I write this to you as a former Dean supporter. I commend Dean's willingness to speak out against the war and his previous service to that state of Vermont. He is a fine Democrat, and these things are what first got me on the Dean train. I hadn't read all that much though until the primaries were a month and a half away and the race started to heat up. The more and more I read about Dean, I became more and more unsure of him.
He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and stop there. While I think the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea, they happened and we have to deal with them. Under Howard Dean's tax plan, taxes would be raised on the middle class. The middle class is the most consumer driven class and if their taxes are raised, their pocket books will tighten up and the economy will begin to slip back down. I like Clark's tax plan which reverses the effect of the Bush tax cut by adding a 5% tax increase on people's money when they begin to make more then $1 million dollars in a year. With that change, middle and lower class families will be able to acquire an additional tax cut (to look at a summary of the tax cut, check out:
http://clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/summary/). Not only does Clark's plan make more sense for America, but no nominee has ever won the presidency by declaring tax cuts on the middle class.
The most important issues in this upcoming election are going to be national defense and foreign policy. The only Democratic candidate that trumps George Bush on these issues is General Wesley Clark. Clark's experience has brought him in contact with today's most prominent military and political leaders. He has spent his life studying international politics. Howard Dean has no experience on either issue. As for the argument that Dean can select a national defense or foreign policy Vice-president, why not pick the candidate who is strongest on the issues first and not limit your Vice President to a couple of people who will fill your most glaring mistakes.
Both of the candidates want to work with NATO and the United Nations so that more world assistance can be used in rebuilding Iraq and so that more of our soldiers can come home. However, if Dean is elected, he will not know the best ways to deal with either organization. Having not been to the international negotiation table before and being overly eager to pay in full on his promise to international help, I fear that Howard Dean would not be able to work out the best deal possible. NATO could easily shortchange us and end up having most Americans staying in Iraq and the only change that would occur would be a switch of a helmet. Wesley Clark has even worked for one of these organizations as Supreme Commander. He knows NATO inside and out and has working relationships with its leaders. Clark would know exactly what terms to use and whether or not talks were going well based on reactions of people whose personalities he already is well aware of. Not only would he work out the best plan for the nation building in Iraq, he would know the best way to approach old colleagues of his.
While I commend Howard Dean for his vocal opposition to an unjustified war, the war part is over. We need to concentrate on the nation building and peace. Wesley Clark can best lead our country out of Iraq and back into the favor of the international world.
Is Howard Dean the liberal he is believed to be?
Another reason why I switched from Dean to Clark is because I want the Democratic candidate to hold true to its liberal policies and principles. A recent article highlights my frustration with Dean's rather conservative views:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084735. Feel free to read the entire article, but here are the most revealing couple of paragraphs:
"Most of what Dean said on Meet the Press Sunday morning could have been written by the Democratic Leadership Council. He accused Bush of forcing tax hikes and spending too much. He indicated that he'd limit the rate of spending growth and might raise the retirement age. He deferred to states and churches on gun control and gay marriage. At one point, host Tim Russert rapped Dean for calling Dick Gephardt's expensive health care proposal "pie in the sky." Some big spender. Dean's defense of the death penalty in extreme cases was even more eyebrow-raising:
The problem with life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing to do with justice. We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered, and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served. … So life without parole doesn't work either.
Executing killers because they might get out on a "technicality"? That isn't just pro-death penalty. It's anti-due-process."
I'm against the death penalty in all forms and I'm not sure what I think about his perfect grading of A+ from the NRA either. Is Dean saying that on the death penalty to try and attract more independent and conservative voters? The media and the general public already view Dean as being too liberal. Dean is actually a moderate candidate who is adopting conservative proposals. This liberal viewing his on another big issue that gets my concern:
Which administration would pass more liberal legislation, Dean or Clark?
Let's say Howard Dean wins the general election. He has made very damning comments about Republicans. While I support his comments myself, as presidential candidate, highly partisan statements do not make any friends. It will be VERY difficult for Dean to work with Republicans in congress. As leader of the party, Dean is going to have to make a great deal of compromises because Republicans will not want to work with him as much. This will be especially true with Dean being the head of the ticket in the South and 5 Democratic senators up for reelection. I don't care how much you like Howard Dean, you have to admit he doesn't have much appeal in the South. It will be even harder for him to pass bills and laws he wants with a Republican held house. When running against Bush, Dean will have no ground to move more liberal on his policies because he is already seen by most people as 'too liberal'.
Wesley Clark on the other hand will have an easier time working with congress. First, Clark has more appeal to people in the South and his name will help the Democratic senators to be reelected more so then having Howard Dean's name up there. Granted, Wesley Clark could be forced to work with a Republican house and senate as well, he will have more Democratic votes to work with. The fact that Clark voted Republican sometimes in the past will make the congress Republicans more willing to bargain with him. In the end, not only will Clark be able to pass his legislation more often, it won't have as many compromises as Dean's. Not to mention the fact that in the general election, Clark will have more room to move liberal because of how the public sees him. in conclusion, while some people might think that Dean is more liberal to the Democratic ideas, Clark will be more likely to get legislation passed first and without compromises second.
Finally, if all of these experience, policy, and legislation items don't grab your attention, I bring up the issue of the ability to win the election. I refer to another article that argues the case better then I could at this point:
http://thedolphin.typepad.com/dolphin/2003/11/are_dean_democr_1.htmlAgain, feel free to read the whole article, but here are the highlights:
"The Dems Got the Blues. They Got 'Em Bad. And That Ain't Good!
Meanwhile, the U.S. electoral map doesn't look promising if Howard Dean is the Democratic nominee. After the 2000 census, electoral votes were reapportioned, with some states gaining electors and some states losing electors. Unfortunately for the Democrats, almost all of the gains were in the “red states” won by Bush in 2000, while almost all of the losses were in “blue states” won by Gore. All told, the “blue states” lost seven electoral votes due to the 2000 census, while the “red states” gained seven. Now, suppose that Bush wins only the “red states” in 2004, which is a highly conservative scenario if Howard Dean is the nominee. Back in 2000, Bush won the election with just 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes. This time around, however, those same states would result in 278 electoral votes for Bush, and an 18 electoral vote victory.
Unfortunately, the situation is likely far worse than that, because Howard Dean – or any Democratic candidate, really -- would be hard pressed even to hold the “blue states.” In 2000, Gore won New Mexico by just 366 votes, Iowa by a mere 4,100 votes, Wisconsin by 5,400 votes, Oregon by just over around 6,500 votes, and Minnesota by 58,000 votes out of nearly 2.5 million cast. Even Pennsylvania was relatively close, with Gore beating Bush by only 4 points, 51%-47%. Meanwhile, Bush was winning nearly all of his “red states” by huge margins -- 15%, 30%, even 40% in a few cases. What this means is that Bush will have the luxury in 2004 of concentrating his time and huge war chest on just a few battleground states, effectively expending no resources whatsoever on vast swaths of “Red America.” "
I think the most important part of that article is that Gore won his states by a close margin while Bush won his states by large amounts. Bush won't have to campaign in the South at all if Dean is the choice. Instead Bush can concentrate the majority of his funds in those states Gore won by so little and California. Face it, if we lose California and the South, the Democratic nominee will lose no matter who is. If Clark was the candidate, he would keep Bush honest across the country with no lead being safe in many states, including the South. I feel that General Wesley Clark is the best candidate overall and the candidate that will force Bush to spread his resources out across the country instead of the battle ground states. With Wesley Clark, nearly all states will be battle ground states up for grabs.
If you are more interested in Wesley Clark's campaign, please check him out at www.clark04.com. Thank you for your time.
Matthew Tweed Thornton
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
