Howard Dean is a frickin' idiot!

[The diplomat]

Did anyone see the Howard Dean interview on Meet the Press with Tim Russert on MSNBC?

Here are few choice quotes:

Russert: Let’s talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?
Dean: I can’t answer that question. And I don’t know what the answer is. [...]
Russert: But how many troops—how many men and women do we now have on active duty?
Dean: I can’t tell you the answer to that either. It’s...
Russert: But as commander in chief, you should now that.
Dean: As someone who’s running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don’t know the exact number, and I don’t think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary.

Dean: So your perception—your position is that I need to know exactly how many people are on duty today in the active military forces...
Russert: Well, have a sense...
Dean: ...six months away from the first primary?
Russert: If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military.
Dean: I do have a sense of the military.
Russert: ...of how many people roughly...
Dean: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we don’t have enough people in Iraq.

So, he wants more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but doesn't know how many total active servicemen we have. And, he doesn't think that someone running for the job of Commander in Chief needs to know that?

This one is even better:

Russert: Let me show you something in April you had to say about your competitors. “I think we’re going to beat the living daylights out of these other candidates because they need a backbone transplant.” Who?
Dean: Oh, you know I never would say on this show.
Russert: But you believe some of your Democratic contenders, opponents need a backbone transplant?
Dean: At that time what was going on was that a number of people had voted for the war and were going to Iowa saying “Well, I only”—some of them are still doing it. I...
Russert: Who?
Dean: I’m not going to mention them by name. There’s no need to do that.
Russert: But, Governor, if you’re a straight-talking, blunt-speaking candidate and you’re saying some of your opponents need a backbone transplant, who needs a backbone transplant?
Dean: There are a number of people, Tim, who have gone out on the campaign trail, one as recently as last week, and said “I only voted for the resolution to go to war with Iraq because I knew that the resolution would force the president to send the matter to the United Nations.” That is false.
Russert: Who said that?
Dean: I’m not going to tell you who said that.
Russert: Well, why—if you’re going to make a...
Dean: Because I’m doing my best to try to keep some semblance of unity in this party.

So, he basically insults a fellow democrat but won't say who because he wants to keep party unity. WTF?

And this one,

Russert: Well, you apologized to Bob Graham.
Dean: No, I didn’t.
Russert: You called the AP and recanted the statement.
Dean: I called the AP and said, “I’m sorry I said that.”
Russert: Well, that’s an apology.
Dean: No, it’s not.
Russert: “I’m sorry I said it” is not an apology?
Dean: I didn’t actually say I’m sorry. I said, “I shouldn’t have said it because it’s not my business to handicap the races.” Look, Tim, if I make a mistake, I’m happy to say so, and I’m happy to say why I made a mistake.

And last Mr. Dean had this to say about his temperament to be President:

But to say that I don’t have the temperament to be president, I actually think maybe I have a better temperament to be president because wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who’s actually admitted he was wrong when he made a mistake.

Does he actually think that we want a Prez going around saying he is wrong?!?

[GePap]

Compare that to what Bush Knew back in 1999....

Wait, don;t. Reading too much Bush of that era can be hazardouz to ones mind.

[Dis]

actually I did see him on Meet the Press.

I have no life

my local channel repeats it real late at night, when I'm doing nothing but posting at Apolyton.

I felt he did a pretty good job. He's a good speaker.

Although he must've known he was lying about saying that 12 year old girl was impregnated by her father.

Sure lets have 12 year old girls have abortions without telling their parents. I don't care anymore. Society is morally bankrupt anyways.

[GePap]

Does he actually think that we want a Prez going around saying he is wrong?!?

If he was wrong? Yes. its called H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.

I thought that was what reps. wanted from Billy back in 1998. See how times change things.

[PLATO]

Unbelievable

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap

Does he actually think that we want a Prez going around saying he is wrong?!?

If he was wrong? Yes. its called H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.

I thought that was what reps. wanted from Billy back in 1998. See how times change things.

From any politician.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Compare that to what Bush Knew back in 1999....

But that is the point: it is apparently ok for a Democrat not to know a particular fact, but when Bush didn't know the name of the Uganda ambassador(or whatever), he was impuned for it.

[Dis]

come on!

He did a good job. He's better than the othe numnuts running for the deomocratic primary.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap

Does he actually think that we want a Prez going around saying he is wrong?!?

If he was wrong? Yes. its called H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.

I thought that was what reps. wanted from Billy back in 1998. See how times change things.

There is a big difference between being wrong and lying. Do you want a Prez admitting his policies are wrong? In Foreign policy that would completely ruin a Prez's credibility.

[The diplomat]

by the way, here's the full transcript,

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?0dm=C21AV

[lord of the mark]

Gepap's right, Dean just sounds more like Dubya than nerdy Clinton or Gore.


Meself, i think its probably for the best that the Dems nominate Dean in 2004. Dubyas virtually a shoe-in in 2004 - an incumbent, in wartime, and the economy likely to be on the mend by 3rd quarter 2004. Historically the chances of beating an incumbent in those circumstances are negligible.

If Leiberman or Edwards or Gephardt run and lose in 2004, the left will claim that the Clinton wins were flukes, and point to New Democrat losses in 2000 and 2004, and will take over the party, leading to likely loss in 2008, when Dems will actually stand a chance. We'll need at least one, and probablyt two losses by the "democratic wing of the democratic party" before everyone comes back to reality again. Which means possibly Dems out of office till 2016!!!!!

OTOH if Dean is nominated and loses in 2004, then the road is open for a New Dem in 2008. Perhaps too late for Leiberman, but Edwards may have gained in gravitas by then. And there's always Hilary.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is a big difference between being wrong and lying. Do you want a Prez admitting his policies are wrong? In Foreign policy that would completely ruin a Prez's credibility.

Why? To not admit you are wrong when you obviously are is a huge stain on credibility. Whom wpould you believe? Someone who says :this is so, so we must act, acts, is porven wrong, and they says: I was wrong. or the guy who says afterwards..I never said that, I mean this really..

I highly doubt that back in 1999 GW Bush knew how many people the US had in active service in the military. And at least Dean is, again, honest enough to say "I don't know"

PLATO: if no one expects honesty from a politican, you won;t get it. And if voters know politicians lie, who are the dumbasses? The Pols, or the citizens? I say citizens.

And I agree with Diss: of all the dems running, he has impressed me the most based on his personality.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Gepap's right, Dean just sounds more like Dubya than nerdy Clinton or Gore.

Lord no, i don;t think he sounds anything like Bush. He admits to being ignorant on some issues currently. To hear Bush and his poeple, Bush is the secong coming of the Lord.

Meself, i think its probably for the best that the Dems nominate Dean in 2004. Dubyas virtually a shoe-in in 2004 - an incumbent, in wartime, and the economy likely to be on the mend by 3rd quarter 2004. Historically the chances of beating an incumbent in those circumstances are negligible.

New dems have failed to differentiate themselves form the Bushies and their cohorts. There is a reason Dean is dooing so well compared to other candidates in that field.Kerry is good but bland, lieberman is Bush for those who want Bush to be more Jewish (I love the Daily Show), Edwards is an empty headed pretty boy, and the other ones have no chance whatsoever.

[Boris Godunov]

Warms my heart that people are afraid enough of Dean that they come up with absolute trifles such as this rather than dealing with his policies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Meself, i think its probably for the best that the Dems nominate Dean in 2004. Dubyas virtually a shoe-in in 2004 - an incumbent, in wartime, and the economy likely to be on the mend by 3rd quarter 2004. Historically the chances of beating an incumbent in those circumstances are negligible.

First, I remember how Republicans were crowing that Bush I was going to be unbeatable in 1991. Zzzzzzzzz! Not only did he lose, he got the lowest percentage of the popular vote since Goldwater.

Second, I remember people saying the historical odds of Gore losing were also negligible. See what happens?

Historical precedent means little.