable, but is there any proof that their reporting is incorrect?

By: davy

davy — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:05 -0800

SeizeTheDay: to me it's not whether it's correct or not, but that it's irrelevant. Some people will say anything to get themselves or their friends elected, but it doesn't mean it means anything.

By: Reverend Mykeru

Reverend Mykeru — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:19:37 -0800

Thank you for providing a hook to end my piece Jean Schmidt: Quack, Quack Quack. /link whoring

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:23:17 -0800

what i don't like about him is that what he thinks is plainly illogical, at least in this particular case Everyone says something that's slightly illogical every once in a while, and yes this was a mistake. It's crazy to say that no politician should ever error in their statements, I have no idea why people think they should. If you applied the same standard you hold Howard Dean to pretty much any regular MeFi poster we'd all be shipped off to the insane asylum. I really don't understand why people think Howard Dean is "crazy" or whatever, when they only look at out of context, half-sentence quotes.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:34:33 -0800

I really don't understand why people think Howard Dean is "crazy" or whatever AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH! Do you really not understand? He was at a critical moment in his campaign. He was delivered a stinging blow in Iowa, after being a heavy favorite to win the Democratic ticket, and the entire country was expecting some compelling, awesome rally speech that instilled a new confidence going into New Hampshire. Instead, the world saw what appeared to be a candidate who just lost his marbles. The rest was history.

By: hackly_fracture

hackly_fracture — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:41:24 -0800

SeizeTheDay, Re: Losing marbles: you have led a very sheltered life.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:42:30 -0800

And no, it wasn't just the scream. It was the fact that he had so much momentum, so much cash, and so much energy going into Iowa and his loss was devastating. I think he probably could have recovered, but passion got the better of him and he made a huge political faux paux. FWIW, he wasn't that great a candidate to begin with; he just discovered a new fundraising tactic that empowered internet users. And that, along with being the media favorite for a year before the primary season even started, helped propel him into contention. Which is precisely why he's the DNC Chair now. He's loud, well-known, and is a great money machine. The fact that he's a bit nuts doesn't matter because the DNC needs a pitbull, and they got one.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:46:53 -0800

faux pas, sorry. And sorry, hackly, but I'm fairly sure that 50 million voters out there aren't willing to put a "screamer" into the office of most powerful man in the world.

By: hackly_fracture

hackly_fracture — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:57:04 -0800

SeizeTheDay, agree with you on the "not that great a canidate to begin with" part. Dirty secret of the left, that.

By: davy

davy — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:20:45 -0800

How in the hell can anybody call Howard Dean "leftist"? The Clintons aren't either, nor was FDR. There's a whole lot of room to the left of Dubya because he's so far right. It might help also to understand that for a leftist Ralph Nader is pretty "moderate".

By: buzzman

buzzman — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:21:09 -0800

Dean's word choice is too vile and exclusionary to ever make him publically acceptable.

By: swell

swell — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:25:06 -0800

but is there any proof that their reporting is incorrect? It's not reporting, it's analysis. None of the quotes cited in the analysis were reported by any other news organization. Surely abc, cbs, fox, nyt or somebody besides L. Brent Bozell's "news organization" would have considered statements by the chairman of the DNC (in front of hundreds of people!) newsworthy?

By: Relay

Relay — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:33:58 -0800

The two things I got from that post were Townhall.com and CNSNews.com What's next, we'll be talking seriously about stuff from NewsMax and the Washington Times?

By: buzzman

buzzman — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:37:37 -0800

Gave me something to read. I suppose someday I'll begin posting instead of commenting, and then I can properly criticize. I did, however; just save a bundle on car insurance.

By: null terminated

null terminated — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:12:28 -0800

davy: I'd love to hear your definition of a "leftist", if Nader is moderate and FDR was conversative.

By: hortense

hortense — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:32:26 -0800

I'm with Davy.The Clintons were not leftys, just not as obvious as corporate tools as the elder,and younger, Bush.

By: i_am_joe's_spleen

i_am_joe's_spleen — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:39:22 -0800

How incredibly interesting the comments of a political party chairman are. Bloody riveting. Would I have to be an American to care about this?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:32:38 -0800

Null Terminated: Well, what kind do you want? Really, when you start talking about national politics, the spectrum goes Communist/Maoist—Liberal/Internationalist—Realist/Conservative. If you're talking about domestic politicking, and we're looking at successful states, you've got the Social Democrats on the left, the Democrats/Labor in the center, and the Republicans/Tories on the right. There are really two flavors of far-leftism, those who are essentially anarchists and those who are essentially communists (and, if taken to the end that Marx predicted, communism will become anarchy. While that's not the experience that any state has had, that's still the goal for most of those people that you'll see standing around and handing out copies of The Spark or MIM Notes). Even Ralph Nader doesn't argue for the dissolution of the state, meaning that he really isn't radical. But the left is pretty ill-defined outside of intellectuals, as opposed to the right, which compresses and crystalizes itself pretty well. If you're looking to figure out how left someone is, a handy metric can be comparing them to Mussolini (which, for fun comparison, Hitler was to the left of) or Franco (who gives a bigger set of years to look toward), or even people like Pinochet and Samoza. One of the big hallmarks of the left is a minimizing of protection for property rights (something that distinguishes them from Libertarians). You could argue that the further left someone is, the less inclined they'll be to protect private property (thus making Rousseau to the left of Locke). As Dean is pretty pro-business (and Clinton was incredibly proud of NAFTA), and FDR was certainly motivated (through Keynesian methods) to restore property to a broad swath of the population, post-Depression, all of them are to the right of someone like Bakunin (or even certain Scandinavian national politicians). It is important to understand that Democrats would be a middle-right party in the rest of the world. That's why all of this "He's a LIBERAL!" bullshit is really laughable from the right. They're really saying "He's not as DOGMATICALLY RIGHT AS I AM!"

By: 31d1

31d1 — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:54:31 -0800

stfu about the scream. Before you re-vomit that puke again somewhere else, try recording yourself singing along to your favorite Celine Dion song and then listen to just your voice. Then destroy the tape, cause if it ever gets out, you'll never have a political career. You see, recordings sound kinda funny when you can't hear the room, ambience, or audience. And really, only dipshits don't know this by now.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:00:58 -0800

Dean's word choice is too vile and exclusionary to ever make him publically acceptable Puleeze. Ever heard of Rick Santorum? Bill Frist? Tom Delay? Newt Gingritch? Dick Fucking Cheney? Half the members of the republican caucus in the house? They all spit the most vile, idiotic crap, and the public laps it up. A lot far less logical then anything deans ever said, and they all get a pass. Dean makes mstakes, and he should be more accurate in what he says. But his tone fits the world around him. If democrats continue to be nice and polite while being slandered, they'll continue to lose.

By: bshort

bshort — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:32:27 -0800

So it's great that you hate Dean and all, but do you have any evidence that he's wrong?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:43:56 -0800

What delmoi just said. Let's compare Dean to the Wing Nut Hero that our townhall reading locals like to fellatte: George W. Bush. "Mission Accomplished" - yeah, right. "Bring it On!" - they did and are. "Is Our Children Learning?" - obviously not, if they are President The list is a mile long and most know it. And Dean is somehow the one Townhall idiots criticize? Gee, I wonder why?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:12:26 -0800

So it's great that you hate Dean and all, but do you have any evidence that he's wrong? Dean has made at least two innacurate statements, namely the one about SCOTUS just now and One about republicans never working an honest day (lots of them have, they just don't act like it). But that pales in comparison to republican BS. Bill Frist, majority leader in the senate said that Terry Schiavo wasn't brain-dead, based on a video tape. I mean, WTF? Republican Yammarbots do a hundred times worse then dean constantly. I'd rather he was more accurate, but he's not nearly as bad as all the republicans out there.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:43:13 -0800

You see, recordings sound kinda funny when you can't hear the room, ambience, or audience. And really, only dipshits don't know this by now. posted by 31d1 at 8:54 AM CST on August 1 [!] Thank God someone understands. A similar effect can be obtained by listening to only the vocalist at a stadium singing the national anthem. It is often cringe inducing even amongst very talented performers.

By: abcde

abcde — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:02:00 -0800

The scream speech was pretty compelling, actually, if you ignore the useless fact of how he sounded when the deafening crowd he was shouting over was left out - he and his audience seem all but encouraged by the setback in Iowa, it shows confidence and an unusually motivated base. It wasn't that eloquent but it played perfectly for the tone of his audience, which was almost disturbingly unwavered optimism.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:13:17 -0800

SeizeTheDay, I guess we have diffrent definitions of "crazy". To me it means a lot more then to simply say someone makes mistakes. But realy the "scream" signifies nothing other then a lack of polish.

By: designbot

designbot — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:14:11 -0800

This comment is highly irresponsible on his part, if it's an accurate quote. He basically just acknowledged what pro-lifers have spouted all along, which is that a pregnant woman is, in fact, carrying a "kid" or baby, or person. To his defense, though, he probably got all hysterical after reading MetaFilter one too many times. I'm sorry, pregnant women aren't carrying babies? I must have missed that memo. What is that screaming kicking thing they pull out after a c-section? A watermelon?

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:21:08 -0800

This post does not fit with the collective metafilter agenda, get your own blog so we can ignore opposing views. hahhaha

By: buzzman

buzzman — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:52:20 -0800

I agree completely with you Delmoi. I live in Texas, I see the worst of the Republican party on a daily basis. I also know a lot of super liberal Austin people that don't recycle. But, that is a pet peeve, and disparate from the link.

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:51:37 -0800

klangklangston That's about the best definition of current 'murican politics I think I've seen. Huzzah Cheahs!

By: stenseng

stenseng — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:50:00 -0800

I wonder if Howard Dean is actually head of the DNC as part of a plot by the Bush Administration and/or Carl Rove. I can't think of someone more suited to assuring than no Democratic candidate is elected President in my lifetime. Keep it up PP, the louder guys like you squeal, the more :10bux: rolls into the DNC coffers, and the more we know the Doc is on the right track. I love it when a plan comes together...