Dean's comment is right on! The republican's claim of fulfilling the Founding Fathers intent is an obvious enough charade and needs to be exploited to the hilt. Like Lincoln, progressives need to make their case by constantly referring to the Founding Ideals – thereby limiting exposure of being attacked for unpatriotic sentiments.

Not only should the democrats visibly, vocally and relentlessly align with the Founders but they should point out how the republican sentiments, tactics and policies not only have little to do with the Founders but are, in fact, perfectly analogous to how any number of despotic third world countries are run.
Ken L | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 1:19 pm | #

Madison has been appropriated as the Federalist society as their symbol; I really can't figure out what he did to deserve it. Dr. Dean knows his stuff.
Katherine | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 1:52 pm | #

"Howard Dean: Fighting for The Constitution"
BriVT | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 2:03 pm | #

"Howard Dean: Fighting for OUR Freedom"
Robert Deeble | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 2:40 pm | #

The CallToAction blog says that Dean will be on Fox News today at 4:08 PM.
CA Pol Junkie | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 3:07 pm | #

Speaking of Bush's court nominees,

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/0...ion_w/ 53262.asp

NOMINEE FOR FEDERAL BENCH LINKS HOMOSEXUAL ACTS TO PEDOPHILIA

"The brief by Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominated by President Bush to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, resembles comments about the same Texas sodomy case by Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum...."Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects 'the choice of one's partner' and 'whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia [if the child should credibly claim to be 'willing']," he wrote."
Katherine | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 3:12 pm | #

I'm fine with the opposition to the appeals courts nominees (thanks for the news on Pryor, Katherine, EEK!). But isn't it a little early to go bananas with a fanatical petition over stacking the supreme court when no one has even retired yet? How can anyone petition against something that hasn't happened yet (no one's been nominated).
I KNOW that's what's likely to happen, I'm frankly suprised Rehnquist didn't step down last year, but premature fanaticism isn't gonna buy us squat.

Looking forward to seeing future President Dean in Seattle May 14!
Benjamin von Ullrich | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 4:11 pm | #

But the president has been packing and nominating judges to the various Federal courts around the country.
AH | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 4:32 pm | #

What's premature, Ben? It's a warning that we know what he intends. If you wait until the water is boiling, your frog is already cooked.

And "fanaticism"!? Excuse me, but that's coming from them, not us. There's nothing extreme about resisting threats to the Constitution.
chase | Email | Homepage | 05.02.03 - 4:44 pm | #

Isn't it better to petition against something before it happens than waiting for it to happen and then trying to get the decision reversed?

And the fact that none of the justices has announced his or her retirement... Well, I'd suggest you check out the following URL:

http://www.boston.com/ dailyglobe...me_Court+.shtml

Before the 2000 election, O'Connor was widely known to have been talking about looking forward to retirement, but if and only if Bush won.

(See: http://www.gwbushwatch.com/reuters1.htm)

So Ben, the question becomes not why are we freaking out, but why aren't you.
Scott Shields | Email | Homepage | 05.03.03 - 11:12 am | #