[BlackGriffen]

Here it is. Some choice/interesting excerpts:

Why do you think the Democrats just rolled over for Bush?

I don't know, but there's something funny in the water in Washington, because they all rolled over when Newt Gingrich got elected Speaker of the House in 1994. And I was the first one who took a whack at him then, too. Everybody was just bowled over by Gingrich. I thought he was a house of cards.

I'm assuming, once Bush came in, that you told your fellow Democrats to stand up to him. What was the reaction?

They didn't pay any attention. I was this governor from Vermont. What did they care? The currency in Washington is "Can you get reelected?" It's not my currency -- I want to change the country. And so if your currency in Washington is "Can I get re-elected?" you measure everything by what you say, and how that relates to whether you can get re-elected or not. I think that's the worst kind of politics there is. You end up standing for nothing -- except getting re-elected.

What makes you think you won't just get steamrolled once you are in Washington?

The Democrats just need a president who's going to support them. That's what I did on the civil-unions bill in Vermont. I came out in favor of civil unions about an hour after the [Vermont Supreme Court] decision came out. I knew it would give cover to a lot of legislators who would want to do the right thing but just didn't have the nerve.

Is this [gay civil unions] an important enough issue to have it be one of the main issues of a presidential campaign?

Well, civil rights is an important issue. Gay marriage is not. Karl Rove will make it that way. Because he'll claim that everything is gay marriage, and this and that and the other thing.

So you are just going to change the subject?

Yeah. If we allow the Republicans to run the campaign based on divisive issues -- like prayer in school, gay marriage and gun control -- then we lose. The right wing will try to make a big issue of it, and they'll get some votes from some people who would have voted for them anyway.

Most people do not want to traffic in hate. And this election is going to be about whether we cater to the worst in us or cater to the best in us, and I intend to do the latter.

What do you think of today's Republican Party?

I think the Republicans are much meaner than the Democrats are. I don't want to absolve the Democrats, but Republicans are just brutal. They do not care what happens to the country as long as they stay in power, and they're willing to do anything they can to stay in power. It's the most unforgivable thing about this administration and the congressional leadership.

I admire George Bush's father. There were some things I strongly disagreed with him on -- but he tried to be a good president. This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father. He is obsessed with being re-elected, and his obsession with re-election is hurting the country.

What do you think is George Bush's philosophy? What motivates him?

George Bush's philosophy is, "If you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it." That's not my philosophy.

How do you feel about the president's policy of limiting stem-cell research? Do you think he did that to mollify his supporters on the religious right?

I don't know what drove the president to his restrictions on stem-cell research. But I can tell you: This president should never get the vote of any family with a diabetic in it, under any circumstances, because of what he's done to dash the hopes of small children of recovering. And not just diabetes but all manner of potentially curable diseases. I think his slavish adherence to anti-scientific thinking is costing people their lives and their hopes all over the country.

You criticized the president for not standing up to Saudi Arabia. What would you do to confront the Saudis?

First of all, I'd get off foreign oil. All it means is enormous investment in renewables. Wind -- the Danes get twenty percent of all their electricity from wind. We can do something very close to that. Solar -- you've got to change the tax laws and have a massive effort to do that. Oil conservation -- if you had the same mileage requirements for SUVs and trucks as you did for the rest of the fleet, every year you'd save the entire amount of oil that's supposed to be in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In the short term, you've got the Saudis financing fundamentalist schools; you've got this web of connections they have with terrorists and the terrorists of tomorrow. How do you deal with that?

You use economic pressure.

Like how?

We're not going to go into like how. As a potential president of the United States, I prefer to make my threats privately.

A lot of people say that maybe we don't have much economic pressure against the Saudis. They hold billions in U.S. Treasury notes. What if they responded by threatening to liquidate their investment in our government? Wouldn't we be screwed?

Balancing the budget would help that. I mean, this president has made us much weaker than we were when we got here: $500 billion deficits as far as the eye can see is a terribly weakening thing to the economy. Both the Chinese and the Saudis, and others, hold enormous amounts of T-bills. That's a huge problem for us in an era with a declining dollar and a huge deficit. If most Americans understood what you just said, George Bush would be gone.

In the meantime, don't they hold a kind of veto power?

You cannot permit that to happen to the United States. You just have to be very tough about it and be prepared to endure the consequences.

When Bush made his one comment about corporate scandals, he said there was no problem with our business culture as a whole.

Our business culture is a disaster in this country. And this president's largely responsible for it, because he hasn't set the kind of example that needs to be set. When the energy industry writes your energy bill, and the pharmaceutical companies write your Medicare prescription benefit, you've got a big corporate-culture problem in this country. And it doesn't surprise me that the president thinks there's no problem with business, because the president is part of the problem. Let's be very blunt about this.

The majority of business leaders in this country are honest, decent people who'd like to do a good job. The reason we have these corporate scandals is because there is no statement from the president of the United States, other than lip service, that immoral, unethical behavior in business is not going to be tolerated. He just winks and nods.

I see some stuff that I disagree with, but I'm more interested in the picture this paints of Dean as a man.

He's got balls, that's for sure. He's also refreshingly frank ("[...] I prefer to make my threats privately"). Yowza! The man doesn't mince words at all, does he?

The interviewers also paint an interesting picture of his demeanor in the opening description. Read the whole thing yourself, though, and come back to comment.

BlackGriffen

[Krusty]

I like Dean more and more as I hear his views. I still think Wesley Clark is a "safer" candidate in that he can be "liberal" yet nobody would question his commitment to military/security issues.

I think the whole "I'm a political liberal but have conservative values on a personal level" angle is what has elected Democrats since Kennedy (Johnson, Carter, Clinton .... all southern Democrats who appealed to conservatives as well as liberals). Wesley Clark, a decorated General from Arkansas exudes the same aura -- "Yeah I'm a liberal but clearly I'm no pansy when it comes to national security" Dean, a New Englander, may not have the same appeal to Southern Democrats. I'm a southerner and would consider myself further to the left than any mainstream candidate .... but I think I'm probably in a distinct minority.

Honestly, I'd be happy with either Dean or Clark in the White House -- neither of those guys are wusses and I think we would see some controversial decisions made that put Constitutional principles above political expedience.

[xi_hyperon]

The interviewers opening words were correct: He seems less interested in whether he is liked and more interested in making his point. I admire that greatly, especially because of its rarity in politics.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
He's got balls, that's for sure. He's also refreshingly frank ("[...] I prefer to make my threats privately"). Yowza! The man doesn't mince words at all, does he?

It's going to be very interesting if/when these two men (Dean and Bush) meet in debate. Bush didn't have much trouble holding his own against a stiff like Gore, but Dean is going to be a different animal: he has Gore's brains and erudition, but he can also cut through the bullshit to say what needs to be said. People aren't used to that in politicians, and certainly not Democrats.

[vmpaul]

He definitely comes off better in print than on video. He just sounds more rational as opposed to angry and negative. I know the anger appeals to those extremists on the left but it's really the middle he needs to be concerned with. It doesn't bother me (the anger I mean) but so many people I meet and hear are concerned with voting for someone they like more than the positions they hold. It's sad but true. Look what happened with Gore.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
It's going to be very interesting if/when these two men (Dean and Bush) meet in debate. Bush didn't have much trouble holding his own against a stiff like Gore, but Dean is going to be a different animal: he has Gore's brains and erudition, but he can also cut through the bullshit to say what needs to be said. People aren't used to that in politicians, and certainly not Democrats.

actually, I think Bush did not really hold his own in the debates, he just projected himself as more folksy and Gore was more pedantic.
if you actually listened to the content of the answers, Bush had 5 rhetorical points that he quoted over and over again, even in questions that only tangentially related. He was well rehearsed, but I certainly would not have called that "holding his own".

In fact, expectations were so low before the debates before his performance, about the only way he could have blown it was to defecate on himself midsentence.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
He definitely comes off better in print than on video. He just sounds more rational as opposed to angry and negative. I know the anger appeals to those extremists on the left but it's really the middle he needs to be concerned with. It doesn't bother me (the anger I mean) but so many people I meet and hear are concerned with voting for someone they like more than the positions they hold. It's sad but true. Look what happened with Gore.

I've heard Vermonters claim that Dean does a lot better when the format isn't a crowded forum. I guess we'll see when the Democratic race (finally) narrows down.

It also seems to me that he does quite well on radio, though I don't know how much that will help him.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

Referring to what Lerk said, it'll be real interesting to hear a debate between these two (that's assuming Bush relents to a debate) because last time Bush had nowhere to go but up. Expectations will be entirely different this time. Especially after his dismal performances in the few press conferences he's had. He's someone, to my mind, has no real grasp of the situations we're in. It'll be interesting to see if his non-articulation will finally catch up to him.

[WinsOBoogi]

That'd be SOMETHING if Bush didn't participate in a debate. I wonder if that'd really hurt him. Then again, look at California and electing AHNOLD without him having non-scripted "debates."

Point being: America, wake up! Pay attention! 2+2=5!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, I think Bush did not really hold his own in the debates, he just projected himself as more folksy and Gore was more pedantic.

Yes, that's my point really. Substantively, I think Gore walked away with the debates. The unfortunate truth, though, is that a lot of people—I daresay most—don't vote on substance. To win a presidential debate, you don't just need to be right; you need to be liked.

This works both ways, to be sure. I vividly remember the moment in the Virginia debate in '92 when I realized Bill Clinton was going to be president. A woman asked the candidates about the economy; Bush I glibly mentioned a "global slowdown" and basically told her to buck up and quit worrying. Clinton got up from his seat, approached her, and told her he knew just how she felt: when people in his state lost their jobs, "chances are, I know them by name." DING DING DING DING DING!!

Anyway, Dean doesn't have Clinton's gift for empathy, but I think he's an authentic straight-talker in a way Bush merely pretends to be. I think that will become more apparent as the process goes on.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In fact, expectations were so low before the debates before his performance, about the only way he could have blown it was to defecate on himself midsentence.

You make me smile and shake my head at the same time ...

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by WinsOBoogi:
That'd be SOMETHING if Bush didn't participate in a debate. I wonder if that'd really hurt him.

Given a) how farcical our political debates have become, and b) how the public doesn't seem to notice or care how infrequently Bush subjects himself to real questioning, I suspect to my chagrin that it would not.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Yes, that's my point really. Substantively, I think Gore walked away with the debates. The unfortunate truth, though, is that a lot of people—I daresay most—don't vote on substance. To win a presidential debate, you don't just need to be right; you need to be liked.

Very true. Just look at the kennedy/Nixon debate. If you watched the TV, you thought that Kennedy won..and that Nixon looked like death (he apparently had the flu). If you listened on radio, you thought that Nixon won.

[BlackGriffen]

There's a joint interview between Judy (Dean's wife) and Dean over at People. They also have a 17 things you didn't know list.

All in all, a good read. I'm concerned that some of the stuff in the interview will come back to haunt him, but most was apparently already out there.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
There's a joint interview between Judy (Dean's wife) and Dean over at People. They also have a 17 things you didn't know list.

All in all, a good read. I'm concerned that some of the stuff in the interview will come back to haunt him, but most was apparently already out there.

BlackGriffen

The more I learn about them, the more I like them.

[BlackGriffen]

For a laugh, Howard Dean Porn.

I don't know if the pictures are authentic, but damn that man could have been a beefcake leading man for Hollywood.

If he were a little taller, that is.

BlackGriffen