Mr Dean’s aggressive strategy left his rivals weighing whether they should react in kind, but most appeared wary of being drawn too soon into an expensive television campaign that could leave them short of resources in the vital end-of-year sprint to influence the party’s voters.
The New Hampshire commercial, which will also air in Boston, features Mr Dean touting his proposal to repeal President George W. Bush’s tax cuts to pay for healthcare, his credentials as a former governor and his opposition to the US-led war on Iraq.
So Dean is going to increase taxes back to pre-Bush levels, yet he is not doing it to balance the budget? He is just going to blow it on another big government program? That is a moderate, centrist position? I guess he has no credibility when he talks about financial responsibility either.
ALso, every time I hear Dean say he is going to raise taxes, all I can think is “You and what Congress?”
David Perron
I think that a platform based on higher taxes is just destined for glory. I’m dreading that this is the best the donks can come up with.
RW
The same congress that voted through the Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern campaign planks.
mark
Well, this IS the party who nominated Mondale in 1984, touting tax increases as the savior of the day. And they are assuming that mentioning tax increases are going to help them again. Nonsense.
I live in northern Virginia, a bastion of liberalism if there ever was one, and the people here voted down (decisively) a half-penny sales tax increase to pay for road construction. There is seething anger about soaring property tax rate increases, and these democratic morons are in dreamland if they think that they can convince Americans to let them raise their income tax rate levels by a percentage or two (depending on what bracket you’re in) – to go back to the pre-Bush tax cut levels.
Dean
Mark,
If you think northern Virginia is a bastion of liberalism, then you need to get out more. Trust me, it is NOTHING compared to MA, especially inside Rte-128, where people really BELIEVE that higher taxes is good for the nation, because they wouldn’t want to live in a nation where people weren’t made to care for one another.
Yeah, that’s an actual sentiment, including the coercion factor.
Shoot, I remember (MA) people believing, back in ’84, that Mondale was going to beat Reagan, because “Who wouldn’t want honesty [referring to Mondale and taxes] over Reagan’s lies?”
mark
Dean, I live in Alexandria. I know that it is not Massachusetts or Berkeley, but it’s definitely left wing. The entire DC metro area is not exactly friendly to conservatives.
ripper
You got that right about Taxachusetts, Dean. What frosts me is that every time we have a discussion in this state about spending levels, if hysterical politicos aren’t screeching about people “dying in the streets,” some bed-wetting lefty fool from Cambridge, Lexington or Newton (all lily-white limousine liberal enclaves) is certain to write to the Boston Globe and repeat Oliver Wendell Holmes’ fatuous line about taxes being “the price we pay for a civilized society.” If Massachusetts is the acme of a civilized society, I deserve one hell of a refund.
Pauly
I went to school in Mass for 4 years and I was happy to get out of there. Damn Massholes. Except for the nice ones, they are excused. :)
M. Scott Eiland
In fairness to Howie, it’s a pretty good bet that if the country goes insane enough to elect him, the Republican Congress will be a thing of the past as well. The last time I checked, Charlie Rangel was going to be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats took over. That’s a point that I’d be inclined to downplay if I was running the DNC–“Elect us, so that a senile racist fool can be in charge of determining how your tax money is spent!”
Andrew Lazarus
I suppose the Congress that voted for Clinton’s tax package in 1993, andpaid for it.
Boy, what a stupid sacrifice, so many of them lost re-election and we entered into the economic disaster of the Clinton years. Thank goodness we have the 2001 and 2002 tax cuts, restoring high unemployment, record bankruptices, creeping mortgage rate growth, a sideways stock market, and the other markers of an excellent economy.
David Perron
Wow. The mortgage rate, at a record low, rises a bit and Andrew salivates all over himself.
Andrew Lazarus
Yeah! Coz I locked in the low with a perfectly-timed re-fi! Of course, we would expect that banks notice the return of the STRUCTURAL, PERMANENT deficit (permanent, that is, under the Bush tax system). Look for a softening housing market, as it’s the only aspect of the economy to which Bush has yet to apply his reverse Midas Touch.
David Perron
I’m not sure why, Andrew, but I was giving you credit for a few more brain cells than that. So, let me get this straight: you actually believe the President and the economy have something to do with each other? Interesting. Which precise policies did Bush execute that caused the stock market to begin its tumble about nine months prior to his taking office? Has the idiot Bush stumbled across time travel?
John Cole
Groan.
Andrew Lazarus
David, are you trying to tell me that President Bush was lying (again) when he said his tax cuts would materially affect the economy? No, I DON’T think Bush was lying here, although he did forget the minus sign in the equation. You really want to claim that whatever laws the President pushes for, it doesn’t matter to the economy? Talk about lack of brain cells.
Sure, the economy responds to many factors AND THE PRESIDENT’S PROGRAM IS ONE OF THEM (at least if it passes).
David Perron
Hmmm…did he say that the tax cuts would improve things RIGHT NOW? No. Has any substantial portion of the slated tax cuts been engaged before, say, a couple of months ago? No. So, is it absurd to expect that any effects (good or ill) of the tax cuts would be reflected in the economy right now? You bet it is.
If you think that the President can do anything whatever to impact the economy, independent of Congressional support, the brain cell comment continues to apply. This was the point of my comment; pretending my point was something else is rather disingenuous.
Now, if you’re taking Bush’s comments as a promise, I’m going to double up on my brain cell comment. And to be fair, if in fact the economy does pick up, I’m not going to claim it was the tax cuts that did it. I think it’s a given that whatever happens, you’re not going to be able to strongly correlate it with the tax cuts.
Andrew Lazarus
David, Bush promised us wonderful things from the *2001* cuts. Recently he’s been left with the irrefutable but lame-o counterfactual argument that although, for example, his promised number of new jobs did not materialize, it would have been worse otherwise. (As indeed, snigger, it had been under Clinton.)
Now, I completely agree that the President’s impact is conditioned on Congress, but in case you hadn’t noticed, Congress has given Bush pretty much every economic program he requested.
David Perron
Really? Bush promised a specific number of new jobs? Do tell! By when?
Meanwhile, actual lies are spouting out of Howard Dean. But I understand there’s a different standard for Democrats; I’ll just have to learn to live with it.
Andrew Lazarus
David, perhaps you would take up your case with the WH instead of me:
I believe the correct figure was 2MM jobs lost by the end of 2002.
David Perron
Ahhh…so you’re really pissed about Ari Fleischer lying. Still, you’re arguing that a projection was wrong, not about whether someone lied. I’m thinking you’d probably have recognized the difference, had a Democrat done the same thing.
What’s 2MM?
matt
yes, let’s compare the democrats of the 80’s to present day ones. it’s not like they changed at all. have the republicans changed much, too?
Andrew Lazarus
MM=million.
David didn’t bother to note that the White House very much disagrees with his claim that the President’s economic policy doesn’t affect the economy.
This was not a question of lying, David. That was meant as irony, based upon the fact that the WH and I agree, against you, that the commonsense proposition in the previous paragraph is true.
David Perron
I actually don’t care what the White House thinks. I’m a little baffled as to why Andrew thinks he can…what? Accuse a non-person of being a liar? I’m not sure what size handcuffs you’d have to buy to restrain a building.
I’m also not sure what commonsense proposition you’re referring to, but your agreement (or lack thereof) with the White House (who/whatever that is) is pretty worthless to me. Now, if you can come up with some actual, logical arguments supporting your case, please do. Otherwise, you’re wasting my time and yours.
In the meantime, actual lies coming from Howard Dean, and not a peep from Andrew on the subject. Gee, wonder why?
Andrew Lazarus
David, the commonsense proposal is that the President’s economic program actually affects the economy. I think that. The President thought that, when he claimed his legislation was going to improve the economy (it doesn’t seem to have worked). For some reason, probably that the economy isn’t as good under the President you prefer, you have chosen to deny it.
I was going to ignore your statements about Dean, because I literally don’t understand what words like “lie” mean to you virtuous conservatives anymore, but as a taste of the stupidity I have to read from you, I see that Dean’s original statement on Social Security retirement ages is, what, 16 words? And we know 16 words doesn’t count. (Have you ever tried defending Bush in the State of the Union on the aluminum tubes, where he lied? At least under my old-fashioned definition??)