Well it is good company to be in with the brilliant Ann Coulter, who has aptly tagged Dean as “mean,” besides “insane.” Mean Dean would be a good ball and chain to hang on him. He has the meanest anatomical mouth in politics. His appearance reeks of the left’s hatred. All of which means he will crash and burn if he continues on the same path.

I don’t see any way around refusing to support Bush. If Tom Ridge’s open support of amnesty for illegal aliens is any indication, Bush is for the invasion and displacement of my white, American culture.

I might as well support the leader of my French heritage; yes, how nice to vote for a spoke in the Axis of Weasel, which are probably less backstabbing than one of our southern “Good Neighbors,” Mexico. Note how our “good neighbor” opposes us every step of the way in the war on Islamic terrorism and openly talks of annexing the Southwest. This is the stuff of fantasy novels, where nobles sow discord because of their self-centered ambitions and familial loyalties.

It’s probable that Dean will turn out to be unelectable, even though Bush’s current high numbers will likely go down. McGovern was a big loser in 1972, but by 1976 the Democrats were able to win with Jimmy Carter. I suspect that 2008 will bring a Democratic victory, as nothing is being done to bring about a GOP advantage. GWB is bringing in all the future Democratic voters he can.

What would a Dean Presidency be like? Well, he would create a lot of opposition to himself. Do you think he would have Clinton’s ability to seduce the voters? Probably not. It’s still not impossible that GWB will continue to ignore his own base and pander his way to defeat following Rove’s advice.

Nice mini-analysis by David, which I don’t think can be improved upon. I will just say that Dean was much more moderate as Vermont governor than his rhetoric now would lead one to believe he is. Yes, he supported Civil Unions (homosexual “marriage” or the equivalent thereof) but off the top of my head I can’t recall another radical leftist thing he did. He was a moderate Democrat during his entire term as governor here. (That said, I have no idea how far left he would veer as president — probably pretty far, judging by the noises that have been coming out of him lately.)

Unadorned,
I would add that Dean does not seem to be on a Kamikaze mission. He has acknowledged the existence of white men, a big concession for a liberal. He does want to win, I believe, and may tone himself down if necessary. Mr. Auster was saying that Dean’s stridency will do him in. You point out that Dean wasn’t all that obvious a leftist as Governor. Do you think he will wear will with the voters over a long campaign? Remember, any Democratic nominee has built-in support from the culture.

David wrote,

“You point out that Dean wasn’t all that obvious a leftist as Governor. Do you think he will wear well with the voters over a long campaign?”

David, I don’t know. Don’t they have to veer back to the center once they’ve captured the nomination? I assume he’ll be no exception. He definitely was not a far-leftist as governor, ever, in all the years he held office. You NEVER heard the sort of rhetoric he’s coming out with in this primary campaign, or what would be its equivalent on a state level. I remember when he vetoed a bill, saying simply that he refused to sign a bill that would have the effect of increasing government spending. That was the whole “feel” one had about the guy the entire time he served — a fiscal and social moderate. His signing the “Civil Unions” bill was a shocker for many who never believed he’d do such a thing, and it was said at the time that he was planning a run for the presidency and wanted that as part of his record to bolster his chances with a national constituency. When I hear all this way-out radical leftist rhetoric coming from him, in my mind I just tune it out, saying that’s what all Dems do during primaries — veer far-left to get the nomination. This stuff DEFINITELY IS NOT THE MAN WE IN VERMONT KNEW AS GOVERNOR. He’s unrecognizable.

That said, I certainly never voted for Dean for governor (in every election I voted for the Republican candidate) and could never vote for a Democrat for president without some unimaginable transformation in their platform. But I never chafed under Dean’s governorship, or resented him, or regretted he got into office; on the contrary, I can recall quite often in the course of conversations, saying to people, “Dean is not your typical leftist Democrat — he’s level-headed, not leftist, and I think he’s doing a good job.”

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF DEAN, folks! I’m just saying how he was as governor. It’s like night and day.

Unadorned writes of Democrats: “Don’t they have to veer back to the center once they’ve captured the nomination?”

I don’t know where this by-now conventional notion comes from. Mondale ran as a standard liberal Dem in the primaries, and in the general election. Dukakis ran as a technocratic “competent” liberal in the primaries, and in the general election. Clinton ran as a “new Democrat” in the primaries, and the general election. Gore, former “new Democrat,” ran to the left in the primaries, and ran as a class warrior in the general election.

My general sense is, when a liberal starts moving further left (Gore would be the most vivid recent example), that change is permanent. This makes sense, as he is being magnetized by the prospect of becoming a less compromised and more truly consistent liberal.

Well, here’s one more item on Gov. Dean: When asked “to complete this sentence: My closest living relative in the armed services is…?” “…my brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead.”

Except that his brother never served in the Armed Forces. He was a quiet anti-war activist who worked for McGovern’s presidential campaign then travelled to SE Asia for reasons unclear where he was arrested by Laotian communist troops and held. His remains were found last month in a Laotian rice field where he had joined those whose liberation he opposed.

Now “inaccurately implying a direct family connection to the armed services” isn’t quite up to Sen. Kerry’s antics of throwing his medals over the White House fence — which were really someone else’s medals, his own hanging in his office, but it’s not far behind.

Gov. Dean:
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1022060&t=Opinion&c=22,1022060

Sen. Kerry:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/6/29/24433

The man’s wacko—and, more significantly, he doesn’t seem to have the will or ability to conceal his wackiness. Yet, at the moment, 31 percent of Democrats favor him for their party’s nomination. All the other candidates are in the single digits. It’s as if Ross Perot had run, not as an independent candidate, but as a Democrat, and became the front-runner, and then _remained_ the front runner after accusing Bush 41 of sabotaging his daughter’s wedding.

So, as a friend said to me, what do we do for the next 10 1/2 months? Assiduously follow all the meaningless ups and downs of the Democrats as they immolate themselves on their own madness and W. is easily re-elected? Or ignore the whole farce and pay attention to more important things?

But how can any red-blooded American ignore the excitements of our quadrennial spectacle, no matter how meaningless it may be? It’s in our blood.