|
"using existing resources" and without offering overtime hours to employees. |
|
I see Homeland Security as one issue that Dean could have the hardest time overcoming. An attack on this policy will surely be misconstrued by Republicans. In my opinion, Dean will have to stick closely to the point that this is an important security increase that deserves extra funding. |
|
Once again misplaced scrutiny. Exempting any Country is as wrong-minded as targeting others. It makes doing business in the US much more difficult and immigrating 'Evil Doers' a tad more inconvenient. Who is fooled by this garbage, certainly not the people that mean to do us harm. I think an arguing point can be made that the money it will take to do these face-to -face interviews may be better spent reinstating slashed funds for first responders. |
|
To follow up with a back-of-the-envelope economic impact calculation: |
|
Who cares if anything Dean does is "misconstrued by Republicans"? They will misconstrue it for no other reason than to make Dean look bad. We can't operate from a position of worrying about how the Republicans will misconstrue and misrepresent us. |
|
I'm of the opinion that the sleeper issue for Dean is loan forgiveness for college students. It can be done at random. But take a billion from the tax cuts he plans to restore and simply forgive or pay off those debts. That would result in a lot of happy voters. The other thing I'm worried about here is what will it matter if the House and Senate remain in GOP hands? Does he have a set of principles the entirety of the dem party can run on? |
|
A good find. I don't know if this is a good issue by itself, but in my opinion it is a GREAT example of what he's talking about when he discusses the issue of Bush not funding security - and he could use it to reinforce his point. |
|
Chris wrote: "Who cares if anything Dean does is "misconstrued by Republicans"? They will misconstrue it for no other reason than to make Dean look bad. We can't operate from a position of worrying about how the Republicans will misconstrue and misrepresent us." |
|
Meanwhile: "[An OMB official] told Congress earlier this year that the Bush administration wants to expand contracts going to veteran-owned businesses and 'is working hard to place the interests of small and new entrants to the procurement system at the forefront of our policy.' |
|
It seems to me the Republicans treatment of veterans could be a nice talking point. The Republicans just keep sending them off to war for extended periods ( Like the guys who thought they were coming home from Iraq, but aren't, 150,000-200,000 troops may be there for years) and at the same time they leave them out of the tax cut. (most noncoms in army make less than $26,000, were not included in $400 taxcredit per child. That may have just been corrected today) Veterans benefits get cut so people, who more than likely, don't have a son or daughter in the service can have a tax cut. Patience points out veterans are getting fewer govt contracts under Bush adm. At time when we are asking the most of people in the service, the Republicans treat them with the least respect. Another one of those say one thing and do another the Republicans are so good at. |
|
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough in my original post that I think (and Dean could certainly say) that it's absolutely reasonable and perhaps even sensible to have more stringent interview requirements, but we've got to commit the resources to do it. Homeland security on the cheap is not going to do it. |
|
On the street I hear a lot of people asking where Dean stands on immigration. Can't find anything on this on the official Dean campaign site. Anyone have any links or info on this? |
|
I recall something about immigration came up in the Iowa forum, but I can't recall what he said, and unfortunately there's no transcript out there. |
|
Thanks for the math Gabriel. |