Pomp

There has to be something wrong with this guy, but I've been doing a bit of research and I can't find it. He's saying all, or nearly all, the right things. I'm actually considering going to a local meetup here in Indy and finding out what I can do to help campaign for him. In the interest of making sure I'm not doing anything I'll hate myself for later, if anyone has any information about any of the following things, I would appreciate your sharing:

1. Does Dean have any stances that would be repugnant to a fiscally progressive social libertarian heathen such as myself? All his talking points are either things I support or things I have no strong opinion on, and I'm unable to find anything shocking in news searches, but there has to be something.
   
   
2. Is there any reason Dean would be unelectable? Is there some fatal weakness in his ability to capture the votes of any significant electoral blocs?
   
   
3. (semi-facetious) How likely is it that his past is just shady enough that the right wing's lunatic fringe will be able to turn his presidency into a four year circus of scandal and accusation, only to be lauded for restoring civilty to Washington when he's replaced and they shut up?

Majestyk

If, he is the most qualified candidate and history is any indication, his party will not nominate him. Neither, of the controlling political parties have nominated their most qualified candidates, to my memory. Nominations seem to go to "next in line'.

Blake

Hey, Pomp.

You've motivated me to search for the only negative article on Dean I've read to date. Boiled down, he's got views concerning Israel just as bad as anyone else's. The good news (according to the author) is that said views are not necessarily set in stone.

I can't see anything that tags him as fatally unelectable, but self-consciously representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will surely handicap him severely.

Kinross

While there is nothing shocking about him and I think he is better than the current president, his fiscal policy in Vermont leaves much to be desired, he believes in activist government, and will perpetuate the drug war.

Pomp

AdamSmith,

...his fiscal policy in Vermont leaves much to be desired...

Can you elaborate, please? If his campaign literature is to be believed (and a few hours yesterday afternoon with Google didn't turn up anything to contradict it), he seems to have a fairly effective fiscal policy. Reduced Vermont's debt, increased funding for health care and education, lowered taxes, blah, blah, blah. What am I missing?

I'm sure he's not as laissez faire as you'd prefer but, then, he's not as progressive as I'd prefer either.

he believes in activist government

So do I.

and will perpetuate the drug war.

<shrug> I have a feeling that active opposition to the drug war would place him firmly in the "unelectable" category at this point in time. I'm looking for a realistically electable candidate that shares a fair number of my views. If I wanted to vote for ideologically correct fantasy candidates, I'd vote Green and be done with it.

Kinross

According to these two reports while he has cut spending in some areas he has raised taxes over the last ten years. His education program was a redistribute the wealth program that almost caused a voter revolt.

Still after ten years in office Vermot remains one of the highest tax and spend states.

Corwin

Yes.... and the 'borrow and spend' and 'pull out of thin air and spend' policies of the Republicans are SO much more responsible......

Kinross

I didn't say the Republicans are better

Mr. Superbad

While Dean will continue the drug war, has said that throwing people in jail for using drugs is "silly". He's also said that the gov't shouldn't be practicing medicine, so he would send the issue of medical marijuana to the FDA and accept their findings. I think that alone elevates him above the current crop of candidates.

Pomp

Blake,

You've motivated me to search for the only negative article on Dean I've read to date. Boiled down, he's got views concerning Israel just as bad as anyone else's. The good news (according to the author) is that said views are not necessarily set in stone.

Thanks, Blake.

I was aware of his generally pro-Israel stance from his own literature, but the additional information here is helpful. On the plus side, he does explicitly condone a Palestinian state as well, although I don't know how serious he is about that, obviously. I'm wary of his stance here, but at this point I'm willing to give anyone who acknowledges that there are two sides to the problem a chance.

I tend to prioritize domestic issues, anyway, so a nonideal stance on Palestine isn't an automatic disqualifier for me, although it is a moderately serious negative point.

I can't see anything that tags him as fatally unelectable, but self-consciously representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will surely handicap him severely.

Sad but true.