Wow. I’m just bowled over with shock. The leading Democratic contender for President is now being rung up as a draft-dodger.
In the 10 months after his graduation from Yale, time he might otherwise have spent in uniform, Dr. Dean lived the life of a ski bum in Aspen, Colo. His back condition did not affect his skiing the way the rigors of military service would have, he said, nor did it prevent him from taking odd jobs like pouring concrete in the warm months and washing dishes when it got cold.
Even the candidate’s mother, Andree Maitland Dean, said in a recent interview about his skiing after receiving a medical deferment, “Yeah, that looks bad.”
Hmmm…draft-dodger….Democrat…where have I head this before?? Sounds like the other Dems are starting to get a little desperate against Dean. Wrong tactic, fellas. All you have to do is point out that Dean can’t beat Bush….which, of course, is true…but I’m hoping no one notices.
Hmmm…according to that article, Dr. Dean was in no way a “draft dodger” – but instead showed up voluntarily at his lottery physical. It says the military is the one who rejected *him*, based on his back condition. All of the specialists quoted say that it is absolutely correct that just because he did some skiing does not mean he was fit for active duty.
I am curious to as why you believe Dr. Dean cannot beat Bush? Most national polls have Bush currently losing to *any* Democrat, if the election were held today. As more and more people suffer under Bush’s economic policies, and Dean becomes more well known on a national level, I can only imagine his support will vastly increase.
The polls you site show Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat, as in, “would you vote for bush or the other guy?” Bush “loses” in those by a margin of 50-something to 40-something.
The same polls show Bush vs Dean (actually using the name of a Dem candidate) and Bush wins. Same thing for every other Democrat that is named against Bush. And that’s even from a very left leaning poll (urban area without regard to “likely voter”) by a known slanted paper…not really an objective cross-section of the public.