Does the focus on states' rights bother anyone else? I think that's not the best way to handle things a lot of the time- and it seems like an easy way out on some issues. And the stance he seems to be taking on Israel really bothers me. Is he to the right of Bush?
I'm cool with the states' rights. Vermonters are quite into local control, and although states' rights have been used for some bad causes, it's important to remember that it can go either way-- civil unions for example. I lived in VT through almost his entire gov-ship, and I'm certain his stance is sincere.
To me, it's a way to have issues both ways, and to have more local control. It seems like more people are likely to get what they want this way, and that's good in principle (can go either way in practice but that's not a very good reason to oppose it). I'm not saying that Democrats should make this a huge issue, just that I'm fine with Dean's position. I think it will benefit the Dems, especially gun-wise. We aren't likely to get any more federal gun measures passed on it anyway, so we're not really giving up much by making it a non-issue in the presidential race.
The states rights thing doesn't bother me so much. His Israel stance on the other hand bothers me a lot. It's the one thing holding me back from being a very very active supporter. I hope Dean can be influenced into toning down his pro-Israel rhetoric and becoming more moderate.
---
Our ally Israel shouldn't be forced to negotiate while under terrorist attack. The Saudi Arabians, Dr. Dean said, are "funding Hamas" and "teaching small children to hate."
---
I ask Dean this - who is funding Israeli state sponsored terrorism? I'm afraid he might have a real blind spot on this issue :-(
This Israel thing worries me a lot.
Does not negotiating include a right to keep building new settlements? Because that's not cool--and right as Dean is on Iraq, the war will be over by the election, and Israeli/Palestinian conflict will have gone nowhere.
I think his states' rights position is great, actually. He can thrown that right back in Republicans' faces and expose their version of "states' rights" for the wink-nod hypocrisy it is. This will play VERY well on the West Coast - CA is ticked off over Ashcroft trying to override our medical marijuana law, and OR is ticked off over Ashcroft trying to override their assisted suicide law. (Both of these laws were enacted through direct voter approval, so the Bushies can't blame the legislatures.) And I bet there's lots of other issues in other states he can defuse with this position.
If it seems like "an easy way out" - what, you want to do things the hard way all the time? 
Don't confuse 'easy way out' with 'brilliant tactical solution'!
I agree that Dean should adopt a more measured position on Israel-Palestine. While Israeli settlements in Palestine account for less than 5% of Palestine's territory, that doesn't make the building of settlements in conceded territory any more acceptable.
I like what I consider to be the soft stances on the soft issues though.
While gun control may be a driving issue for some -- particularly people who've lost someone due to a gun being where a gun shouldn't have been, or for gun nuts (and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense at all 
), to most people I think Dean's position probably comes across as very reasonable. Gun accidents and crime are very much local problems with local solutions.
As for civil unions, his wording is very clear and pragmatic and speaks directly to an audience -- (sic)"I don't support making Alabama and Minnesota have civil unions" You can't get much clearer than that. He may at some point be called upon to clarify the meaning of "federal recognition of civil unions". I think I know what it means, but it could be taken the wrong way. I think what he's saying is that the federal government, in its dealings in locales with civil unions enacted, would comply with local law, treating its coupled employees and customers as by definition coupled. I just think he needs to explain that sometime.
Dean admitted on Meet the Press that he doesn't often think about the political ramifications of what he says, but I think the Israel-Palestine conflict is one example of a topic where he's waiting to say anything until he's got something really good to say. I think that's wise.
Sorry for the novel!
Dean does support 'closing loopholes', which I think plays well with people in general, and better enforcement of federal gun laws. In Vermont, we have very few incidents of gun violence, despite having a whole lot of guns around, so I think Dean can be trusted to make us safer. And I have long been convinced that it should be a local issue. Cities are different than rural areas, so they need different laws. Not such a radical idea.
Yes, Dean's stance on Israel certainly needs to be clarified. That is worrisome to me. But I look at it like this: He is so moderate and sensible on so many issues that I believe he would be open to reason. I'm sure he knows that we've GOT to have peace in Palestine/Israel. I am just not sure if he understands how to go about it (for ex, making Israel back off the settlements and destruction of Palestinian homes). He seems to have a good team of advisers, so hopefully he will come to a more balanced stance by the time the primaries roll around.
I also find Dean's stance on Israel worrying. I don't think it's anti-Israel to be pro-Palestinian. I'm for peace on both sides of the line. An article I read once (sorry, it was a while ago, I'll never be able to find it) quoted an Israeli woman who said basicly, "Everyone knows what it will take to have peace. The Palestians will give up the 'right of return' and the Israelis will leave the settlements and we will share Jerusalem. But the hardliners on both sides won't compromise." I think she's right.
I'm heartened by what Dean said at his Linn County Iowa speech:
"I got back from Israel a month ago. I am convinced that people on both sides of the Green Line - a majority of people on both sides of the Green Line - would live in peace in two free, self-governed states side-by-side. We can't get there because of the terror. And the Americans don't do anything about it because we get so much oil from the folks that are funding the terrorists, and from folks that use that money - our money - to teach people to hate Christians, Jews, and Americans. We ought to be able to choke that off, and we can't do it because the President of the United States won't make us energy independent using basic conservation and alternative energy methods."
Also please remember that Bush is not open to change or introspection on any of his positions. Not even the 5-Million-Man-March moved him one bit.
What I have seen of Dean is that he is thoughtful, intelligent, and open to reason/reflection/negotiation. Let's get him elected. Then both sides will have a chance.
For those of us who agree with 90% of what Dean says, but are concerned about the other 10% (e.g. Israel/Palestine) - how can we most effectively make him hear our voice? Any ideas?
I have emailed Dean's website with my concerns about how his comments seem to mirror too much for my liking the Bush approach to the I-P conflict. They emailed back that my letter was forwarded to the policy team and that they would "get back to me". I would encourage lots of people to zero in on this concern and write. The guy researching Dean's health care & insurance position is a neighbor and acquaintance, and I will talk to him about the widespread concern for an
unbiased position that would allow a Dean administration to play an honest mediator's role. Here are the off-the-cuff remarks I sent.
Dear Howard,
I am writing to let you know that I am charged up about your candidacy for President. As a fellow Vermonter, I am proud of the “buzz” you have created around the country as a passionate straight-talker who can articulate an effective opposition to George Bush’s messianic Iraq war, as well as an alternative domestic political vision.
I have been busily emailing friends and family all over the country (including NH and Iowa!), encouraging them to spend time reviewing your website (and an unofficial one created by a Rick Klau in Ohio) that is doing a great job spreading the word). I would like to volunteer in some capacity.
Most of all, though, I’m writing to let you know that I am troubled by the position, apparently mirroring that of George Bush, that you have taken regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. I don’t know your position in detail, but I read of promises of support you made while visiting Ariel Sharon in Israel that sounded like too much like encouragement for his provocative policies in the region. I hope this represents a policy in flux as you and your staff research and consider the issue in depth.
1. Please consider that the “myths” and hidden history, as researched by such Israeli Jewish
Historians as Simha Flapan and Benny Morris, of Israeli expansion efforts are a real source
of conflict going back to the formation of Israel
2. Please consider that much of the Palestinean violence, while shocking and brutal, has its
genesis in real injustice suffered by the Palestineans in the creation of Israel and in the ongoing
expansionist aims of Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party in particular.
3. Please consider that Ariel Sharon was the Defense Minister in charge of the Israeli military who
turned their backs in 1982 as their Maronite Christian allies in southern Lebanon slaughtered
1400 defenseless Palestineans in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
4. Please consider that Ariel Sharon’s hard right coalition flirts with ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians similar to that advocated prior to his violent death by the fanatical and murderous
Rabbi Meir Kahane.
5. Please consider that Sharon’s government has been unyielding in its continuation of illegal
settlements that are terribly provocative and still in “material breach” of UN Resolution 242
which followed the 1967 war.
6. Please acknowledge publicly that the Palestineans, no less than the Jewish population of Israel,
have just claims in the area, and that they have been provoked no less than the Israelis.
7. Please consider that the Biblical justification invoked by Sharon and his political
supporters to buttress their claims on West Bank lands is frighteningly similar to the
justification that George Bush claims in taking the US to war…we are the anointed ones…God
is on our side.
8. Please consult extensively with former President Jimmy Carter, who has given much of his
public life to Middle East peace, for additional historical and political perspective on this issue.
9. In short, please offer the hope of authentic mediation, rather than biased support for the
Israeli Right that can only perpetuate conflict in the tinderbox region.
Give ‘em hell and thank you for listening.
with respectful opinions about
I have emailed Dean's website with my concerns about how his comments seem to mirror too much for my liking the Bush approach to the I-P conflict. They emailed back that my letter was forwarded to the policy team and that they would "get back to me". I would encourage lots of people to zero in on this concern and write. The guy researching Dean's health care & insurance position is a neighbor and acquaintance, and I will talk to him about the widespread concern for an
unbiased position that would allow a Dean administration to play an honest mediator's role in the ME. Here are the off-the-cuff remarks I sent.
Dear Howard,
I am writing to let you know that I am charged up about your candidacy for President. As a fellow Vermonter, I am proud of the “buzz” you have created around the country as a passionate straight-talker who can articulate an effective opposition to George Bush’s messianic Iraq war, as well as an alternative domestic political vision.
I have been busily emailing friends and family all over the country (including NH and Iowa!), encouraging them to spend time reviewing your website (and an unofficial one created by a Rick Klau in Ohio) that is doing a great job spreading the word). I would like to volunteer in some capacity.
Most of all, though, I’m writing to let you know that I am troubled by the position, apparently mirroring that of George Bush, that you have taken regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. I don’t know your position in detail, but I read of promises of support you made while visiting Ariel Sharon in Israel that sounded like too much like encouragement for his provocative policies in the region. I hope this represents a policy in flux as you and your staff research and consider the issue in depth.
1. Please consider that the “myths” and hidden history, as researched by such Israeli Jewish
Historians as Simha Flapan and Benny Morris, of Israeli expansion efforts are a real source of conflict going back to the formation of Israel
2. Please consider that much of the Palestinean violence, while shocking and brutal, has its genesis in real injustice suffered by the Palestineans in the creation of Israel and in the ongoing expansionist aims of Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party in particular.
3. Please consider that Ariel Sharon was the Defense Minister in charge of the Israeli military who turned their backs in 1982 as their Maronite Christian allies in southern Lebanon slaughtered 1400 defenseless Palestineans in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
4. Please consider that Ariel Sharon’s hard right coalition flirts with ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians similar to that advocated prior to his violent death by the fanatical and murderous
Rabbi Meir Kahane.
5. Please consider that Sharon’s government has been unyielding in its continuation of illegal settlements that are terribly provocative and still in “material breach” of UN Resolution 242 which followed the 1967 war.
6. Please acknowledge publicly that the Palestineans, no less than the Jewish population of Israel, have just claims in the area, and that they have been provoked no less than the Israelis.
7. Please consider that the Biblical justification invoked by Sharon and his political supporters to buttress their claims on West Bank lands is frighteningly similar to the justification that George Bush claims in taking the US to war…we are the anointed ones…God is on our side.
8. Please consult extensively with former President Jimmy Carter, who has given much of his public life to Middle East peace, for additional historical and political perspective on this issue.
9. In short, please offer the hope of authentic mediation, rather than biased support for the
Israeli Right that can only perpetuate conflict in the tinderbox region.
Give ‘em hell and thank you for listening.
http://www.webactive.com/radionation/
This link has an interview with Dean where he clarifies some of his Ireali-Palestinian views. The whole interview is worthwhile, but the talk about Israel comes just over a half hour in.
Dean actually visited Israel for himself to see the reality of the situation. He doesn't see much hope for peace with Arafat in power, but does see the solution as including two states...an Israeli one and a Palestinian one.
Israel inspires a great deal of single-voter issues. Things can and will get dirty when the topic is brought up, especially during elections. Dean will need to come up with a perfectly crafted stance and prepare to lose votes on it, regardless of what stand he takes on it.
In the long run, he'll gain more for sticking by his principles, again, regardless of where those principles take him.