[w4rma]

…
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that you seem to break away from liberal Democratic orthodoxy and that’s gun control. This is a brochure in your gubernatorial campaign from the NRA.

“In November we should return a truly pro-gun Governor to office by re-electing Governor Howard Dean.” And again, David Broder’s coverage of your campaign. “Dean bragged that he has ‘an A rating’ from the National Rifle Association... he argued that ‘as Democrats, we ought to say keep the federal laws we have, enforce them, but no new laws.’ Get the gun issue off the table. It cost Al Gore three states—and the presidency.”

Which states did Gore lose because of guns?

GOV. DEAN: I think Montana, Tennessee and West Virginia. There may be more, but those are the ones I would guess, given their patterns with previous elections.

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?

GOV. DEAN: What I would support—I do support closing the gun show loophole, but I would like to see InstaCheck, which is the same system that we have elsewhere, and I think if it takes keeping somebody on duty in law enforcement agencies, that would be fine. Look, let me explain to you why I take the position I do on gun control. In Vermont, in the last 11 years, we’ve had between a high of 25 and a low of five homicides per year. Most of them, the majority, are domestic related, not many of them have firearms and not one of them would be changed if we had gun control. We essentially have no gun control in Vermont. All we have is you can’t bring guns to school.

Now, I don’t believe for a moment that that’s appropriate for New York or Los Angeles or Washington, D.C. But the point I’m trying to make here is why does gun control have to be a national issue? We have some good federal laws. I support keeping them. We should close the gun show loophole with Instacheck and after that why can’t each state make its own laws? Why can’t each state address what they want to do about gun control as a state? Because what we need in Vermont is not the same thing as what you may need in Washington, D.C.

A guy in Tennessee told me, “Look, when you say gun control to me in Tennessee, it sounds like you want to take away the squirrel rifle that my father gave to me. When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.” It’s two different problems. We have national laws. I’m not in favor of repealing them, but I think additional gun control ought be to be done on a state-by-state basis if the state wants it and we ought not to have a one-size-fits-all federal government approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But keep people traveling from state to state very easily.

GOV. DEAN: That’s right. And Virginia is a perfect example of this. New York claimed that a lot of their guns were coming from Virginia, so they had lax laws, so they signed a bill that said you can only buy one gun a month. That’s a Virginia law. It doesn’t apply to other states. It seems to me it addressed the problem in Virginia successfully. Why can’t we do that?

Democrats are getting killed on gun control. Democratic activists who basically are in favor of gun control are glad to see me coming in the West and the South, because they do not want to lose any more national elections on the gun issue.
…
http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_dean2004_archive.html

[Mark Tyson]

Pro-gun my eye. The right to arms is not about hunting and squirrel rifles. He's not as bad as the others who want to keep pushing more bans through but he's no friend to us.

[HBK]

I don't trust him. Anyone that wants to make the issue about hunting is totally missing the point of the 2nd ammendment. Pushing it as a hunting issue is a charade.

[w4rma]

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

[Monkeyleg]

"MR. RUSSERT: Democrats in Congress right now are saying that at gun shows, you can buy a gun on Saturday or Sunday and there is no background check, because many law enforcement agencies are closed. They want to extend that deadline. Would you support that kind of gun control?"

Does Russert have the slightest clue as to what the law actually is, or does he just make up things as he goes along?

[greyhound]

When you say gun control in New York, it sounds like you want to get the Uzis and the illegal handguns off the street.”

Oooh, why I oughta... (using best 1940's movie accent)....

No, what he means is "Since we can't actually do anything to get the illegal handguns or Uzis (when was the last time criminals used friggin Uzis:confused: ?) off the street, we'll take 'em away from the law abiding folk so we can say we're doing something about crime".

Now I know he may seem pro-gun to those in pro-gun states, but I can tell you that to those of us in communist hell, he sure doesn't seem too pro gun.

At the same time, we here in MD get what we vote for - if we keep electing the same leftist career politicians to Annapolis things are never gonna change. We did get a Republican elected Governor (beat a Kennedy no less!), but we need all the help we can get, so for me and mine Dean is definately not pro gun when he says"Let the states decide".

[MicroBalrog]

w4rma - welcome to THR.

I'd choose Dean over Bush at a heartbeat.

The gun show stuff is merely anti noises.

[w4rma]

Hey, Shatoga/MicroBalrog! Thanks for the welcome! :)

[MicroBalrog]

I'm not Shatoga. I like the quote, though.:)

PM for you, man.;)

[chaim]

I wouldn't say he is "pro-gun", just not as anti-gun as most politicians. Even Bush is for the "assult-weapon" ban being extended. He really sounds, "mildly" anti despite the realization that gun control wouldn't have stopped one of VT's murders. He might be better on this issue than the other Dems and than Bush but he still isn't getting my vote.

[fallingblock]

I suspect he is in favor of much more gun control than he could sell in Vermont:scrutiny:

And I wouldn't vote for him based on that:)

[MicroBalrog]

He might be better on this issue than the other Dems and than Bush but he still isn't getting my vote.

Then who would you vote for?

[greyhound]

Then who would you vote for?

Remember that gun control is only one issue. Given, he is not as anti-gun as the other Democratic candidates, but on ALL other issues he is a typical far-leftist nanny-stater.

IMHO, other than stepping up to the plate after 9/11, Bush is the most liberal Republican Prez we've ever had. And, instead of being overly anti-gun (except for the AWB, where he actually stated his position) he seems to want to pull the politician move and stay neutral. I haven't heard Bush yet blathering about hunting rifles.

And I'll hold my nose and vote for him; President Dean overall would be much worse.

[SIGarmed]

I wouldn't consider him pro-gun. Being from Vermont doesn't cut it. How can you claim there is a "gun show loophole" and be pro-gun? He's trying to play the part. People like him payed attention to how Gore screwed himself by siding with the gun grabbers. He's just trying to distance himself enough to get a pass.

[w4rma]

…
Of course last week's Dean hype managed to do both at once. It knocked him down by setting him up, in a way. No longer was the question "Is he too liberal to be electable?" Reporters belatedly scoured his record and discovered a fiscal conservative who put balanced budgets before social spending in Vermont, who opposes federal gun control legislation and backs the death penalty for certain crimes. Now the make-or-break question about Dean became: "Will liberals desert him when they figure out that he's actually a moderate?" Then came other pre-fab worries about the problems of sudden success: Had Dean peaked too soon? Could his fledgling campaign handle the attention? And OK, maybe he was moderate enough to be electable, but was he likable enough? Was his reputation for "straight talk" just a euphemism for brusque and arrogant?

Hanging out with the local Dean folks was my way of getting out of what his campaign dismisses as "the media echo chamber," and trying to figure out what's really going on. I've lived here almost 20 years. I know the San Francisco Dean phenomenon is not a microcosm of what it will take to get him elected; I saw the way the GOP smeared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and pushed her to the center some -- by calling her a "San Francisco Democrat" before she even took over the leadership post. I know we're DLC founder Al From's worst nightmare. But I also saw some intriguing things following Dean around San Francisco at the end of July, and talking to his supporters the week after he'd gone. The Bay Area Dean machine is attracting more than the usual suspects: It's neither the Greens nor the City Hall regulars; it's neither the moneyed elite nor the rabble; it's not just the young and the hip; it's not ponytailed '60s holdovers -- it's all of them, and then some. I met Republicans and Ross Perot voters who were supporting the antiwar candidate who promises to repeal Bush's tax cuts. And I met Dean himself, and watched two speeches. You can't get his charisma without seeing him in person.
…
The UFCW crowd seemed a lot like Donna Brazile: They were ready to love everybody. Only the leftier candidates -- Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, Gephardt and Dean -- showed up; Sharpton couldn't make it, but Kerry appeared by satellite, as befits his attempt to be a more centrist liberal. All of them got big cheers. These were the folks Al From tried to warn us about. But if Dean hadn't been red-baited by the DLC, you might well hear him as the moderate in the race. He criticized Kucinich and Moseley Braun's call for single-payer universal healthcare, the left's politically impossible dream, as well as Gephardt's expensive public-private hybrid. Kerry vied with Dean for the moderate mantle with his relatively modest healthcare plan, but overall Dean came off as the fiscal conservative in the bunch. Amazingly, he got the biggest hand from this union audience when he called George Bush a "borrow and spend, credit-card Republican" and promised to erase the deficit if he's elected.
…
One thing I don't worry about is that his lefty base doesn't know what he stands for, and will bolt when they realize he's a moderate. His base knows exactly how moderate he is. I interviewed dozens of his liberal devotees, and they all know the not-so-liberal aspects of his record. Someone at the Meetup lamented his staunch pro-Israel stance; several people I met said they differed with him on the death penalty. Brilliant says he has issues with Dean on all of his more conservative stands. "But he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Dean asks the fundamentally sound questions and does not have an ideological answer that trumps reason, as Bush does."
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/

[PeteyPete]

He's pro-gun like Jerry Falwell is pro-beastiality. Anyone who supports the AW-Ban (GW Included) is NOT pro-gun...

go back to DU "disrupter":neener:

[MicroBalrog]

Dean Opposes the AWB.

And now, Pete, get back on the High Road, please.:neener:

[PeteyPete]

Howard Dean on NPR:
I support, for the whole country, the assault weapon ban and I hope the president keeps his word and makes -- sees to it that it's reauthorized. I support the background checks. I support background checks for... people who buy guns at gun shows using the same mechanisms that we use for the other background checks.
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/dean_trans.html

Pro-Gun my culo ....:rolleyes:

[MicroBalrog]

Anti noises.:D

[HBK]

Dean flat out stated that he is for the AWB. You say anti noises, but I guess that means he lies?

[Telperion]

He is also in favor of denying private sale of firearms (closing the "gun-show loopshole"). He is opposed to the gun-lawsuit immunity bill. In other words, his position is no different than any other Democratic presidential hopeful.

This nonsense about a state-by-state approach is just a cop-out. The 2A is not negotiable on a state-by-state basis. Sorry, but a vote for Dean is not a vote for RKBA. Neither really is a vote for Bush, but if the AWB sunsets, at least one can appreciate that he had a silent hand in the matter.

[Preacherman]

A friendly warning to our members... attacks on other members WILL get this thread locked, and WILL earn you some serious attention from the moderators. Attacking an argument (with a reasoned argument of your own) is fine: attacking the arguer is never acceptable on the High Road.

[w4rma]

…
I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law.
http://www.deanforutah.com/guncontrol.html

[fallingblock]

"honest" about supporting oppressive Federal laws already on the books, and weaseling about allowing the states to do whatever they want.:eek:

Say, that concept would have done wonders for the cause of Civil Rights;)

Howard Dean is just another enemy of the Second Amendment:D

[Mark Tyson]

So he's honest about his anti gun positionn? Good. I will be just as honest with my anti Dean position. I wish there was a real pro-gun liberal candidate out there, but Dean is not the one. I agree with Dean on some social things; but I cant forgive him for these remarks. He is not pro gun. He is anti gun. And by the way, we all know already that Bush supports the AWB. It's been discussed extensively.

The right to arms is not about hunting any more than freedom of the press is about printing Hallmark cards.

[longeyes]

So, he believes that in a state with near-zero violent crime that
law-abiding citizens CAN have guns to protect themselves but in L.A.,
New York, or D.C., where the streets are dangerous, that law-abiding
citizens should NOT have what they need to protect themselves. Uh, yeah,
that makes tons of sense.

Anytime I hear someone mention duckhunting blunderbusses I reach for my
revolver.

Mr. Dean needs to re-read the Bill of Rights.

[w4rma]

So...we vote for someone who is....."honest" about supporting oppressive Federal laws already on the books...
Or you vote for someone who has been either lying or doubletalking about supporting those same Federal laws already on the books...
Or you vote 3rd party, or you stay home.

IMHO, it's better to vote for the guy who is trying to be honest, has a good shot of winning the election and who is trying to explain his position rather than obscure it.

Also, note that by supporting Gov. Dean, you would be helping to create more sympathy within the Democratic Party for pro-gun policy.


"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson

"The preeminence of representative government {is maintained} by showing that its foundations are laid in reason, in right, and in general good." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

"Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, if recovered by mere force or accident, it becomes with an unprepared people a tyranny still of the many, the few, or the one." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1815.

[chaim]

Then who would you vote for?

Well, again, I'm not happy with any of them on guns, but I'll get to your answer in a moment.

I think greyhound said it very well:

Remember that gun control is only one issue. Given, he is not as anti-gun as the other Democratic candidates, but on ALL other issues he is a typical far-leftist nanny-stater.

Dean is far to liberal for my tastes. Yes on some issues he is a moderate (he is a fiscal conservative, which as a member of the Concord Coalition I like) but he is for gay marriage, for widespread abortion, in addition to being to anti-gun (look at the attitude behind the supposed "moderate" stance on guns- virtually unlimited gun ownership in VT or WY is ok, but there should be maybe a virtual ban in DC and LA:what: ).


On guns no one is good.

Many of the Dems are more far out than Dean. Bush is for the AWB. Both parties have a bad history on guns (the ban on full-autos was under Reagan, the ban on imports of "assult weapons" was under Bush the first, for two examples).

But as greyhound said, there are other issues other than guns.

The only candidate likely to be decent on guns will be the Libertarian but being a conservative Democrat I'm sure there will be other important issues where I'm going to be even more displeased with him/her.

As a conservative Democrat I'm unhappy with the Libertarians, and the Democrats on several issues: many seem to want unlimited abortions and want gay marriages. I'm unhappy with the Democrats on a few others: many would have our taxes too high, they don't like to cut any existing program, they are against faith-based initiatives (often these are the most effective programs), they often want too many regulations on business, many tend to be bad on the military, they don't seem to want any restrictions on/reform of welfare, they are often notoriously bad on guns.

As a conservative Democrat I'm not happy with the Libertarians and Republicans on many issues: they seem to want to gut even useful, needed and efficient gov't programs (like Social Security), they would drop taxes too far to levels that could not match a minimum of societal needs, they would favor too few regulations on businesses. I'm not happy with the Republicans alone on several issues as well: most seem to want to ban abortions altogether, they'd bring on many policies that would be bad for members of minority religions like me, they tend to have the wrong military priorities (big programs instead of more, better trained, people), they like to spend too much on their own pet projects, they seem to want to do away altogether with welfare.

So if you can find me a candidate who is for very few (or no) gun controls, is for keeping abortion legal, but heavily regulated, wants to preserve Social Security, is willing to keep some basic level of social welfare for the less fortunate (but insure through time limits and education that it can't be perminant), wishes to preserve family values and the family unit as it should be, will maintain spending and taxes at levels that will address basic societal needs but without going overboard (BALANCED BUDGET, probably my #1 issue, along with family values), will support faith-based initiatives but will not let religion encroach upon government, he/she must be pro-business while still being for a minimum of needed regulations (product safety, some minimum of environmental concerns, anti-trust), etc. I'm all ears. Until then, we pick and choose who comes closest to our views on a variety of issues and then we have to decide overall, which are most important and who is the least bad compromise. Many people are like me who have core issues that none of the candidates fit. All of them are bad on at least one of my core issues. So who is best, or least bad, on the largest number of them?

I will probably be voting for Lieberman in the primaries. He does not have a great record on guns, but it isn't any worse than Bush's and he is better on other issues than, say, Dean. He has finally come back to his conservative Democrat roots, informed by his religious, Torah true, values. He came out strongly against the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy. He's come out against Dean's VT law on gay marriage. He has supported several restrictions on abortion (while supporting keeping it available). He is a hawk on military issues (and very good on personnel and military quality of life issues). He is one of the only Democrats in either the House or Senate who supported Bush's faith-based initiatives.

Anyway, I don't come here to get into these kinds of discussions generally. I occasionally post on them, but I prefer to stick with gun issues, so I probably won't elaborate anymore, or debate anyone here. I'm on a gun board to discuss guns, not abortion, welfare, taxes, etc.

[0007]

Anyone who expects an office seeker from either party to give their actual position on anything contrivercial is living in la-la land. This is most especially true of democrats and their gun confication/antiself-defense policies.

And not wishing to start a flame war of any kind, but I've got to say that I was only sixteen when I realized that the ponzi-scheme known as "social security" was just that. I was also trying to think of any fed or state gov program in my memory that has/had done anything that couldn't have been better done at a lower cost by private businesses...

As for voting, these days I'm almost glad to be out of the country so I have to use an absentee ballot. That way I don't have to deal with the GiGo that passes for political campaigns these days. Sorry for the rant, it's a slow day at work.

[tyme]

(w4rma) Or you vote 3rd party, or you stay home.
Almost always the same thing.

[w4rma]

:confused: Widespread abortion? *Noone* is for widespread abortion. It is my understanding that Dean wants to do whatever he can to lower the demand for abortions without creating a demand for back-alley/coathanger abortions.

Dean is *not* for gay marriage.
…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

[Partisan Ranger]

It's hard to believe that Russert could go into an interview with such a lack of info. He relies on DEMOCRATS (sic) to tell him about gun shows?

You can buy a gun on Sat/Sun at a show without a background check? HUH? Oh, I get it, the leftists are referring to the private sales that occur at gun shows. Those sales are 100% legit, friend. I know you guys are trying to regulate private gun sales with this 'close the gun show loophole' nonsense. And if you ever are able to regulate those private sales at shows, regulating all other private transactions won't be far behind.

[Futo Inu]

Howard Dean has a brain on this issue and others (my god, he's actually for the 10th amendment, something no repub in memory has mentioned). He is by far the best candidate among the Dems, and arguably a better friend to gun owners than "W". I'm going to switch to Dem in order to vote for Dean in the primaries then back to independent - just in case shrub doesn't win, I'd rather see a pro-gun guy in the White house.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Dean supports the AWB. He is also in favor of denying private sale of firearms (closing the "gun-show loopshole"). He is opposed to the gun-lawsuit immunity bill. In other words, his position is no different than any other Democratic presidential hopeful.

It is also no different from President Bush's position on both gunshows and the AWB. I have not seen Dean comment on the immunity issues and it isn't on his website, do you have a source for that?

I like Dean. If a Democrat is going to run for President, I sure hope it is him; but as long as the Democrats have destruction of the Second Amendment enshrined as part of their party platform, they aren't going to get too far by making vaguely pro-gun noises.

I think that they are just hoping to lull the less politically active gun owners who may be sympathetic to the Dems on other issues from voting their guns. They are looking at gaining some support from the duck/deer hunter crowd.

[HBK]

"Dean, according to the Cato institute, led one of the highest taxing and spending states, backs partial birth abortion, and thinks the whole issue of skull sucking infanticide is phony."-Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center

The guy is just not trustworthy. All the anger in his speeches makes him seem INTENTIONALLY unpolished, like that's how he's trying to get over. I think his stance on guns will change if he thinks he can get away with it,especially since he is trying to paint the gun issue as a "hunting rifle" issue. I'll vote for Bush or for a Libertarian before I'd vote for Dean. Actually, I would not vote for him if he was the only candidate.

[w4rma]

Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
…
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030728.html

The fiscal conservative argument on Dean is that Vermont has not accumulated budget deficits (unlike, say, President Bush) during his time in office. {Indeed, Vermont went from a $70 million deficit to a $10 million surplus.} Having missed the point, Bozell goes one better by arguing: "Dean, according to the Cato Institute, led one of the nation's highest taxing and spending states."

Bozell doesn't bore us with a reference, but Cato's most comprehensive study on the topic are its Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors. [The 2000 report is available as a PDF file here (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa391.pdf), and the 2002 report here (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa454.pdf).]

Why not start with 2000, which covered both Governors Dean and Bush? Where did Dean rank? His overall fiscal policy grade was 53, placing him 34th. (ahead of 7 Republican governors.) On spending, Dean was ranked 10th (for frugality,) and Bush 7th. For "Average Annual Change in Real per Capita Tax Revenue through 1998" Dean was listed fourth under the heading "Best Revenue Restraint." For "Average Annual Change in Tax Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 1998" Dean was (again) ranked fourth for "Best Revenue Restraint." Dean does feature as a "top 10 tax hikers" Bozell might counter. Indeed. But what was his "Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as a Percentage of Prior Year's Spending?" 1.88%. (In fourth place, he is beaten by 2 Republican governors.) [Dean's tax increases came from higher corporate income taxes, personal income tax went down --according to Cato-- under Dean.] Cato's comments on Dean?

In some ways he is. {Vermont’s most fiscally conservative governor in decades.} In his first three terms as governor (Vermont still has two year terms), state spending rose by less than personal income growth. In 1999 he sought and won support for an across-the-board income tax cut to make the state more economically competitive.
…
Amazingly, in its 2002 report the Cato institute simply repeated much of what it had said in 2000, but came to a very different conclusion. Dean went from being in many ways a fiscal conservative to exhibiting "so-called fiscal conservatism." {In case we couldn't have guessed what brought about this change of heart, Cato points out "Dean is said to be a potential Democratic presidential nominee." You don't say!}

But what does Cato's data show? For the period 1991-2000, real per capita spending increased by 32% in Vermont (30th) -- compared to 47% in Texas (11th.)

On spending, Dean went from a ranking of 10th to 8th (again, this is frugality in spending) and from a grade of C to B. Did Dean make the top 5 list for "Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income, 2000–2002." Yep. 4th again. (-4.7%.) [Four of the five governors with the worst spending restraint are Republicans. Three of the five with the best spending restraint are Democrats.] Did Dean make the top 5 list for "best revenue restraint" in Average Annual Change in Real per Capita General Fund Revenue, 2000–2002? Yep. {Were 4 of the 5 governors with the worst revenue restraints Republicans? Yep. The fifth was Independent Jesse Ventura.} To be fair, Dean is listed again as a top tax hikers, although again this comes from a whopping 1.9% for proposed and enacted tax increases.
…
http://www.sadlyno.com/article.php?story=20030806084500906
http://deandefense.org/archives/000611.html

[HBK]

I don't suppose it would have anything to do with Texas being a bigger state than Vermont? Vermont would be a county in Texas.

[HBK]

Where does Dean stand on Defense?

[Geech]

How is Dean being honest on his gun position? He trys to paint a moderate, hunter-friendly image, but I haven't seen any evidence to back that up. He wants to pass more federal gun laws despite his claims to the contrary, and he's all too willing to allow states to batter the right as they see fit.

[Partisan Ranger]

Any time a pol says 'I'm not interested in hunters' shotguns/rifles,' grab your firearms, friends. Anyone who thinks the RKBA is about hunting deer or rabbits is NOT a friend of freedom.

[w4rma]

…
Dean also wins accolades for his handling of fiscal policy. "He is a very frugal man," says A. Wayne Roberts, president of Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, who worked in the Reagan White House in the '80s. "There is no way in heck he would tolerate a deficit." In fact, Dean resisted pleas from more liberal Democratic legislators to hike spending while pushing through two income tax cuts, paying down the state's debt, and funding the state's "rainy day" reserves. As a result, "we are now one of the few states that is in good shape financially," says Jim Douglas, Dean's Republican successor as governor. In fact, Vermont closed the books on its 2003 fiscal year with a $10.4 million surplus, even as California, Massachusetts, and many other states battle huge deficits.
…
Indeed, virtually everyone who has worked with Dean believes he would be a demon at reducing the federal deficit. While balancing the budget and keeping defense expenditures intact, that would leave precious little room for new liberal programs. What it more likely would leave are a lot of dashed expectations among the crowd that so fervently wants the doctor to be in.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

This article, referenced above, is on Bush as president, not as governor:
Cato: The Mother of All Big Spenders: Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton
…
http://www.cato.org/research/articl...ven-030728.html

IMHO, Dean is trying to explain his position on gun regulations as well as he can.

[Geech]

He's being somewhat honest about what regulations he supports, but he's not gun friendly at all and there are still all those federal laws he wants passed when he claims that's not what he wants.

[w4rma]

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

[Geech]

He wants to pass another AWB, too, don't forget that. It's not a renewal coming up in 2004, the ban expires and another has to be passed. Dean is for passing another AWB.

[Futo Inu]

OK, he's not pro-gun. He's the perenial Democratic lesser-of-many-evils choice, I should have said.

[w4rma]

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howa...Gun_Control.htm

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/0412...ion_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

[MicroBalrog]

close the gun show loophole using Insta-check

There's no gun show loophole....

then again, this is the same as the Bush position, and the AWB will die anyway.:D

[Schuey2002]

Micro, you've just GOTTA' move over here... :neener:

[Geech]

I acknowledged that, w4rma, my point is that his claims to want to keep the federal government out of gun control are baloney. He's got two federal laws right there he wants to pass and we're over a year from election.

Also, my posts had nothing to do with Bush's stance. I do not like Bush.

[w4rma]

…
The gun show loophole refers to the ability of unlicensed sellers at gun shows to sell firearms without conducting the background checks that licensed gun dealers are required to make under the Brady Law. Thirty-two states have failed to close this gun show loophole, allowing violent criminals and other prohibited individuals to obtain weapons that jeopardize the safety of the public and of law enforcement. The passage of S. 890 will resolve this defect in the law.
…
http://www.napo.org/napo6.htm

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the United States that serves to advance the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and education.

Founded in 1978, NAPO is now the strongest unified voice supporting law enforcement officers in the United States. NAPO represents more than 2,000 police unions and associations, 230,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 11,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.
http://www.napo.org/

[MicroBalrog]

While this is not a very "official" source, it explains the facts about the subject in a very simple form.

http://www.flashbunny.org/content/loophole.html

[w4rma]

… {Gov. Dean} claims to want to keep the federal government out of gun control …No, that's not what he says. IMHO, he's trying to be as straightfoward as he can. He says he doesn't want to add any more federal laws (except the closing of that loophole). And he doesn't want to remove any of the federal laws currently on the books. He says that is as far as he is willing to go (in both directions).

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howa...Gun_Control.htm

Thank you, MicroBalrog. I've watched that presentation, before. Its a very good explanation.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/loophole.html

[fallingblock]

Why would anyone who values the Second Amendment vote for him?

His party is institutionally anti-gun. (If you believe that voting for Dean will alter the DNC's position on gun control, then you are dreaming:rolleyes: )

Bush so far has put some very pro-gun people in useful positions...witness Armitage and Boucher at the U.S. IANSA circus, for example.

I would not vote for Dean based on his equivocation concerning the Second Amendment. Many Federal laws are abominations where the Second is concerned, and to pledge to 'leave them in place' is a nothing achievement. The pro-firearm states can be held as is...we need to be on the offensive at the Federal level. Dean is of no use for gun-owners:) .

As long as Dubya wins, that is:D

[MicroBalrog]

Lookie here, there's quite a few democrats here, me, Tyson, Chaim, etc. etc. But nobody here supports "closing the gun show loophole", as that would be nothing less than backdoor gun registration.

However, I strongly suspect that Dean's support of that, just like Shrub's, is simply "anti-noises", just like Arnold's support of gun control.:) I mean, the Terminator said he likes gun control, and most here like him. Double standard?

Do you really expect to see a Presidential candidate that will push for the repeal of even the most ridiculous Federal gun laws? But one that will not push for any extra controls will let our guys to get on the offensive in Congress.