No on Howard Dean
Posted by aogWednesday, 01 October 2003 at 21:14 TrackBack Ping URL

It’s amazing how two people can read the same text and come to radically different conclusions. I read Oliver Willis’ post on why he support Howard Dean and came away convinced I wouldn’t ever vote for the guy.

216 years ago this September, our founders laid out their vision and purpose for America in the Preamble to our Constitution. But at every turn, the Bush Administration has turned our Constitution on its head.

When? I’d be interested in hearing about a single instance where a law passed during the Bush administration has been overturned. The only things I think that Bush has done that are unConstitutional are the warp and weft of the Democratic Party platform (like welfare, or farm subsidies).

The Constitution seeks to form a perfect union-but this administration has divided us by race, gender, income, religion, and sexual orientation.

No, that would be the Democrats, who have an obsessive fetish with those features. The Republican Party has been much improved over the last few decades while the Democratic Party has retreated into tribalism. It was Clinton, after all, who thought a cabinet that “looked like America” should consist of high priced lawyers in various decorator colors. It is the Democratic Party that supports the laws that require businesses and governments to classify and record citizens by race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

The Constitution seeks to establish Justice-but this administration has appointed radical ideologues to the courts.

One party’s commonsense is the other party’s radical ideology. I haven’t seen any radical ideologs, just jurist who to a large extent believe that the Constitution means what it says, not what the current fashion dictates.

The Constitution seeks to insure Domestic tranquility-but this administration has capitalized on domestic fears of terrorism for political gain.

Yeah, there’s no real reason to have any domestic fear of terrorism. That’s all a Bush plot.

The Constitution seeks to provide for the Common Defense-but this administration has underfunded homeland security and done nothing to protect our ports and harbors.

Underfunded homeland security? The things a massive boondoggle. We’d probably be safer with zero funding for it. I’ve argued all along that we didn’t need any such things, but instead needed the President and Congress to do the heavy lifting of actually fixing our existing law enforcement organizations. I certainly fault Bush on this but Dean’s plan of pouring money into the black hole of a new bureauocracy seems even worse.

The Constitution seeks to promote the general welfare-but this administration has cut funding for child care and education.

Yes, by clearly delimited and limited means. For someone who in this speech claims to revere the Constitution he doesn’t seem to have spent much time actually reading it. Neither of those two activities are proper functions of the federal government and we’d all be better off if the feds stop funding them at all.

The Constitution seeks secure the blessings of liberty for posterity-but this administration has shackled our children and grand children with the largest deficit in the history of our nation through reckless tax cuts.

No, through massive spending. The tax cuts are leafs in the wind compared to the crushing debt of Social Security, Medicare and the welfare state. Let’s hear Dean talk about that.

Americans who today aren’t even old enough to vote will be the ones who will bear the full cost.

Fine. Stop spending their money. Oh, you mean you just want their parents to fork out now and the children later as well.

The ideal of democracy is more powerful than money; yet today our democracy is threatened by a flood of special interest money pouring into our nation’s capital.

Yes, because those special interests can buy legislation, a situation brought about by the overgrowth of the federal government. For instance, get rid of farm subsidies and you’d see the end of the agricultural special interest money.

Our founders understood that threat. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day seize political power.

That fear has been realized with the Bush administration.

No, it looks like the Bush Administration has sold out to the non-economic power that spends other people’s money. A tradition you seem ready to embrace.

The only difference here is that Bush as least is willing to confront our enemies overseas, whereas Dean would rather pay the Danegeld. I’m not sure if I’ll vote for Bush, but if I don’t it will be for reasons that apply even more strongly to Dean.