With Enemies Like These…

When Hit and Run's often well-informed commenters attack Dean, I find myself thinking twice about my (rather lukewarm) endorsement. But like Will Saletan, when his fellow Democrats criticize him, I find myself liking him better and better…

Comments

[Charles Hueter]

It's what Dean stands for now that bothers me. I do indeed enjoy hearing people like Kucinich and Gephardt complaining about Dean's lesser support for the welfare state and especially enjoy his decidedly non-PC, but this doesn't offset my problems with his declared platform.

[No Choices]

Bush Vs. Dean?

None of the above (slightly leaning to Dean)

2008: Anyone but Dean

Modern State of Politics my Friends.

[Thorley Winston]

Julian Sanchez wrote:

That's a creative count, Rick. First, you seem to skip counting the gun control position as a positive.

Just so we are all clear, Julian's candidate's position on gun control is part of his "qualified federalism" in which he supports the right of States to enact stricter gun control measures then the federal government while not calling for the repeal of any of the federal measures.

Then you count the accusation that he'd have to cut social spending against him because you think it must be false (I assume you meant "veracity"). But he clearly is a defecit hawk, he apparently did cut welfare spending in Vermont, and (keeping the "compared to what" question in view) we've no good reason to think that Bush would cut social spending.

Just a reminder folks that spending in Vermont nearly tripled under then Governor Howard Dean. Question - where then is the evidence of the cuts in social welfare spending in Vermont? Moreover where is the evidence that he has called for less spending on social welfare programs at the federal level?

Then you dock him a point for not expressing the right rationale for the correct position on trade. And I'm not even sure it IS the wrong rationale... liberals have long argued that a great benefit of trade is to promote peace--"if goods don't cross borders, soldiers will" and all that. I don't know whether that's what Dean intended, but it's not an insane notion.

I asked Julian this question in the last Dean thread and he refused to answer it again - when has Howard Dean ever called for repealing the steel tariffs (which are pretty much the only protectionist stance of the Bush administration)? Since he has not, it is disingenuous

Again I'll repeat for those who are considering the absurd argument that Howard Dean is somehow more acceptable then Bush. Bush has supported tax cuts while Dean supports tax hikes (as he did while governor). Bush supports and has been pushing for Social Security reform (something which has been bottled up in Congress and is more likely with a larger GOP majority in the Senate) while Dean opposes it. Bush has pushed for market-based health care reform including for Medicare while Dean has pushed for socialized medicine. Bush supports tort reform (again bottled up in the Senate) which Dean opposes. Bush supports school choice (again stopped in the Senate by Democrats) and Dean does not (Vermont is about a decade behind the rest of the nation even on charter schools). On regulatory issues Bush has pushed for and gotten some decent changes in some of the more pernicious rules while Dean is pushing for greater levels of federal regulations including supporting Kyoto. Bush has also nominated strict constructionists to the federal bench (filibusters by Democrats) while Dean supports judicial activism (much like the ones in Vermont who decided it was unconstitutional to have local funding of government schools). Moreover Dean is a huge supporter of affirmative action while Bush has at least opposed (but not strongly enough IMNHO) some of its more blatant forms.

Do the math folks, on pretty much every major issue in which libertarians rightfully criticize Bush, Dean is demonstrably just as bad or worse while he has almost none of the libertarian-favorable positions that Bush does.

[Jason Ligon]

Thorley,

"I asked Julian this question in the last Dean thread and he refused to answer it again - when has Howard Dean ever called for repealing the steel tariffs (which are pretty much the only protectionist stance of the Bush administration)?"

To be fair, I think you have to include that atrocity of an agriculture bill and the whole Canadian lumber thing, too. That ag bill caused me to go through the whole flock of possibilities again to see if anyone would be better than Bush. I tend to agree with you at this point, but I was very upset with the protectionism, and the apparent abandonment of school choice, the willingness to re-sign the Comprehensive Ban on Entirely Cosmetic Firearms Features Act, and the failure to advance a SSI reform platform.

At the end of the day, you are right, though. Better to have a weak friend in general ideology than to have a committed foe who might accidentally be forced to do the right thing sometimes.

[Thorley Winston]

Rick Barton wrote:

In a Bush vs Dean consideration, the big talking points for Dean are that he would have a less interventionist foreign policy and that the Republican congress (assuming they are still in the majority) would say "no" to Dean the way they did to Clinton's big government agenda but have failed to do with Bush's. But, what about the "Kyoto Protocol" and other liberty killing international governance accords? Bush said "no" to Kyoto. Would Dean? For that matter; will Bush continue to say "no"?

I?m not sure how wanting to send troops into Liberia where we have no national interest constitutes a ?less interventionist foreign policy.? The only thing Dean seems to make clear on foreign policy is that he is (a) more willing to intervene in nations where we do not have a vital national interest (see eight years of military engagements under Clinton), (b) more reluctant to engage in nations where we arguably have a national security interest, and (c) more willing to put American foreign policy more under the control/influence of nations clearly not favorable to the United States (e.g. Russia, PRC, France, Germany, etc.).

Frankly I don?t consider that an improvement.

Bush at least is constraining his military engagements to areas in which he sees a national security interest (and after the Kay report, I doubt any serious person is going to dispute that Iraq was going to restart their WMD programs when they had an opportunity) and considering that Putin is now rejecting Kyoto it looks like we prevailed there too ? thanks to Bush.

Moreover presidents can do a lot of damage by appointing activists justices and through government regulations controlled by the executive branch. The Bush administration has pushed for a number of more rational reforms while Dean seems to buy into the Kyoto alarmism. He?s also nominated a number of pretty good constructionists to the federal bench. Two more things to consider.

Also with regards to the idea that you ought to elect an objectively bad candidate like Howard Dean in the hopes that a Republican Congress would temper some of his worse policies, frankly I?m no longer satisfied with hoping for gridlock while the Nanny State grows on inertia. We have some serious problems with entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare that have to be dealt with before the baby boom generation retires. Dean has made it clear that he does not support reforming either (and would make the problem worse by expanding socialized medicine and calling for a larger prescription drug program). Bush has at least fought for market-oriented reform in Medicare and has never waivered from supporting letting workers invest a portion of their FICA dollars. This is only going to happen when the Democrats are unable to sustain a filibuster in the Senate either through public pressure (such as a 2004 presidential race that is not as close as the last one with a clear governing mandate) and fewer Democrats in the Senate. The best for dealing with the long-term expansion of the Nanny State is to get entitlement reform and that is not going to happen with a Dean presidency. The best chance is with a governing conservative majority in Congress and a president who supports enacting reforms now and that is Bush.

[Thorley Winston]

Jason Ligon wrote:

To be fair, I think you have to include that atrocity of an agriculture bill and the whole Canadian lumber thing, too. That ag bill caused me to go through the whole flock of possibilities again to see if anyone would be better than Bush. I tend to agree with you at this point, but I was very upset with the protectionism, and the apparent abandonment of school choice, the willingness to re-sign the Comprehensive Ban on Entirely Cosmetic Firearms Features Act, and the failure to advance a SSI reform platform.

I agree with you on the Canadian lumber (and frankly I had forgotten that). I agree the agricultural bill was horrible but I don?t know if I would categorize it as necessarily being a protectionist measure so much as courting the farm vote (Dean BTW also supports agricultural subsidies including dairy compact - a sore spot for my own State of Minnesota).

As far as school choice, I would not give up hope yet. They are still trying to push through something in the Senate and it was only given up on when Democrats controlled the Senate (something Julian ought to be honest about when he tries to falsely categorize these as policies from the ?mono-party regime of George W. Bush?). So was the horrible agricultural bill (IMNHO had Richard Luger and not Tom Larkin chaired the Senate Agricultural Committee it would have been a different story since Luger lead the charge for cutting his own State?s farm subsidies during Freedom to Farm in 1996),

The Comprehensive Ban on Entirely Cosmetic Firearms Features Act (nice name) is also a bad idea and not going any where. I would have preferred Bush spoke against it but I?m not as concerned since it will never go any where (gun control is increasingly becoming a loser issue for the Democrats).

I?d like some more information on SSI reform if you have it. From my perspective, reforming the Old Age Insurance portion of OASDI is the most important thing because that?s where the bulk of the spending and growth are. Did Bush actually oppose reforming SSI or just fail to offer a plan for reforming it?

At the end of the day, you are right, though. Better to have a weak friend in general ideology than to have a committed foe who might accidentally be forced to do the right thing sometimes.

Well to be fair, I don?t think it?s the case that Bush might have to ?accidentally be forced to do the right thing sometimes,? There are a number of cases (Social Security reform being one of them) where has actively pushed for the right thing (even when members of his own party wanted to run away from it in the mid-term elections). I think that?s a pretty good sign he?s serious about it.

[Jason Ligon]

"Well to be fair, I don?t think it?s the case that Bush might have to ?accidentally be forced to do the right thing sometimes,? There are a number of cases (Social Security reform being one of them) where has actively pushed for the right thing (even when members of his own party wanted to run away from it in the mid-term elections). I think that?s a pretty good sign he?s serious about it."

Clarification:

My intent was to convey that Bush would be the weak friend in general ideology, while Dean would be the ideological opponent who might sometimes be forced to do the right thing.

Me not wright goodly these days.

[Rick Barton]

Liberals Complaints Rating Scale
Score sheet: (Assuming voracity of complaints)

"Judy Woodruff tried to embarrass Dean by pointing out that he had criticized "liberals" for opposing the 1996 welfare reform law."
*Good

"The Nation complained that Dean had cut welfare spending in Vermont, supported the death penalty, opposed federal gun control, and criticized Dick Gephardt's "radical revamping of our healthcare system."
*Good
*no score on death penalty(lets not start a fight)
*Bad
Would be a Good but we all know that Dean has his own obnoxious health care plan.

"Dennis Kucinich charged that Dean would have to cut "social spending" because Dean was intent on "balancing the budget" and was "not going to cut the military."
*Bad(Sorry,just can't assume voracity on this one)
*Good
*Bad

"Five days later, in the next debate, Joe Lieberman protested that Dean had "said Israel ought to get out of the West Bank."
*Good

"Dean was forced to admit that he had advised President Clinton to admit China to the World Trade Organization on "national security" grounds"
*Bad (right advise,wrong reason.)

"Kucinich chastised Dean for proposing a health insurance program that fell far short of Kucinich's plan"
*No score (we did this one already, God it's depressing listening to the Dems)

"Kucinich complained that Dean was against pulling out of Iraq immediately."
*Bad

Ok, we have 4 Good and 5 Bad. So, Even by the "Liberals Complaints Rating Scale" The Dean campaign of not worthy of a Julian Sanchez endorsement. Even, a "rather lukewarm" Julian Sanchez endorsement based on strategic considerations.

[Sandy]

For basically similar reasons, I have a similarly lukewarm endorsement of Dean. Mainly my calculus is that while normally I vote for LP when I don't like the two candidates, I'm sufficiently exercized about Bush to actually vote for the other fellow. I did this for the first time against Gore (we'd certainly get somebody Ashcroft-like from Gore, given Tipper). Now Bush has cheesed me off sufficiently that it's any Democrat.

Of the Democrats, Dean seems like the one least offensive while true enough to his liberal roots to give me some libertarian social bones, possibly in the free speech area.

Again, if you want to make the arguments that he's bad on this, that, or the other, the big question is, is there anybody better in the Democrats, and if not, is Bush an improvement?

For me, the answer is no, so I keep coming back to Dean.

Unless it looks like a blowout, in which case I may vote LP to see if the numbers can't get pumped up enough to the point that one of the parties starts paying attention to us again.

That being said, if Jim Moran gets the nomination for congress again, I'm so voting Republican. Probably will anyway on a divided-government theory.

[Thorley Winston]

Actually I think you wrote it correctly I just misread it (my bad).

I agree whole-heartedly with what you are saying, which is why I find myself becoming increasingly sceptical of proported "libertarians" who say they are for Howard Dean. They seem to be embellishing Bush's weak points while ignoring the fact that most of them )particularly the agricutural subsidies, steel tarrifs, and prescription drug benefit) were compromises made with Democrats who think he did not go far enough. Morever they ignore or diminish important issues such as social security, education, and health care reform were Bush is clearly superior then any of the Nine Dwarves, especialy Howard Dean.

It makes sense to oppose Bush when he does something you disagree with but it makes no sense to then reward the candidates who would do the same things and worse while ignoring the importance of issues where Bush is clearly the better candidate.

[Julian Sanchez]

That's a creative count, Rick. First, you seem to skip counting the gun control position as a positive. Then you count the accusation that he'd have to cut social spending against him because you think it must be false (I assume you meant "veracity"). But he clearly is a defecit hawk, he apparently did cut welfare spending in Vermont, and (keeping the "compared to what" question in view) we've no good reason to think that Bush would cut social spending. So I have trouble seeing how this isn't at least a moderate plus, let alone how it magically turns into a minus. Then you dock him a point for not expressing the right rationale for the correct position on trade. And I'm not even sure it IS the wrong rationale... liberals have long argued that a great benefit of trade is to promote peace--"if goods don't cross borders, soldiers will" and all that. I don't know whether that's what Dean intended, but it's not an insane notion.

That leaves two marks in the "minus" column remaining. He doesn't want to cut military spending. At this particular moment in history, I find this hard to hold that against him too much, and Bush certainly isn't going to do it either. Related is Iraq, and relative to Bush, he's more interested in (and more likely to be able to) phase out the American presence and share the responsibility there internationally. Also, much as I opposed the war, I think his position is probably right. Better not to have gone in, but now that we're there, I don't think pulling out immediately is wise or responsible. I'd like to see us out as soon as it seems likely that immediate collapse wouldn't be the outcome... which seems to be his stance well. If you think these last two are wrong, you've still clearly got to prefer them to the Bush position.

Maybe for a variety of personal reasons you still vote for the Libertarian. But if it comes to who you're rooting for between Bush and Dean, this looks like a sweep to me.

[Jason Ligon]

I mostly worry that Dean is a latter day Lieberman (is it too early to be latter day, not sure on the technicalities there), in that, as Charles Hunter pointed out his current platform doesn't synch with the criticisms that have been leveled at him by other dems for past votes.

It used to be you could look at voting records to tell you 'what kind of man this REALLY is', or at least I used to have the impression that you could. Clinton gave us rule by poll with a teaspoon of incremental statism, and ever since, historical votes don't mean very much. Populists ARE statists, so the game to me is to find someone who will on at least some important front draw a line of principle that will only be crossed in dire electoral emergencies (I try to remain realistic).

I guess what I'm saying is that Lieberman used to sound kind of okay to my libertarian ear, too, but then he did a 180, then a 360, then a 540.

[Rick Barton]

Thorley Winston wrote:
"I?m not sure how wanting to send troops into Liberia where we have no national interest constitutes a ?less interventionist foreign policy.?

But, Bush DID send US troops to Liberia!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/08/13/liberia

"Frankly I don?t consider that(a Dean foreign policy) an improvement"

Our largest ongoing Foreign Aid commitment is Israel where our government is financing a brutal occupation.
This is a tripwire to other entanglements or worse as the gang that pushed Bush into the Iraq war
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html is itching for one with Syria or Iran.
Dean just couldn't be much worse here and has said things that sound good.

"and after the Kay report, I doubt any serious person is going to dispute that Iraq was going to restart their WMD programs when they had an opportunity"

Remember when the line was "Saddam has WMD for sure? The administration engaged in wild duplicity to sell that line. After all the lies, I'm dubious about the Kay report but even if all true...well, it's more nuanced then that so I should say; even putting the most damning spin on the Kay report is not a sufficient pretext for this war.

"Considering that Putin is now rejecting Kyoto it looks like we prevailed there too ? thanks to Bush."

That's Good! It should never have been or never be again, even considered.

"I?m no longer satisfied with hoping for gridlock while the Nanny State grows on inertia."

The growth of the state has exploded under Bush because the Republican congress has not stifled his big spending agenda the way they did Clinton's. We must prod them to do so.

(Bush) "has never waivered from supporting letting workers invest a portion of their FICA dollars."

That's a start, at least.

"The best for dealing with the long-term expansion of the Nanny State is to get entitlement reform ...The best chance is with a governing conservative majority in congress..."

Absolutely! If we could elect a lot more like the 27 in the house, who earn the "Taxpayers friend" award from the NTU: ntu.org (all Republicans) and their 9 counterparts in the Senate (again, all Republicans) and/or get more of them to vote that way, we would make good progress toward a freer
America.

"and a president who supports enacting reforms now and that is Bush."

The case for Bush would be more believable if you didn't have to say, for instance: (about Dean, that): (He's) "calling for a LARGER prescription drug program." (then Bush) That's a whole NEW entitlement program! Some conservative leadership! Bush has sold conservatives down the river to many times. Let's not be fooled again.

[digamma]

I guess what I'm saying is that Lieberman used to sound kind of okay to my libertarian ear, too, but then he did a 180, then a 360, then a 540.

I want Lieberman's economic policies, Dean's gun policies, and Kucinich's drug policies.

[Anonymous]

digamma, then what you want is Lieberdeanich!

[Brad S]

No Choices - I agree. Can we all just vote "no" for President in 2004? This would be similar to voting "no" on some proposition for bond funding or a sales tax increase. A "no" vote would mean we don't want to have a President for the next four years. To me, it's preferable to either of the realistic alternatives at this point.

[John Q]

I suspect many people are going to be surprised by Dean as president. He will be a fiscal conservative, of that there is no question. Here, I mean "fiscal conservative" as someone who balances the budget (as opposed to Bush, who is still simply a profligate child of wealth and does not understand frugality).

This means that if Dean wants expensive new programs and wants to maintain the current defense budget, he will be inclined to seek tax increases to pay for it instead of borrowing. This means taxpayers will have the opportunity to speak clearly about what it is they want, something they're unable to do now with Bush. Because tax increases do not stand much chance of getting though Congress anytime soon, I think you'll see a shrinking government.

Many Democrats already know this and, although some are not altogether happy with this, they are still delighted with Dean. This is because he, unlike the cautious congressional Dems in the race, has proven himself willing to strike out hard against Bush, DeLay, etc. on the Iraq invasion, the loss of civil liberties and other issues. The Dem voters are thrilled to see that -- thrilled to see someone throw a rhetorical pie in pie their smug faces! -- and will forgive his conservative economics because of it.

[mdw]

I doubt if people will be any more surprised by Dean as president than they were by Mondale as president.

[Mark A.]

"Lieberdeanich"?

Is that anything like Liebfraumilch (sp?)?

[nm156]

Isn't this just a case of my enemy's enemy, etc.?

[Mark Bahner]

"I want Lieberman's economic policies, Dean's gun policies, and Kucinich's drug policies."

Well, that was *exactly* what you had in Harry Browne, in 1996 and 2000. Except that Harry Browne's economic policies were BETTER than Lieberman's, his gun policies were BETTER than Dean's, and his drug policies were BETTER than Kucinich's.

That is also--barring some unimaginable cataclysm--exactly what you'll have in the Libertarian candidate for President in 2004. I can say that with utmost confidence, *without even knowing* who the Libertarian candidate will be in 2004.

If you truly are a libertarian, the ONLY rational vote is Libertarian. (Or at least a write-in vote of a well-known libertarian...ala Larry Elder, Deroy Murdock, Walter Williams, RON PAUL, or someone like those people...)

[Mark A.]

Bush vs. Dean

Evil that's known versus evil that's unknown.

In these situations, I go with the latter. If you're going to have the evil anyway, might as well get a little novelty to keep it interesting.

🙂

[nm156]

Isn't that the reason d'etre for the LP?

[Mark Bahner]

"Maybe for a variety of personal reasons you still vote for the Libertarian. But if it comes to who you're rooting for between Bush and Dean, this looks like a sweep to me."

You should not only VOTE for the Libertarian, you should advocate, zealously, for the Libertarian.

Suppose there's an election between Hitler, Stalin, and Ron Paul. Do you vote for Hitler or Stalin--***or even suggest that you prefer Hitler or Stalin***--or do you vote for and zealously advocate for Ron Paul?

(Well, given that Hitler or Stalin would shoot you for zealously advocating for Ron Paul, maybe legitimate fear for personal safety would preclude the zealous advocation for Ron Paul...)

The "lesser of two evils" is still evil. Stop using your power for evil, Clark...er, Julian.

[Mark Bahner]

"No Choices" writes, "2004: None of the above (slightly leaning to Dean)"

"2008: Anyone but Dean"

"Modern State of Politics my Friends."

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Read your ballot. Your WHOLE ballot. There will be a Libertarian candidate on there. The choice is obvious. Start supporting liberty. Vote Libertarian.

[Mark Bahner]

"Evil that's known versus evil that's unknown."

"In these situations, I go with the latter. If you're going to have the evil anyway, might as well get a little novelty to keep it interesting."

Again, 1000 times, no! Yes, you are going to ***have*** evil. But that does NOT mean you should ***support*** evil.

That's exactly what you do--you support evil-- if you vote for Dean. Or Bush.

Stop supporting evil. Vote Libertarian. It's the only rational vote for a *real* libertarian.

[Rick Barton]

Julian,
The count was meant to be "creative" but my failure to give Dean a "Good" for the "Nation" gun control complaint was an oversight. Despite the fact that he cut social spending in Vermont, I'd still be shocked if a President Dean actually cut social spending, with out pressure from the Republican congress, ala the Clinton regime.(I did mean "veracity";thank you. sorry about that) And, what about Deans big health care plan? Doesn't that count as "social spending"? (Did you address the "Bad" mark for Deans health care plan?)

I assume you mean (classical) "liberals have long argued that a great benefit of trade is to promote peace" and if that was indeed Dean's rational for the China WTO admission position, then I agree, he should get a "Good". (I was trying to come up with more "Bad"s) BTW, I was too tired last night to do so, but I wanted to add a "Scorers Note" in a subsequent post to the effect that: "No endorsement of the WTO should be inferred from that item since firms should be able to trade independent of any national or international government sanction."

You write that: "I'd like to see us out (of Iraq) as soon as it seems likely that immediate collapse wouldn't be the outcome... which seems to be his stance well."

Umm..."immediate collapse" of WHAT? (as I type this, CNBC just announced four more American deaths in Iraq) Some of Dean's pronouncements have sounded like his "commitment to the region" is rather, more long term. I think the best spin we can put on these comments, is that they were politically motivated as Dean does not want to be perceived as too "dovish".

In a Bush vs Dean consideration, the big talking points for Dean are that he would have a less interventionist foreign policy and that the Republican congress (assuming they are still in the majority) would say "no" to Dean the way they did to Clinton's big government agenda but have failed to do with Bush's. But, what about the "Kyoto Protocol" and other liberty killing international governance accords? Bush said "no" to Kyoto. Would Dean? For that matter; will Bush continue to say "no"?

If I knew that the Republicans would stay in the majority and that Dean would not go along with any of the international governance threats, I would be much more sanguine about the prospects of a "President Dean".

Julian, it seems to me that its way to early in the process to award an endorsement, based on the consideration of a two way race, to Dean, who's positions tend to be so un-libertarian. I agree something has to be done about Bush of course, but what about a more principled challenge in the Republican primaries? It would fail of course but might push Bush in the right direction (hope springs eternal). After which; fortunately we will have a Libertarian presidential candidate to vote for.

[fredH]

Mark: Your spelling is correct. You get an "A" in German.

John Q: An interesting idea about the possibility of that bedrock New England skinflintism manifesting itself in Dean's fiscal policies. It's been my observation that even rich (particularly old money) Yankees know the value of a buck. Maybe Bush's profligate rich kid ways are due to the family's migration to Texas where the vulgar rich do throw their money around and spoil their kids.

[Mark Bahner]

"After which; fortunately we will have a Libertarian presidential candidate to vote for."

There are ALREADY Libertarian candidates to support. Every one of them is better than Howard Dean.

http://www.politics1.com/libt04.htm

How do I know that? They're Libertarians...not stinkin' Democrats.

[Mark Bahner]

Oops!

Guess I actually should have read that webpage before I posted.

There are apparently some real loonies on that webpage. Every party has them. I can virtually guarantee that the Libertarian Party's nominee for President won't be one of the loonies.

[David Tomlin]

There's nothing rational about voting for Larry Elder. Elder is a Zionist fanatic, who labels people "anti-semitic" for showing the slightest disrespect for Ariel Sharon.

[David Tomlin]

I think it's a bad time to have a Dem in the WH. Bush is catching some flak for his Iraq policies, now that his popularity is down enough to make it safe. With a Democrat president, the next war on terror adventure will have solid bipartisan support, and probably little street opposition.

[David Tomlin]

Is Kyoto worth worrying about? I don't see the Senate ratifying it. A Democrat president signing it would just be throwing a bone to his base - an utterly meatless bone.

[David Tomlin]

One more thought.

When Bush was running for president, he promised, or maybe just hinted at, a more restrained foreing policy. I thinkg he used words like "humble".

I didn't believe him then, and I don't believe Dean now.

[Rick Barton]

Good point about the senate having to ratify Kyoto. I worry though, about "executive orders".
Perhaps the constitution could not be circumvented in this way with a treaty;hopefuly.

[Wearing Shannon]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.quality-penis-enlargement-pills.net/
DATE: 12/09/2003 08:22:26
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Murray Ralph]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-MEDICATION.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 12:34:46
I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

[Bachrach Amy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-SAFE.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 12:34:49
A room without books is like a body without a soul.

[Cleary Jackie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-size.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 04:18:38
You do a good work, keep it going

[Geist Morgan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL:
DATE: 01/09/2004 02:30:25
Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.

[Arnold MarieAnge Payet]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 80.53.169.126
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 01:39:28
Misfortune shows those who are not really friends.